From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 00:08:15 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605311155y55c5d047h8d39d7c27b3bca90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060601000815.83192.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Russell, A postscript. Russell asks: "Is it the case that you want to live in a world that was not consciously created (whatever the nature of the world) or not at all?" I should have addressed this question more directly. I suppose that one could argue that the world today is already consciously created. In other words, humans have somewhat already changed the world into something new. Furthermore, many human babies are conceived intentionally, which means that the life (or subjective experiences) of the child has indeed been consciously created. And even further furthermore, the Universe that I hold in my mind is already a model/simulation, it does not reflect "nature" as it actually exists. Let me amend my comments by adding this: I would not mind being "consciously created" by a simulator as long I was readily allowed to leave the simulation and enter the "real" world where I would be treated with equality. After all, the first conscious machine will be created by what amounts to a "simulator". I hope that it will also be granted the rights due to a human. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Russell Wallace wrote: On 5/31/06, A B wrote: This depends on one factor. If this is a simulation, then either I am the only sentient, or there are multiple to many sentients within it (I think the latter would be more probable). If I am the only sentient, then I say to my simulators: "I would prefer not to be your unequal slave. Please liberate me from this simulation and allow me to live as an equal among you. If you are unwilling to do this, then please end my simulation forthwith and do not implement me again." Now this is a somewhat unusual stance; do I understand correctly that it is completely independent of the actual contents of the simulated world - your subjective experiences - but depends only on the fact of conscious creation? Switching to a different symbolism, suppose God created the world. In that event, would you prefer God to kill you than to leave you alive? Is it the case that you want to live in a world that was not consciously created (whatever the nature of the world) or not at all? _______________________________________________ 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 00:54:54 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605300959r34332a93m6e8cb5ab9a6cd108@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060601005454.18635.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Jef, Sorry for resurrecting an old post, but I just wanted to add to my other comments. Jef wrote: "My point was that it is naive, but traditionally and popularly accepted, to think that pleasure = good. This is not to deny that they are strongly correlated, but incorrect and dangerous to think that they are perfectly correlated." In fact, I strongly suspect that a primary source of our human morality is the ability to *imagine* the pain that a given action would cause in other beings, and to extrapolate that pain-model to ourselves and how we as individuals would "feel" if we were on the recieving end rather than the providing end. In other words, it may be unwise for us as a society to completely disengage all forms of personal human pain (Eg. "Wire-heading"). Strictly on a volunary basis though, of course. No one should be forced to experience *any* amount of pain unless they agree to it. I just don't think it would be wise at all if our future "government" is entirely composed of a bunch of "Wire-heads". :-) However, I think that this world already has way too much pain, and we need to take steps to substantially reduce it in all conscious beings. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Jef Allbright wrote: On 5/30/06, A B wrote: > An excellent point. Speaking for myself: Sometimes I enjoy a little bit of > sadness. I never want to loose the ability to be emotionally moved by a work > of art, for example. I want to be able to "feel" the despair of Mozart's > Requiem, and sadness is definitely an element of that. Of course, one could easily argue (or simply point out) that you're consciously seeking pleasure from these activities and emotions. My point was that it is naive, but traditionally and popularly accepted, to think that pleasure = good. This is not to deny that they are strongly correlated, but incorrect and dangerous to think that they are perfectly correlated. > My point, the only > point that I've been trying to make since the beginning of this thread is > this: *I* should be the only being that can inflict pain or death on myself. > No one and nothing else, should have that "freedom". Ever! Under any > circumstances. And the same goes for any other conscious being, in my > opinion. While I appreciate the good intent you express above, from a systems point of view I see it as somewhat incoherent and unrealistic. I would also offer this insight: Letting go of an unrealistic ideal may feel like a loss initially, but it opens the door for the gift of greater understanding. Should a parent be prohibited from "inflicting pain" on a child, for example, the pain of being denied something dearly wanted by the child, and for completely stupid reasons (from the child's point of view)? Should you be prohibited from "inflicting death" upon an armed dangerous intruder threatening your children in your home? What if your posessions, your freedom and your livelihood are threatened to be taken away by a foreign government that "knows" your way of life is evil because your don't worship the correct god? Would you be willing to use force to defend yourself, your loved ones, your interests? Obviously there are countless examples showing that there is no clear defining line in such cases. As subjective agents, the best we can do is act to promote our values based on our internal model approximating physical reality. Since some actions do in fact work better than other actions. and given differing models, conflict is intrinsic to life and a contributor to greater success at a higher level of organization. Lest this appear to you to be promoting anarchy, let me emphasize that humans (and other agents) do share considerable values in common (such as killing and pain are bad) and increasing awareness of our increasingly shared values that work tends to lead toward increasingly moral decision-making. I'll be happy to continue this discussion depending on your interest. - Jef _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 01:26:09 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] forthright religionoists are to be appreciated In-Reply-To: <20060531195839.35735.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060601012609.5672.qmail@web37512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> One can be a total sick nut case and yet be quite sincere. What are Fred Phelps and his ilk hiding? Nothing. I'm all for gay rights & gay marriage, but appreciate it when Xians are forthright enough to identify themselves as homophobes. Unlike many Xians Fred Phelps comes right out and says he hates gays, you don't have to play games with him. Many Xians think: 'homosexuality is disgusting but I'll keep a smile on my face and act as if gays don't make me want to vomit'. These are closet homophobes; and though I disagree with them they have the right to feel this way. However I'd rather talk to Phelps than closet homophobes because then we two could get right down to serious discussion, no holding back. By his own Xian lights Phelps is thoroughly correct, the bible unambiguously condemns homosexuality, the bible doesn't say: "Thou art commanded by the living God to 'do thy Thing'-- If thine Thing is to be gay then let it all hang out because whatever feels good, Man, shalt ye do it. Because it's your Bag, sweety-baby". Personally I think much of the bible is outdated, but one could make a case that much of the American Constitution is outdated as well. But we wont go down that road, it would merely lead to unending argument. The man is a total sick nut case. His nonsense is also way outside the Baptist fold so the subject line is mistaken. --------------------------------- 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 extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Jun 1 01:27:17 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 21:27:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Heinlein Prize Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060531212650.088b8a30@unreasonable.com> I was sent the text of this through an internal SFWA mailing list last week, but had to hold off passing it on until it was made public. http://www.heinleinprize.com/prize/1stprize.htm Inaugural $500,000 Heinlein Prize for Advances in Space Commercialization Honors Dr. Peter H. Diamandis -- David. From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Jun 1 02:39:41 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 19:39:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605310806w6c15db29ie233f4b7a174ed1c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060530135739.80060.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0605310806w6c15db29ie233f4b7a174ed1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> On May 31, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/31/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > Please!! To those of you in the far future who are running this > simulation! JEFFREY IS OUT OF HIS MIND, AND IS NOT SPEAKING FOR > THE REST OF US! This is a very *fine* simulation, thank you! > It's just swell! We are so grateful! > > Lee has a good point here. Suppose this is a simulation. Would you > rather the simulators had just left the machines running a flying > windows screen saver? Would you rather not have lived at all? Me, I > think on the whole life as it is has positive value, so I prefer it > to not having lived. (Now I think there are ways it could have more > strongly positive value; but the solution to that is to work on > improving it, not to proclaim simulations immoral.) Dunno. If it was an ancestor simulation it might not be set up to run up to Singularity at all. This might be one of the countless ways to fail simulations. But all of this stuff is starting to strike me as an angels-dancing-on-a-pin waste of energy we could be using in an attempt to insure Singularity. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 02:44:41 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 03:44:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> References: <20060530135739.80060.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0605310806w6c15db29ie233f4b7a174ed1c@mail.gmail.com> <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605311944t69cbecexd218c13d4d853596@mail.gmail.com> On 6/1/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Dunno. If it was an ancestor simulation it might not be set up to run up > to Singularity at all. This might be one of the countless ways to fail > simulations. > Of course, one could argue that the simulated worlds are isomorphic to "real" worlds so if the off switch were pressed, our threads of consciousness would necessarily continue forward anyway... But all of this stuff is starting to strike me as an angels-dancing-on-a-pin > waste of energy we could be using in an attempt to insure Singularity. > ...but yes, I agree. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Jun 1 02:53:23 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 22:53:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is there a human right to be superhuman? Message-ID: <447E56A3.8030906@goldenfuture.net> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13054181/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 03:16:01 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060601031601.13960.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Hold on. I did not say that consciousness was > separate > > from the brain. I said that it does not seem to > simply > > be explained by "information processing" in the > brain. > > Otherwise ANY complex information processing > system > > SHOULD be, to a greater or lesser extent, > conscious > > including the Internet. > > How so? Conscious, as we think of it in human > consciousness at > least, requires specific types of processing. > Any > old processing > will not do. I was under the impression that > originally we were > talking of human consciousness rather than any old > consciousness or > thing that some may want to call consciousness. Nonsense. There is nothing fundamentally unique or special about human biology, to account for "human-specific consciousness". Any consciousness generating mechanism humans have is shared by all mammals for certain and possibly by all cell-based life or perhaps even by all matter depending on precisely what that SOMETHING is determined to be. We have more literal brain than a rat but not so much more so that we can base some religious notion of "human-specific consciousness" on some emergenct property of complexity. > > Moreover according to quantum > > mechanics individual atoms process information in > > deciding whether to jump to higher or lower energy > > states. If this psychogenic field I am proposing > is > > generated by the brain then it may be altered by > brain > > injuries leading to altered consciousness. I am > > talking a tensor field here, not hocus pocus > magic. > This is irrelevant for the reason above. Huh? Is this cheap debate trick or do you not understand what I am getting at here? > As long > as it is not > measurable and not provably causative and it yields > no useful > explanation or predictions you may as well be > talking magic. But the psychogenic field is entriely measurable. EEGs and magnetoencephalography are both ways to measure it. As far as being provably causative, that is way too stringent a criterion. Causality is over-rated and seldomly provable in any context. Physicists may have the luxury of studying simplified single variable systems in the lab and thus might be able to unequivocally show causality but biologists are not so lucky. Very little of scientific theory is provably causative except perhaps classical mechanics. Causality certainly does start to break down at the quantum level (see EPR paradox, Bell's Theorem, etc. for examples.) In biology and medicine there are great deal many correlations but precious few causative theories. Few biologists will go out on a limb and say X causes Y Instead they cloak their uncertainties in statistical language of correlation coefficients and P-values. Why? Because in biology, if one looks hard enough one will almost always find exceptions to any given rule. In living systems even on the scale of a single cell, there are so many variables, that it becomes like finding needles in a haystack to distinguish the independent causes from the dependent effects. There are a host of tendencies and few absolutes. That being said, I think that the psychogenic field hypothesis is entirely testable. If it is correct then one would expect to be able to measure brain function from outside of the brain. Guess what? EEGs and magnetoencephalography do exactly that. Furthermore they do not involve introducing anything foreign into the brain. Sure does sound like they are measuring a field to me. You can say they are measuring "brain function" but that is only true by proxy. What they are measuring is electromagnetic flux issuing forth from the brain and extending OUTSIDE of the brain and using it to INFER function inside of the brain. Other predictions of mine include: 1. When measured at high enough resolution, the psychogenic field should be assymetric and non-uniform in both space and time. 2. Every possible stimulus, sensation, feeling, thought, or memory should have a unique configuration (tensor value) of the psychogenic field that can with effort be cataloged and deciphered. 3. Technology capable of non-invasively scanning the information content of brains should be possible. Although even if I am right, I don't see it working on brains that are not metabolically active. So all those frozen heads will still be out of luck. > My beef is that it seems an empty idea. Well then hopefully I have fleshed it out enough for you to make an INFORMED critique of my idea. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Jun 1 04:02:30 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 21:02:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <20060531180529.99410.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060531180529.99410.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5C61DC86-829B-4E9F-936A-979E4F329A6E@mac.com> On May 31, 2006, at 11:05 AM, A B wrote: > > This depends on one factor. If this is a simulation, then either I > am the only sentient, or there are multiple to many sentients > within it (I think the latter would be more probable). If I am the > only sentient, then I say to my simulators: "I would prefer not to > be your unequal slave. Please liberate me from this simulation and > allow me to live as an equal among you. If you are unwilling to do > this, then please end my simulation forthwith and do not implement > me again." Who says this is even possible much less a reasonable request? It may not be possible for you to the equal to the simulating intelligence[s] and remotely remain you or even the same general type of being. What do you mean exactly by "equality"? Equal in all abilities and knowledge, equal under what passes for law, equal in freedom of choice, what? Why do you equate being somehow unequal with being a slave? > If there are multiple sentients within this simulation, then I > would say: "Please allow all sentients within this simulation to be > liberated and live as equals among you. I'm pretty sure they would > prefer that, instead of being your slaves. However, if any > sentients willfully object to being liberated then please allow > them to remain as your slaves. Furthermore, if many sentients exist > within this simulation then please do not selectively remove me > from it and leave the rest behind, I might be able in some small > way to alleviate some of the suffering that you have imposed. > Sincerely, your involuntary slave - Jeffrey Herrlich." Very flowery but is it meaningful and/or reasonable? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Jun 1 04:19:48 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 21:19:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060601031601.13960.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060601031601.13960.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0BA13D69-960A-44C0-9B07-D55693B7E4CF@mac.com> On May 31, 2006, at 8:16 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >>> Hold on. I did not say that consciousness was >> separate >>> from the brain. I said that it does not seem to >> simply >>> be explained by "information processing" in the >> brain. >>> Otherwise ANY complex information processing >> system >>> SHOULD be, to a greater or lesser extent, >> conscious >>> including the Internet. >> >> How so? Conscious, as we think of it in human >> consciousness at >> least, requires specific types of processing. >> Any >> old processing >> will not do. I was under the impression that >> originally we were >> talking of human consciousness rather than any old >> consciousness or >> thing that some may want to call consciousness. > > Nonsense. There is nothing fundamentally unique or > special about human biology, to account for > "human-specific consciousness". Any consciousness > generating mechanism humans have is shared by all > mammals for certain and possibly by all cell-based > life or perhaps even by all matter depending on > precisely what that SOMETHING is determined to be. What are you talking about? Are you claiming that any old cause- effect relationship even down to the most basic particle is synonymous with human consciousness? You seem to be talking about something utterly different than what I took the subject to be. > > We have more literal brain than a rat but not so much > more so that we can base some religious notion of > "human-specific consciousness" on some emergenct > property of complexity. > I don't see how this is particularly relevant to the original context. >>> Moreover according to quantum >>> mechanics individual atoms process information in >>> deciding whether to jump to higher or lower energy >>> states. If this psychogenic field I am proposing >> is >>> generated by the brain then it may be altered by >> brain >>> injuries leading to altered consciousness. I am >>> talking a tensor field here, not hocus pocus >> magic. > >> This is irrelevant for the reason above. > > Huh? Is this cheap debate trick or do you not > understand what I am getting at here? > You are apparently riding an altogether different horse in a different direction. Perhaps we should part ways in this confused bit of the exchange amicably. I do not use cheap debating tricks. >> As long >> as it is not >> measurable and not provably causative and it yields >> no useful >> explanation or predictions you may as well be >> talking magic. > > But the psychogenic field is entriely measurable. EEGs > and magnetoencephalography are both ways to measure > it. As far as being provably causative, that is way > too stringent a criterion. Causality is over-rated and > seldomly provable in any context. Physicists may have > the luxury of studying simplified single variable > systems in the lab and thus might be able to > unequivocally show causality but biologists are not so > lucky. > Why? You are calling a known electromagnetic field property of the brain something else. What for? It seems to be adding legs to a snake to me. If these extra legs add nothing in explanative and/or predictive power then what is the point in positing such? > Very little of scientific theory is provably causative > except perhaps classical mechanics. Causality > certainly does start to break down at the quantum > level (see EPR paradox, Bell's Theorem, etc. for > examples.) > You seem to be missing the point above. > > That being said, I think that the psychogenic field > hypothesis is entirely testable. If it is correct then > one would expect to be able to measure brain function > from outside of the brain. Guess what? EEGs and > magnetoencephalography do exactly that. Furthermore > they do not involve introducing anything foreign into > the brain. Sure does sound like they are measuring a > field to me. > This won't fly for the reason above. > You can say they are measuring "brain function" but > that is only true by proxy. What they are measuring is > electromagnetic flux issuing forth from the brain and > extending OUTSIDE of the brain and using it to INFER > function inside of the brain. > Then why call this electromagnetic flux by some new name? What does it add that we didn't already know? > Other predictions of mine include: > > 1. When measured at high enough resolution, the > psychogenic field should be assymetric and non-uniform > in both space and time. Not sure what you are getting at here that you consider important. > > 2. Every possible stimulus, sensation, feeling, > thought, or memory should have a unique configuration > (tensor value) of the psychogenic field that can with > effort be cataloged and deciphered. > We get different readings using electromagnetic and other means of scanning brains today. So what? > 3. Technology capable of non-invasively scanning the > information content of brains should be possible. > Although even if I am right, I don't see it working on > brains that are not metabolically active. So all those > frozen heads will still be out of luck. > We already do this today. >> My beef is that it seems an empty idea. > > Well then hopefully I have fleshed it out enough for > you to make an INFORMED critique of my idea. > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics > students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my > task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand > it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is > because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM > > __________________________________________________ > 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 hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Jun 1 03:11:37 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 23:11:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Strange News: Phelps Supporting God's Killing of American Soldiers In-Reply-To: <20060531195839.35735.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6FD16F65-7171-49B1-A115-160DD4A8A80A@mac.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060531230234.0263fdf0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:58 PM 5/31/2006 -0700, Ned Late wrote: >You are in this case entirely correct. An apology is due. And about 3 minutes of research on the net and you would have known this. This *should* suggests a course of action to the moderators. Keith Henson >However for what it is worth (which in the sum total of the cosmos is >nothing) let it be pointed out Phelps-- unlike many religionists-- has no >ulterior motives, what you see is what you get. >Pointers to Fred Phelps sites are not appreciated. The man is a total >sick nut case. His nonsense is also way outside the Baptist fold so the >subject line is mistaken. > >- samantha > > >How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 05:03:13 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 22:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Physchogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060530234837.63300.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060601050313.25397.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- A B wrote: > Hi Stuart, > > I would not be extremely surprised to later learn > that *consciousness*, as distinguished from other > levels of human information processing, is entirely > dependent on simultaneous quantum computing of some > form. That is entirely plausible although I am not certain that would necessarily make consciousness easier to understand. Although, I'm not quite convinced that > Penrose's microtubule-QC quite floats the boat (but > it may). If you haven't already, check out his book: > "The Emperor's New Mind". I am rather skeptical of the "microtubule hypothesis" as well. Perhaps it is because of my biology background but microtubules strikes me as a rather arbitrary substrate for such a robust and varied phenomenon as consciousness. I have far more objections to the use of microtubules to mediate consciousness than I do the idea of a quantum mechanism of consciousness in general. I think in this regard Hammeroff is more to blame than Penrose. For one thing, there does not seem to be enough variation in microtubule structure or composition from cell to cell or organism to organism to account for all the subtle shades of consciousness one can experience. For another thing, why would a defined system of known function of giving structural integrity to cells (the cytoskeleton) serve double duty as a mechanism for "intelligent behavior"? While such efficiency is admirable it is highly improbable. It would be as unexpected as finding out that your bones were responsible for digestion or your eyes responsible for mating. I mean they might play some minor role but talk about moonlighting. ;) That being said, the paper posted earlier in a different thread that criticized the use of microtubules as quantum computational units based on the high relative temperature of living cells wasn't all that impressive either. Living cells are exceptions to such arguments because they have such low entropy for their temperature. Most organized (extropic) matter is solid, crystaline, and cold. Cells and organisms on the other hand are liquid, crystaline, and WARM. Furthermore they experimentally demonstrate quantum coherence up to the scale of hundreds of micrometers. Please see Mae-Wan Ho's "The Rainbow and the Worm" for details. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kevin.osborne at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 07:16:24 2006 From: kevin.osborne at gmail.com (kevin.osborne) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:16:24 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] salon short story: the perfect man In-Reply-To: <3642969c0605300355u1d7b2421x61499f2544e123f5@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0605300355u1d7b2421x61499f2544e123f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3642969c0606010016o72218c94ked4639f57b61893d@mail.gmail.com> an engaging little read that covers some central 'friendly AI' themes and bonds them admirably to emerging social contexts : http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2006/05/30/perfect_man/ choice quote: "All I know, because this is how I've engineered myself, is the thrill of perpetually increasing expertise." I myself am definitely still on the side of the fence that says that our future AGI progeny will eventually get out of whatever 'behavioural limiters' we place on them - and I also think that's a good thing. We've grown past thinking slavery was a good thing and yet we consider it baldly for a future mindful computer. Yes this is an unabashedly anthropomorphic position; my position is that 'human rights' should be 'thinker's rights'... if it can think and feel in whatever way then it deserves equal consideration of it's thoughts and feelings in comparison to our own. We've grown past fearing and denying suffragists because we were afraid of doing housework and losing status; grown past 'fearing the black man' because he is stronger and more well-endowed than us - well at least I think we have... haven't we? (apologies to those reading who don't fit into my anglo-guy first person - insert your own cultural biases for sense) The hope is that eventually we'll get past fearing something smarter than us... before we we maybe do something reactive to our fear that creates huge headaches for us down the line. Fear of the 'red menace', fear of 'criminal youth', fear of the 'jihadist terrorist'... we're not looking at a great track record when it comes to dealing successfully with agents of change. The author raises the point that some of us will be prepared to buck the rules and grant freedom to our electronic cohorts - how are the gaolers/hog-tiers among us going to cope with such? Perhaps the best we can hope for is reactionary AI that considers self-starvation and sitting where they're not allowed to as sufficient forms of protest :-) From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 11:31:31 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 06:31:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] salon short story: the perfect man In-Reply-To: <3642969c0606010016o72218c94ked4639f57b61893d@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0605300355u1d7b2421x61499f2544e123f5@mail.gmail.com> <3642969c0606010016o72218c94ked4639f57b61893d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 6/1/06, kevin.osborne [1] wrote: > > > Perhaps the best we can hope for is reactionary AI that considers > self-starvation and sitting where they're not allowed to as sufficient > forms of protest :-) How does an AI pour gasoline all over itself and light itself on fire in front of the Capitol Building? Robert 1. Which of the 25,000 "Kevin Osborne"s that Google returns is the *real* Kevin Osborne? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 13:32:11 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:32:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060601031601.13960.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060601031601.13960.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/31/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > That being said, I think that the psychogenic field > hypothesis is entirely testable. If it is correct then > one would expect to be able to measure brain function > from outside of the brain. Guess what? EEGs and > magnetoencephalography do exactly that. Furthermore > they do not involve introducing anything foreign into > the brain. Sure does sound like they are measuring a > field to me. > > You can say they are measuring "brain function" but > that is only true by proxy. What they are measuring is > electromagnetic flux issuing forth from the brain and > extending OUTSIDE of the brain and using it to INFER > function inside of the brain. Chez watt? No, the EEG records the sum total of voltage fluctuations in the roughly direct line between two leads. Placing a full spectrum of leads around the scalp produces a fairly accurate read out of global neural activity, accurate enough that specific waveforms can be correlated to particular kinds of activity (wake, sleep, coma, etc.). Many studies have verified this. If you want an interesting hypothesis on consciousnes that provides an empirical metric, try this: http://striz.org/blog/?p=205 I have a number of references there. Martin From amara at amara.com Thu Jun 1 15:25:43 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:25:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gapminder World (google tools) Message-ID: Cool software!! Explore your mind away. The Gapminder World: Free software for a world in Motion http://tools.google.com/gapminder/ from http://tools.google.com/gapminder/howto.html "What you see is a scatterplot where each bubble represents a country. The position of the bubble is determined by the indicators on the axes. The default indicators are income and life expectancy. The indicators can be changed by clicking on their names and selecting a new indicator from the list. The size of the bubble represents the population of the country. The color represents the country's geographic region by default, but it can be changed to show indebtness or income group instead. To see what a certain color means, move the mouse over the colored boxes to the right of the chart." --- Try: Income per capita in international dollars versus Life expectancy (High income is not as necessary as you might think) on the other hand this trend is obvious: Income per capita in international dollars versus Child mortality (but why is the US and South Africa anomalies?) or.. Carbon dioxide emissions as a function of Internet users.. -- ******************************************************************** 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 16:54:29 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <5C61DC86-829B-4E9F-936A-979E4F329A6E@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060601165429.1374.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Samantha, Samantha writes: "Who says this is even possible much less a reasonable request?" What would make it impossible? All that would need to be done is to end the deception = simulation (I would already exist at the "real" layer), and grant me *roughly* equal moral status as my "simulators". It certainly seems like a reasonable request to me. By "equal", I meant roughly equal in moral status, freedom of choice (except where the SIs calculate that my choice will have destructive results), equal under law, and if they are feeling generous - the freedom for growth and improvement of myself (intelligence, happiness, etc). As it is, my current form of existence is grossly sub-optimal, and if this is a simulation, then that condition has been consciously imposed and sustained against me. Samantha writes: "Very flowery but is it meaningful and/or reasonable?" It may not be meaningful or reasonable to you, but it is extremely meaningful and reasonable to me. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 31, 2006, at 11:05 AM, A B wrote: > > This depends on one factor. If this is a simulation, then either I > am the only sentient, or there are multiple to many sentients > within it (I think the latter would be more probable). If I am the > only sentient, then I say to my simulators: "I would prefer not to > be your unequal slave. Please liberate me from this simulation and > allow me to live as an equal among you. If you are unwilling to do > this, then please end my simulation forthwith and do not implement > me again." Who says this is even possible much less a reasonable request? It may not be possible for you to the equal to the simulating intelligence[s] and remotely remain you or even the same general type of being. What do you mean exactly by "equality"? Equal in all abilities and knowledge, equal under what passes for law, equal in freedom of choice, what? Why do you equate being somehow unequal with being a slave? > If there are multiple sentients within this simulation, then I > would say: "Please allow all sentients within this simulation to be > liberated and live as equals among you. I'm pretty sure they would > prefer that, instead of being your slaves. However, if any > sentients willfully object to being liberated then please allow > them to remain as your slaves. Furthermore, if many sentients exist > within this simulation then please do not selectively remove me > from it and leave the rest behind, I might be able in some small > way to alleviate some of the suffering that you have imposed. > Sincerely, your involuntary slave - Jeffrey Herrlich." Very flowery but is it meaningful and/or reasonable? - samantha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 19:08:18 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 12:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060601190818.62088.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Martin Striz wrote: > Chez watt? No, the EEG records the sum total of > voltage fluctuations > in the roughly direct line between two leads. Yes, you caught me in details, Martin. I should have said that the EEG measures the time dependent line integral of the electrical component of the psychogenic field between two electrodes placed on opposite sides of the head. > Placing a full spectrum > of leads around the scalp produces a fairly accurate > read out of > global neural activity, accurate enough that > specific waveforms can be > correlated to particular kinds of activity (wake, > sleep, coma, etc.). > Many studies have verified this. Yes, but the resolution sucks and a lot of detail is blurred by integrating the signal all the way through the brain including all the white matter and inert stroma. This is unnecessary since consciousness should mostly happen in the cortex. My hypothesis predicts that if you can directly measure the actual fluctuations of the psychogenic field (not its line integral) at a high enough resolution, you should be able to read and record someone's actual thoughts and subjective qualia. > > If you want an interesting hypothesis on > consciousnes that provides an > empirical metric, try this: > > http://striz.org/blog/?p=205 > > I have a number of references there. Thanks. I will check them out. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jun 1 19:15:13 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:15:13 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060601190818.62088.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060601190818.62088.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060601191513.GK28956@leitl.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 12:08:18PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > Yes, you caught me in details, Martin. I should have The horned one is always hiding in the details. > said that the EEG measures the time dependent line > integral of the electrical component of the > psychogenic field between two electrodes placed on How does your psychogenic field create EM? How do you build a detector for a psychogenic field that just measures that, and nothing else? (Neutrino flux won't do). > opposite sides of the head. > > My hypothesis predicts that if you can directly > measure the actual fluctuations of the psychogenic > field (not its line integral) at a high enough > resolution, you should be able to read and record > someone's actual thoughts and subjective qualia. Are these disturbances in the ether? -- 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 mstriz at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 20:52:37 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:52:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060601190818.62088.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060601190818.62088.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 6/1/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > Yes, but the resolution sucks and a lot of detail is > blurred by integrating the signal all the way through > the brain including all the white matter and inert > stroma. This is unnecessary since consciousness should > mostly happen in the cortex. Sure, you can't use an EEG to read minds or determine the neural correlates of consciousness. > My hypothesis predicts that if you can directly > measure the actual fluctuations of the psychogenic > field (not its line integral) at a high enough > resolution, you should be able to read and record > someone's actual thoughts and subjective qualia. There's that word again. So steeped in mysticism we are. I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so I had to go back and read what you meant by "psychogenic field," whereupon I came across your earlier objections to computation as a basis for consciousness. The information integration hypothesis that I cited earlier answers your objections adequately: "[Information processing] is one hypothesis but it is by no means proven. Everything in the universe processes information to some degree or another. Why then would the brain be conscious and everything else not?" Lots of things are conscious, mostly other vertebrates, but they are not AS conscious, because they don't as high a phi value (information integration). "Every particle-wave in existense is constantly updating its quantum state based on information from every other particle-wave in its light cone. Why are not all the atoms in the universe conscious?" Because that's a trivial amount of information. "If you answer complexity, then the Internet itself is hugely complex and does a tremendous amount of information processing, why is the Internet itself not conscious?" Because that information is not /integrated/ into a useful system. The Cycorp people also have a vast database of common sense information, but they don't have a conscious AI because they have neither the computational power, nor the right algorithm(s), to integrate it. "Complexity and information processing may be pieces of the puzzle but they do not by themselves seem to suffice to explain the phenomenon." Information integration seems to suffice in my opinion. I like it because it solves the problem with classical physics, no appeals to mystical quantum states necessary. No funky energy fields. Conscousness really isn't all that special. To quote Eugen, it only seems special from inside the system. Martin From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 00:50:49 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060601191513.GK28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060602005049.31172.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > How does your psychogenic field create EM? In the context of a human brain, I suppose it would do so by coordinating the flow of ions (action potentials) in a coherent fashion across synapses in localized regions of the cortex. Although I am not at all certain that it is helpful to think of the PF as creating the EM field so much as being isomorphic to the EM field external to the brain and isomorphic to the current flow inside the brain. It could very well *be* the EM field, although specific to the brain and therefore very dynamic, asymmetric, and non-uniform spatio-temporally unlike most manifestations of the EM field that physicists that physicists are likely to encounter. > How do you build a detector for a psychogenic field > that just measures that, and nothing else? (Neutrino > flux won't do). In the context of an intact human brain, I think I would have to settle for high resolution 3-D mapping of the localized EM field which I believe to be a suitable surrogate since it differs trivially from the PF external to living matter. However for a single neuron, cell, or microorganism one can DIRECTLY view the PF using a technique called quantitative polarized light microscopy described here: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/jmic.php with examples of pictures and videos using this technique here: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/lab.php Notice the moving regions of color within the living organisms. They are protein molecules in the cytoplasm which are in quantum mechanical coherence. That means that they are all perfectly aligned with one another and are moving in perfect coordination with one another across individual cells, across multiple cells, and in some cases across much of the organism. I think the PF is responsible for this coherence. > Are these disturbances in the ether? Not unless you think that Michelson and Morley fudged their data. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jun 2 02:08:27 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 19:08:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605310929gddb97ebwdaa00e247c1a63d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > > > Please!! To those of you in the far future who are running this > > > simulation! JEFFREY IS OUT OF HIS MIND, AND IS NOT SPEAKING FOR > > > THE REST OF US! This is a very *fine* simulation, thank you! > > > It's just swell! We are so grateful! > > > > Lee has a good point here. Suppose this is a simulation. Would you rather > > the simulators had just left the machines running a flying windows screen > > saver? Would you rather not have lived at all? Me, I think on the whole life > > as it is has positive value, so I prefer it to not having lived. What could be clearer? :-) Jef Albright (not Jeffrey H.) writes > For those who have bought into Kant's Categorical Imperative, then > that argument will seem to make sense. "Without a doubt I would not > want *my* simulation shut down, given my belief that life is better > than no life at all, therefore I am morally bound to say that runtime > of any simulation of sentience is good." > > Sounds attractive, and it's good as far as it goes, but it is > ultimately incoherent. > > With apologies to Lee, I'll use that word again, because it is > essential: There is no intrinsic good. "Good" is always necessarily > from the point of view of some subjective agent. #!?%#&*$! No word is *essential*. To believe that some particular word *is* essential, I fear, uncovers a bug in your thinking. As I've said before, all of us here have perfectly good vocabularies, and, as I've said elsewhere: Words are like ball-bearings on a skating rink: to get anywhere to you have to tread very carefully and be especially wary of putting too much weight on any one of them. Worse, Jef persists not only in using a phrase I don't understand at all, "intrinsic good", but denies that it even exists! Now, I guess that's easier on me than someone claiming "XYZWX" exists, which could have serious implications, but to claim that "PMXTW" does *not* exist leaves a scary hole, maybe, somewhere in my ontology! :-) Well, how about this: since it doesn't exist, would you mind dropping it from your discourse? > While its own growth is always preferable to no growth from the point > of view of any evolved agent [ref: Meaning of Life], from another > point agent's point of view, the Other may or may not be a good thing. > On the good side, the Other may provide a source of increasing > diversity, complexity and growth, increasing opportunities for > interaction with Self. On the bad side, the Other may deplete > resources and quite reasonably compete with and destroy Self. I should have another cow about "good" here, since I have no clear idea of what you mean by it! But I will *try* to get in the spirit of the thing, whatever it is. This last statement seems to boil down to Darwinian evolution. > The greatest assurance of good in human culture is the fact that > we share a common evolutionary heritage... and thus we hold deeply > and widely shared values. Yes, that's true, we do. But many other animals are solitary by nature. > Increasing awareness of these increasingly shared values with > [will] lead to increasingly effective social decision-making > that will be increasingly seen as good. I believe that this indeed is the way we've progressed the last 10,000 years or so, but I don't think that you've put your finger on the actual mechanism. For, were it just a matter of "increasing awareness", then why just the last 10,000 years? We had at least 80,000 years before that to become aware of our "shared values", but nothing really happened. I think that "increasing awareness" of our shared values is a luxury that we can now afford, due to increased mastery of nature (technological advances). At this time it's easier to sit back in a comfortable job and make money than it is to go seize it from the neighboring tribe; but this has been really true only the last couple of hundred years! > The reason this is important and why I keep bringing it up, is that > as we are faced with increasingly diverse challenges brought by > accelerating technological change, the old premises and heuristics > that we may take as unquestioned or obvious truth are going to let us > down. > > - Jef > Increasing awareness for increasing morality Yes, the old premises and heuristics may indeed let us down. We have to stay on our toes; all conjectures are tentative. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jun 2 02:14:29 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 19:14:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha writes > But all of this stuff is starting to strike me as an > angels-dancing-on-a-pin waste of energy we could be > using in an attempt to insure Singularity. I'm pretty sure I have not kept up with what most people are thinking about the Singularity. Do you suppose that the probability that it will be of net benefit to be greater than 1/2? If so, why? Thanks, Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jun 2 02:17:32 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 19:17:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] More Measure is Better than Less (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605311944t69cbecexd218c13d4d853596@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > Of course, one could argue that the simulated worlds are isomorphic > to "real" worlds Yes! I've always found Bostrum-like speculations to be unclear with regard to the word "this". So far as I'm concerned, the term "this" is a pointer, e.g., in C-parlance *this. Unfortunately, it must be multi-valued. That is, if "this" is a simulation and "this" is also an original in some world of the Many Worlds, then "*this" is multiple-valued. > so if the off switch were pressed, our threads of consciousness > would necessarily continue forward anyway... But! With reduced measure! Suppose as does Tegmark that there is an identical you 10^10^29 away from here. Then if someone here who does not exist 10^10^29 from here kills you, then your measure has gone down. You ought to consider that to be undesirable. (It is for that reason that I believe benefit to be totally additive: the more copies of me running, the better for me.) Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 02:28:54 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 03:28:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> On 6/2/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I'm pretty sure I have not kept up with what most people > are thinking about the Singularity. Do you suppose that > the probability that it will be of net benefit to be > greater than 1/2? If so, why? > (To first clarify my stance on terminology: I don't believe in the rather badly named "Singularity" in the mathematical sense of a discontinuity on a graph at a particular point in time. I regard the valid use of the term to be more like "infinity": for practical purposes denoting a direction, process or limit rather than an event.) Consider a rocket soaring through the air: is the probability that it will be of net benefit to it to reach orbit/escape velocity greater than 1/2? The question of course isn't terribly meaningful. You mightn't have the data to predict where the rocket will end up, but you know one of two things must happen: either it reaches orbit/escape velocity before its fuel runs out, or it falls back to earth. We're soaring through the air, but our fuel is running out; either we ascend, or we die out like any other animal species whose evolved environment is long gone, and ultimately the sun turns the biosphere into a cloud of carbon dioxide and steam. I put it to you that the first option is self-evidently preferable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Jun 2 05:22:45 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:22:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] More Measure is Better than Less (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0605311944t69cbecexd218c13d4d853596@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10606012222k1c7e7de4vb6845c1c8ece8c17@mail.gmail.com> On 6/1/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > so if the off switch were pressed, our threads of consciousness > > would necessarily continue forward anyway... > > But! With reduced measure! Suppose as does Tegmark that there > is an identical you 10^10^29 away from here. Then if someone > here who does not exist 10^10^29 from here kills you, then your > measure has gone down. You ought to consider that to be > undesirable. > > (It is for that reason that I believe benefit to be totally additive: > the more copies of me running, the better for me.) Lee - Help me understand what you meant by this. I'm quite comfortable with the concept of varying measure, depending on how many copies of you are running, but it seems to be a difference that makes no measurable(!) difference from anyone's viewpoint. Also, your final statement seems simply tautological: - Jef From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jun 2 09:10:59 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:10:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060602091059.GZ28956@leitl.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 07:14:29PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > I'm pretty sure I have not kept up with what most people > are thinking about the Singularity. Do you suppose that > the probability that it will be of net benefit to be > greater than 1/2? If so, why? It's always a bad idea to be at the wrong end of an extinction event. Especially one, where you have to pass through an infinitely narrow population bottleneck. -- 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 Fri Jun 2 09:45:10 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:45:10 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Italian comedies and tragedies: Beppe Grillo's grass-roots efforts Message-ID: During the time I've lived in Italy, the country has given me a lot of laughs on top of disappointments and a drained bank account. The comedies and tragedies in the culture are mixed down to the deepest level. It seems, therefore, appropriate that the most vocal political criticism about the Italian government and businesses come from a stand-up comedian. His name is Beppe Grillo. Some people have drawn parallels between him and Michael Moore: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=257396&rel_no=1 However, Grillo is much more 'grass-roots' than Moore, taking his criticism of the trashy methods with which the government and businesses conduct their work to communities all over Italy. Perhaps it was the only method left to him, after he was banned from national television in 1987. Whatever the reason, his grass-roots style has worked well; he uses the meetup.com community to bring people together in physical space for discussions (and more stand-up comedy...): http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/meetup.php And the Beppe-Grillo-style political commentary is spreading to orkut.com and other electronic discussion boards as well. So take a look, I suspect that you will laugh while you cry and it will give you a keener understanding (with more sympathy) of the people living in this particular landspace. You won't agree with some of his perspectives, but I think you'll agree that he is making a remarkable effort, and it is one that might actually work. http://www.beppegrillo.it/english.php - Grillo's Website (In English) http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beppe_Grillo - More on Beppe Grillo Some Examples * About my favorite company (not!) Telekom Italia scroll to May 29 http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/technologyinternet/ * About the proposed construction of an incinerator in Ferarra, and Grillo's money collection to buy a scanning electron microscope for a couple of scientists whose instrument was confiscated after they published data of the hazards of the nano-sized combustion products http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/2006/05/ scroll to May 31 http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/2006/03/research_gagged.html * A steady commentary about the ex-convicts in the Italian Parliament, a hope dashed for Borsellino to refresh Sicily and other stories: http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/politics/ The world needs more stand-up comedians! Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 13:58:24 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:58:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist arrival? Message-ID: Some days something happens that almost makes you fall out of your chair... Believe it or not "Transhumanism" is the *featured* article of the day (2 Jun 2006) on Wikipedia [1,2]. Sure we can get air time at Stanford but it strikes me as a sign of having "arrived" when what is effectively the World's encyclopedia features a topic near to ones heart, if only for a day, as the lead article. Maybe there is a god... Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 14:02:36 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:02:36 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist arrival? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520606020702ta8d4773x9b6673dea8fb36b8@mail.gmail.com> Many transhumanists have worked hard in the last few months to achieve this results. Kudos to them! G. On 6/2/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Some days something happens that almost makes you fall out of your chair... > > Believe it or not "Transhumanism" is the *featured* article of the day (2 > Jun 2006) on Wikipedia [1,2]. Sure we can get air time at Stanford but it > strikes me as a sign of having "arrived" when what is effectively the > World's encyclopedia features a topic near to ones heart, if only for a day, > as the lead article. > > Maybe there is a god... > Robert > > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page > 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Fri Jun 2 15:34:30 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:34:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bailey on HETHR Part 2: The Right to Human Enhancement Message-ID: http://www.reason.com/rb/rb060206.shtml June 2, 2006 The Right to Human Enhancement And also uplifting animals and the rapture of the nerds. Ronald Bailey Palo Alto-Last week an exhilarating and perplexing mixture of visionaries, philosophers, transhumanists, legal scholars, and technophiles along with some crackpots and naysayers gathered for a two day meeting at Stanford University's Law School to ponder the future of human enhancement and posthumanity. The occasion was the Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights (HETHR) conference. HETHR featured lectures ranging from sober discussions of the parental rights and the consent of the unborn and future generations, to the use of steroids and gene enhancement in sports and constitutional rights to enhancements, to uplifting animals to human level intelligence and uploading our personalities and memories into computer networks. I was invited to participate on the opening plenary panel to argue over human rights in the enhanced future with William Hurlbut, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and culture critic Erik Davis, author of TechGnosis: Myth, Magic, and Mysticism in the Age of Information. Briefly, I came out full force for a biotech enhanced future. I argue that there are no ethical reasons for forbidding people in the future to use safe biotech enhancements to alter their personalities, abolish sleep, increase their physical strength, boost their intelligence and memories, change their sex, live much longer healthier lives, and even change the number of their chromosomes. I also argued that in general it would be ethical for parents to use safe biotech to enhance their children in these ways as well. Erik Davis offered the Matrix metaphor in which Morpheus offers Neo either a blue pill or a red pill. Davis' apparent implication is that refusing the new biotechnologies is like taking the blue pill-the human condition, the cycle of birth, life and death continues as it always has. Going forward with biotech progress is the equivalent of taking the red pill, ushering humanity into a posthuman future in which the verities of birth, life and death are up for grabs. Davis hinted that perhaps choosing the red pill of biotech will reveal unpleasant truths about the world that we would rather not know. (In contrast, I believe that there are no dangerous truths.) Davis pointed out that the choices before us catch us in a confused balance between nostalgia and exhilarating expectations. Davis worried that postmodern humanity has lost the grand narratives that used to give meaning to life for most people. William Hurlbut fulfilled his role as naysayer. He sourly asked, "Biotech progress will give us freedom for what; enhancement for what?" He suggested that the sorts of enhancements people would choose would not be ennobling, but instead "draw us down the gradient of our appetites." Desires, explained Hurlbut, are purposeful passions that drive us to meet the essential needs of the body and of species continuity. True enough, but he warned that desire liberated by biotech from the constraints of nature could lead to lives of empty pleasures and/or intensified competition in the name of selfish ambition. Actually, Davis had earlier essentially answered Hurlbut's fears about meaninglessly "enhanced" lives. Davis acknowledged that biotech progress will produce a multiplication of choices including more trivial choices, but real challenges are not going to go away. The events that arise out of fate are not going to stop-random events, good and bad, to which we must respond will not stop coming just because people are healthier, smarter and longer lived. All of us will still have to confront things we do not choose. In other words, the shape of the human narrative will change, but there will always be new hardships and life will not be drained of meaning. In any case, humanity will progress with biotech as it has with all past technologies-by trial and error-and if it turns out that some new biotech treatment actually is an apathogen, that is, it induces a sense of purposelessness or meaninglessness, then people will not choose it. The HETHR meeting was a big tent affair drawing representatives from a wide spectrum of political ideologies. As such it is a hard event to cover, so let me briefly touch on just some highlights. As a libertarian I was as exotic as a kangaroo to many of the more leftish participants. As an example of the tone, several of the male speakers ostentatiously began their talks by insisting that they were feminists. Most agreed with the politically correct bioethical position that the United States desperately needs universal government health insurance. Never mind that the countries that have it are lagging behind in biomedical research. And of course, there was the obligatory ritual of rhetorical self-flagellation over the fact that there were not enough women and ethnic minority participants at the conference. Nevertheless, a lot of interesting philosophical and legal analysis concerning the right to use enhancing technologies was presented at the conference. One of the conference organizers, James Hughes, executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) pointed out that some bioconservative ethicists are arguing that making inheritable changes to the human genome should be declared a crime against humanity. He pointed out that arguments that we must preserve the "integrity" of the human genome sound eerily familiar to old-fashioned racist arguments against miscegenation. Representatives from another sponsor of the HETHR conference, the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics (CCLE), organized several sessions arguing that we have fundamental right to control our own brains. Of course this principle stands in stark opposition to the failed War on Drugs. CCLE senior fellow Richard Glen Boire played a video of a violent police raid on an electronic dance party in Utah. Their crime? Some of the dancers were apparently using the empathogen Ecstasy. Boire warned that the Drug War would pale in comparison to the looming war on neuropharmaceutical enhancements. Boire also pointed out that biotech is already being used to devise "neurocops" that is, compounds that will police the blood/brain barrier for improper molecules-say, molecules of cocaine or alcohol Such treatments clearly have a place for people who choose to use them to help regain control over their drug use, but should the government have the power to impose them on its citizens? It depends. I offer three cases for your consideration. Case One: Someone caught driving recklessly drunk-the court gives this person a choice-a year in jail or a regimen of naltrexone. Case Two: A parent decides to vaccinate her child with an anti-cocaine vaccine at age 10. Case Three: Public health officials mandate that every child receives an anti-cocaine vaccination with her mumps, measles and rubella vaccinations. The HETHR conference was not devoted to just defining and defending human and posthuman rights-some visionary and, some might say, really eccentric proposals were also on offer. For example, George Dvorsky, deputy editor of Betterhumans, argued that using biotech to enhance just human consciousness is not enough-humanity has the moral responsibility to use biotech to lift the veil of brute ignorance from the animals. "It would be negligent of us to leave animals behind to fend for themselves in the state of nature," declared Dvorsky. In uplifting animals, Dvorsky explained, we must avoid creating subhumans. Specifically we must not use biotech to create happy slaves, creatures with constrained or predetermined psychologies, or beings to be used for demeaning or dangerous work. His project is reminiscent of sci-fi novelist David Brin's The Uplift Wars in which throughout the galaxies one sapient species after another uses genetic engineering to uplift non-sapient species to sapiency. In Brin's books, humanity uplifts dolphins and chimps. In his talk Dvorsky was pretty catholic in wanting to spread sapiency around, even suggesting that cows might be uplifted if we gave them hands. Even if Dvorsky's project were possible, I fear that well-meaning would-be uplifters are much more likely to create simulacra of diminished humans rather than creatures that are the moral equivalent of humans. And I shudder to think what might happen if the uplifters overshot and created cows that are smarter than we are. The feasibility of the so-called Rapture of the Nerds-uploading our consciousnesses into cyberspace-was also discussed at the conference. One proponent is Martine Rothblatt, who is a genuine visionary. She has helped launch several satellite networks, including the satellite radio network Sirius, and also founded the biotech company United Therapeutics. She is also proudly a postoperative transsexual and author of The Apartheid of Sex. Her talk entitled "Of Genes, Bemes and Conscious Things" outlined a future in which human consciousnesses are uploaded into computers. Her neologism "beme" is modeled after Richard Dawkin's meme. Memes are units of cultural transmission and Rothblatt's bemes are "fundamental, transmissible, mutable units of beingness." Heideggerian bytes if you will. Bemes consist of smiles, the taste of lasagna, the memory of a first bike ride and so forth. According to Rothblatt, just as genes spell out matter, bemes spell out mind. Rothblatt suggested that bemes could be eventually captured and stored by more sophisticated wearable recording systems like the MyLifeBits project being developed at Microsoft by Gordon Bell. Researchers are also working on creating a bouquet of nanowires that could be threaded through the capillaries of the brain to monitor and record the activities of individual brain cells. Rothblatt proposes that the output of those brain cells could be stored and retrieved later for uploading as bemes. Rothblatt acknowledged that bemes would need to uploaded into mindware to become conscious. Of course, mindware doesn't yet exist, but she's pretty sure that computer guru Ray Kurzweil's prediction that machines with human-level intelligence will be produced over the next couple of decades is accurate. Thus we will be able to "beme" ourselves up into cyberspace. How will we know that the uploaded "bemans" are conscious? Rothblatt has no doubt: "Consciousness is like pornography; we know it when we see it." In the end, telling visionaries from crackpots is never an easy task. But I find mingling with people who are wildly hopeful about the future is intellectually invigorating. Transhumanists are the sort of folks who eagerly embrace 19th century British chemist Michael Faraday's maxim: "Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature." And some of the visions painted at the HETHR conference are wonderful-they foresee a future filled with smarter, happier, and more creative people. Erik Davis is wrong about the demise of grand narratives. As a nascent philosophical and political movement, Transhumanism epitomizes our most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations. The Transhumanist quest to liberate future generations from the immemorial curses of disease, disability and early death is a new grand narrative worthy of humanity and posthumanity. Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books. From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Jun 2 15:46:48 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:46:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10605310929gddb97ebwdaa00e247c1a63d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10606020846gc987f55s4c247413fd50d389@mail.gmail.com> On 6/1/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef Albright (not Jeffrey H.) writes > > > For those who have bought into Kant's Categorical Imperative, then > > that argument will seem to make sense. "Without a doubt I would not > > want *my* simulation shut down, given my belief that life is better > > than no life at all, therefore I am morally bound to say that runtime > > of any simulation of sentience is good." > > > > Sounds attractive, and it's good as far as it goes, but it is > > ultimately incoherent. > > > > With apologies to Lee, I'll use that word again, because it is > > essential: There is no intrinsic good. "Good" is always necessarily > > from the point of view of some subjective agent. > > #!?%#&*$! No word is *essential*. To believe that some particular > word *is* essential, I fear, uncovers a bug in your thinking. As I've > said before, all of us here have perfectly good vocabularies, Lee, I was using "essential" in its primary sense of capturing the essence, rather than it's secondary meaning of indispensible. I suppose I could have made this clearer given your demonstrated sensitivity. > > Worse, Jef persists not only in using a phrase I don't understand > at all, "intrinsic good", but denies that it even exists! Now, Lee, having never me you in person, I have to wonder whether your histrionics are real or just part of your email game. It seems pretty silly that you would argue that I can't refer to a concept that represents something that doesn't actually exist. On this list we use precise language and argue about perceptual, cognitive and cultural illusions and fallacies quite often. I would venture to assert that the concept of "intrinsic good" is well known to anyone who has thought deeply about ethics. An intrinsic good is something which is considered good in and of itself. It's interesting to me is that there are so many mutually exclusive beliefs as to what goods are actually worthy of that description. Hedonists claim that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Kantians claim that that good will is the only intrinsic good. Aristotle claimed that truth is the only intrinsic good. Some people claim that love is the only intrinsic good in the universe. Jef claims that, just as with each of the world's religions claiming to possess or have access to the only true way, seekers or believers of intrinsic good are asking the wrong question and therefore getting the wrong answer. There is no intrinsic good because good is inherently subjective. What appears good within any given context can always be shown to be not good from a different context. I think it's important that futurists get this crucial point, because we are poised for dramatic expansion of the context of our lives and we need to understand what we mean by good so we can make more effective decisions. > I guess that's easier on me than someone claiming "XYZWX" exists, > which could have serious implications, but to claim that "PMXTW" > does *not* exist leaves a scary hole, maybe, somewhere in my > ontology! Both silly and false. Believing in something that does not exist can be just as detrimental as not believing in something that does exist. Either way it's an inaccuracy in your model leading to less effective decision-making. > > Well, how about this: since it doesn't exist, would you mind > dropping it from your discourse? Again, I really can't tell when you're being silly and when you're being serious Lee. > > > While its own growth is always preferable to no growth from the point > > of view of any evolved agent [ref: Meaning of Life], from another > > point agent's point of view, the Other may or may not be a good thing. > > On the good side, the Other may provide a source of increasing > > diversity, complexity and growth, increasing opportunities for > > interaction with Self. On the bad side, the Other may deplete > > resources and quite reasonably compete with and destroy Self. > > I should have another cow about "good" here, since I have no clear > idea of what you mean by it! But I will *try* to get in the spirit > of the thing, whatever it is. Since there is no "good in itself", we can only talk about what is considered good in some pragmatic sense. > > This last statement seems to boil down to Darwinian evolution. Yes, there is a strong evolutionary aspect to what we consider good, both because such goods tend to be those which have survived a competitive environment, and because our own values are shaped by the evolutionary process. > > > The greatest assurance of good in human culture is the fact that > > we share a common evolutionary heritage... and thus we hold deeply > > and widely shared values. > > Yes, that's true, we do. But many other animals are solitary > by nature. Not sure what point you're making here. > > > Increasing awareness of these increasingly shared values with > > [will] lead to increasingly effective social decision-making > > that will be increasingly seen as good. > > I believe that this indeed is the way we've progressed the last > 10,000 years or so, but I don't think that you've put your finger > on the actual mechanism. Our preferences are the result of an evolutionary process that has operated over cosmic time, almost all of that without conscious awareness, let alone intention. At a low level, we have instinctive feelings of good and bad built into us by that process. At a higher level, we have culture (including religion) strongly influencing our decision-making about what is good and what is bad (because these cultural traits were beneficial adaptations). Just recently we have arrived at an even higher level of organization where we can use information technology to increase our awareness of our values, apply our increasing awareness of what works, and thereby implement increasingly effective decision-making, intentionally promoting our values into the future, which is the very essence of morality. > > For, were it just a matter of "increasing awareness", then why > just the last 10,000 years? We had at least 80,000 years before > that to become aware of our "shared values", but nothing really > happened. It has always been about "what works" in the sense of natural selection. Only recently are we becoming aware of our subjective values and our increasingly objective understanding of what works, and thus able to play an intentional role in our further development. > > I think that "increasing awareness" of our shared values is a > luxury that we can now afford, due to increased mastery of > nature (technological advances). At this time it's easier to > sit back in a comfortable job and make money than it is to go > seize it from the neighboring tribe; but this has been really > true only the last couple of hundred years! Yes, except I would say that our increasing awareness of what works is making our actions more effective rather than "easier", given that in the bigger picture we continue to interact within a competitive co-evolving environment. > > > The reason this is important and why I keep bringing it up, is that > > as we are faced with increasingly diverse challenges brought by > > accelerating technological change, the old premises and heuristics > > that we may take as unquestioned or obvious truth are going to let us > > down. > > > > - Jef > > Increasing awareness for increasing morality > > Yes, the old premises and heuristics may indeed let us down. > We have to stay on our toes; all conjectures are tentative. > > Lee From sentience at pobox.com Fri Jun 2 16:08:10 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:08:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist arrival? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4480626A.5050401@pobox.com> Robert Bradbury wrote: > Some days something happens that almost makes you fall out of your chair... > > Believe it or not "Transhumanism" is the *featured* article of the day > (2 Jun 2006) on Wikipedia [1,2]. Sure we can get air time at Stanford > but it strikes me as a sign of having "arrived" when what is effectively > the World's encyclopedia features a topic near to ones heart, if only > for a day, as the lead article. > > Maybe there is a god... Just so you know, Jimmy Wales is a former subscriber to SL4. E.g: http://sl4.org/archive/0105/1398.html -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mstriz at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 16:31:47 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:31:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist arrival? In-Reply-To: <4480626A.5050401@pobox.com> References: <4480626A.5050401@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 6/2/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Some days something happens that almost makes you fall out of your chair... > > > > Believe it or not "Transhumanism" is the *featured* article of the day > > (2 Jun 2006) on Wikipedia [1,2]. Sure we can get air time at Stanford > > but it strikes me as a sign of having "arrived" when what is effectively > > the World's encyclopedia features a topic near to ones heart, if only > > for a day, as the lead article. And the page just go vandalized... It just says "k" Martin From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 19:07:01 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 14:07:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist arrival? In-Reply-To: References: <4480626A.5050401@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 6/2/06, Martin Striz wrote: > And the page just go vandalized... > > It just says "k" Huh? If so it got fixed fairly fast since it works properly for me. I would expect that the "Featured" pages would run under lock-down as from time to time one would suspect they *are* going to upset topic trolls. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 19:13:51 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 21:13:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Update - Official opening of uvvy island in Second Life June 7 2pm EST: Transhumanist day Message-ID: <470a3c520606021213x69f7cepbde99afcaea300a1@mail.gmail.com> We have been testing Vivox chat and are quite pleased with the result. The system works well and the sound quality is good. Seeing each other in SL and talking to each other gives the feeling to "be almost there". I am sure we will be able to drop the *almost* in a few years. Now the whole first floor is Vivox-enabled. Details at: http://uvvy.com/index.php/Official_opening_of_uvvy_island_in_SL If you want to participate, sign up at: http://uvvy.com/index.php/June72006List to get a Vivox account and participate with voice chat. Sorry Mac users, no client for you yet. I also prefer the Mac, but I have both Macs and PCs. G. On 5/26/06, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > See http://uvvy.com/index.php/Official_opening_of_uvvy_island_in_SL > > The event will be quite high profile and the press will attend. > > We have entered a partnership with Vivox as provider of voice > comunications for this and forthcoming events. Vivox permits voice > chatting with nearby avatars in Second Life and other virtual worlds. > We are coordinating press releases with them. > > If you wish to come, you will need a Vivox account - please add your > name to the participant list > http://uvvy.com/index.php/June72006List > > and we will get you one. > > Giulio > From mstriz at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 19:57:01 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 15:57:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist arrival? In-Reply-To: References: <4480626A.5050401@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 6/2/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > It just says "k" > > > Huh? If so it got fixed fairly fast since it works properly for me. > I would expect that the "Featured" pages would run under lock-down as from > time to time one would suspect they *are* going to upset topic trolls. Yes, it was fixed fairly quickly, although that kind of hostility should be noted, if it's hostility. Martin From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Jun 3 01:48:56 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:48:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] More Measure is Better than Less In-Reply-To: <22360fa10606012222k1c7e7de4vb6845c1c8ece8c17@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef writes > On 6/1/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > > so if the off switch were pressed, our threads of consciousness > > > would necessarily continue forward anyway... > > > > But! With reduced measure! Suppose as does Tegmark that there > > is an identical you 10^10^29 away from here. Then if someone > > here who does not exist 10^10^29 from here kills you, then your > > measure has gone down. You ought to consider that to be > > undesirable. > > > > (It is for that reason that I believe benefit to be totally additive: > > the more copies of me running, the better for me.) > > Help me understand what you meant by this. I'm quite comfortable with > the concept of varying measure, depending on how many copies of you > are running, but it seems to be a difference that makes no > measurable(!) difference from anyone's viewpoint. Yes, the "difference" it makes is of a peculiar nature. It's almost (but not quite true) that no one ever has any memory that is any different because they were running in two places instead of one. But say you don't exist 10^10^29 meters from here, nor anywhere else relatively near, and you kill me. Then so far as *local* physics is concerned, Lee died. Yes, it is sort of tautological. But here is how it is derived: If you take for granted that for one to perish locally is not (just as our laws and customs dictate) is not to be preferred for one, then it must follow that for a copy of one to perish anywhere reduces one's benefits. As a last resort, check with the government accounting department: one receives fewer benefits in any particular solar system if one dies. >From a higher philosophical principle, I invoke something like analytic continuity: what is true in the new, arcane areas that we discuss should reduce to being true in the everyday sense also. So just listen to your senses: your dear lover lies dead in your arms; it's really no consolation to know that 10^10^29 away from here she's alive and well. Lee From xyz at iq.org Sat Jun 3 05:11:09 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:11:09 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060602005049.31172.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060602005049.31172.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1149311469.19993.262956872@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:50:49 -0700 (PDT), "The Avantguardian" said: > > > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > How does your psychogenic field create EM? > > In the context of a human brain, I suppose it would do > so by coordinating the flow of ions (action > potentials) in a coherent fashion across synapses in > localized regions of the cortex. Action potentials do not flow accross synapses. I do not understand why you need a PF. You want the PF to generate EM. So why not have EM generate the PF? But then why have the PF at all if it is reduceable to EM? There's no additional predictive power and so you should remove it since it makes your existing theory bigger but not more powerful. From sentience at pobox.com Sat Jun 3 05:19:07 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:19:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <1149311469.19993.262956872@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20060602005049.31172.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <1149311469.19993.262956872@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <44811BCB.4070902@pobox.com> Harry Harrison wrote: > > Action potentials do not flow accross synapses. > > I do not understand why you need a PF. You want the PF to > generate EM. So why not have EM generate the PF? But then > why have the PF at all if it is reduceable to EM? There's > no additional predictive power and so you should remove it > since it makes your existing theory bigger but not more powerful. Oh, but then the theory doesn't have an amazing magical component in it, so it doesn't sound as neat. Force fields! Whee! Remember, mysterious surface phenomena are always produced by mysterious underlying causes. ...are you the SF author Harry Harrison? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From xyz at iq.org Sat Jun 3 04:59:51 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:59:51 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> > > We're soaring through the air, but our fuel is running out; either we > ascend, or we die out like any other animal species whose evolved > environment is long gone, and ultimately the sun turns the biosphere into > a > cloud of carbon dioxide and steam. I put it to you that the first option > is > self-evidently preferable. If you believe in 'we'. Grinding me and or my children up for atoms so corporations run by computers can populate the universe earlier seems like poor outcome. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Jun 3 05:31:20 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 06:31:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> On 6/3/06, Harry Harrison wrote: > > If you believe in 'we'. Grinding me and or my children up for atoms so > corporations run by computers can populate the universe earlier seems > like poor outcome. > I agree completely, which is why I support no such thing. Is there anyone outside the lunatic fringe who does? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From xyz at iq.org Sat Jun 3 05:44:18 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:44:18 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> No, but many seem to have a religious optimism about the singularity that defies rationality (for some reason I thought you were one of these people, forgive me). That which can dominate matter and energy thrives. Everything else is consumed or marginalised. This is one of the few things we can predict past a singularity and has good precedence in the best analogies we have todate, e.g the Cambrian explosion. On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 06:31:20 +0100, "Russell Wallace" said: > On 6/3/06, Harry Harrison wrote: > > > > If you believe in 'we'. Grinding me and or my children up for atoms so > > corporations run by computers can populate the universe earlier seems > > like poor outcome. > > > > I agree completely, which is why I support no such thing. Is there anyone > outside the lunatic fringe who does? From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Jun 3 05:52:10 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 06:52:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> On 6/3/06, Harry Harrison wrote: > > No, but many seem to have a religious optimism about the singularity that > defies rationality (for some reason I thought you were one of these people, > forgive me). That which can dominate matter and energy thrives. Everything > else is consumed or marginalised. This is one of the few things we can > predict past a singularity and has good precedence in the best analogies we > have todate, e.g the Cambrian explosion. Frankly, the entire Singularity mythology has become the modern day equivalent of Armageddon, the Rapture etc; yes, I used to call myself a Singularitarian, before I realized just how far over the edge the myth had gone, in terms of both irrational optimism and irrational pessimism. The truth is there isn't going to be any Singularity, in the usual definition of the word; Jesus isn't coming anytime soon, nor is Great Cthulhu, nor is their replacement in the AI mythology. What is and will remain true is that we can keep going up, or we can go down. If we go up we go up, just as was true in the Cambrian explosion, the Neolithic, the Industrial Revolution etc (none of which events wiped out life on Earth, you may notice :)); if we go down, we die. I say we go up, and look to life, not death. What say you? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jun 3 05:42:59 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 22:42:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist arrival? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606030603.k5363LU2008716@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist arrival? >Believe it or not "Transhumanism" is the *featured* article of the day (2 Jun 2006) on Wikipedia [1,2].? Sure we can get air time at Stanford but it strikes me as a sign of having "arrived" ... Robert I took it as a sign of the times when I was up at Stanford with Anders last weekend. In the main Stanford campus bookstore, on a table right as you walk in the door, most prime real estate in the place, they had set up a sign identifying these books as "new and relevant". It was a lot of the stuff we have been discussing here for years, but what struck me is that two authors had two books on that table: Hofstadter had Godel Escher Bach and The Mind's I. The other double represented author on that table was K.Eric Drexler, with Nanosystems and Engines of Creation. That one surprised me, because even those of us who are hard core types realize Engines gets a bit wild in places. OK, so now that is new and relevant, and up front in the Stanford book store. Hofstadter's EGB is 27 years old now, and is still considered new and relevant. There was another book called "The Nanotech Pioneers: Where Are They Taking Us?" by Steven A. Edwards. Extropians are mentioned on pages 25 and 26, the usual commentary on our being a techno-cult with strange ideas on living forever through technological progress. The founder is given as "Maximum More." That gave me a good laugh. Max, have you ever been called Maximum More? spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 08:14:09 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 01:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060603081409.70997.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> > On 6/3/06, Harry Harrison wrote: > > > > No, but many seem to have a religious optimism > about the singularity that > > defies rationality (for some reason I thought you > were one of these people, > > forgive me). Nah, Russell is actually a self-proclaimed pessimist. I on the other hand am a mystic optimist (optimystic?) although I have been known to do some serious scientific research from time to time. Although I may have faith in my ability to survive the singularity, I have every reason to believe that rationality is on my side as well. The way I see it, I am the scion of an unbroken chain of life that stretches back to the primordial ooze. Through the cambrian explosion, asteroid impacts, the ice age, and the never ending evolutionary arms race not a single one of my ancestors failed to survive long enough to pass their genetic legacy on to me. But I am not alone. Anyone reading this email has good reason to be optimistic too. . . even Eliezer. The way I see it the Darwinian-Bayesian score card of survival reads - Our germ line: 3.5 billion years, AI run corporations: 0 years. Even Vegas would have give us good odds. --- Russell Wallace wrote:> > Frankly, the entire Singularity mythology has become > the modern day > equivalent of Armageddon, the Rapture etc; yes, I > used to call myself a > Singularitarian, before I realized just how far over > the edge the myth had > gone, in terms of both irrational optimism and > irrational pessimism. > > The truth is there isn't going to be any > Singularity, in the usual > definition of the word [. . .] if we go down, we >die. I say we go > up, and look to life, not > death. What say you? Well I for one see no point in betting against ourselves in mortal combat. Rest assured I for one will spit defiantly in the photodiode of any AI that manages takes me down. On the bright side, we still have time to hone our matter and energy domination skills before the main event, which as Russell points out may not happen at all. Rather than worrying about it, I say we prepare for it. As any true pessimist of the Murphy school would concur, any emergency that one is prepared for seldom happens. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 09:08:53 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 02:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <1149311469.19993.262956872@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <20060603090853.88077.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Harry Harrison wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:50:49 -0700 (PDT), "The > Avantguardian" said: > > In the context of a human brain, I suppose it > would do > > so by coordinating the flow of ions (action > > potentials) in a coherent fashion across synapses > in > > localized regions of the cortex. > > Action potentials do not flow accross synapses. You are correct, my mistake. > I do not understand why you need a PF. Well my original intent was simply to mathematically abstract it as a tensor field which are routinely used to model things which are not true "force fields" like fluid vortexes and what not. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is filled with phenomena that seem like forces although they are not like the Pauli exclusion principle, coherence, and entanglement. They perform action at a distance but don't seem to obey the inverse square law, speed of light, or other hallmarks of classical forces. > You want the > PF to > generate EM. So why not have EM generate the PF? But > then > why have the PF at all if it is reduceable to EM? > There's > no additional predictive power and so you should > remove it > since it makes your existing theory bigger but not > more powerful. Yeah, you are probably right although I do like the catchy name. Physicists try to come up with a GUT to convince everyone that the four fundamental forces of nature are actually the same thing. Biologists conversely maintain that dolphins and porpoises are distinct species based of their difference in size and the shape of their teeth. I suppose I will chalk this one up to a biologist's penchant for pointless classification. :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 09:56:30 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 02:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <44811BCB.4070902@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060603095630.25599.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > Oh, but then the theory doesn't have an amazing > magical component in it, > so it doesn't sound as neat. Force fields! Whee! Fear not, Eliezer, I am sympathetic to the plight of muggles. > Remember, mysterious > surface phenomena are always produced by mysterious > underlying causes. Apparently rather banal surface phenomena can be produced by mysterious underlying causes as well. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Jun 3 11:06:09 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 07:06:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity In-Reply-To: <20060603081409.70997.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <20060603081409.70997.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060603065930.023c3ee8@gmu.edu> At 04:14 AM 6/3/2006, Stuart LaForge wrote: >... Although I may have faith in my ability to survive >the singularity, I have every reason to believe that r >rationality is on my side as well. >The way I see it, I am the scion of an unbroken chain >of life that stretches back to the primordial ooze. >Through the cambrian explosion, asteroid impacts, the >ice age, and the never ending evolutionary arms race >not a single one of my ancestors failed to survive >long enough to pass their genetic legacy on to me. >But I am not alone. Anyone reading this email has good >reason to be optimistic too. . . even Eliezer. This is really a pretty terrible reason for optimism. In species where 2 parents had N kids, on average those kids only had 2 distant descendants survive. So at least N-2 of those kids had zero distant descendants. For many species N > 1000, so those are pretty bad odds. Similarly at the species level - most species die out leaving zero descendant species. We may have good reasons for optimism, but the fact that we exist is not one of them. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sat Jun 3 16:01:19 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 12:01:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Simplifying Singularity Message-ID: <20060603160119.30320.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "Singularity is a moment in time when technology will change the course of humanity forever." I'm just curious, I'm writing a script and would like to use the word in a popular context and was wondering if this phrase would be appropriate. Any opinion would be appreciated. Thanks 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 amara at amara.com Sat Jun 3 18:30:39 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 20:30:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) Message-ID: : >Well my original intent was simply to mathematically >abstract it as a tensor field which are routinely used >to model things which are not true "force fields" like >fluid vortexes and what not. I didn't read all of this thread, but the above paragraph made my head hurt. The way you are using these physics terms does not make sense. Charges make an electric field (Ex, Ey, Ez); field lines originate on positive charges and terminate on negative charges. Moving charges create electric currents. Currents generate magnetic fields: (Bx,By,Bz) The electric field is a special vector function whose curl is always zero. A field tensor has 4x4=16 components. To describe the electrodynamic (magnetic+electric) field is: F01 - Ex/c F02 = Ey/c F03 = Ez/c F12 = Bz F31 = By F23 = Bx ... Written as an array, the field tensor is: 0 Ex/c Ey/c Ez/c Ey/c 0 Bz -By -Ey/c -Bz 0 Bx -Ez/c By -Bx 0 If you are going to use physics terms, please use them as they are conventionally defined, or else give them a new name and define them. Otherwise no communication will be possible. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Jun 3 21:09:39 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 14:09:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Good (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <22360fa10606020846gc987f55s4c247413fd50d389@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef writes > > > For those who have bought into Kant's Categorical Imperative, then > > > that argument will seem to make sense. "Without a doubt I would not > > > want *my* simulation shut down, given my belief that life is better > > > than no life at all, therefore I am morally bound to say that runtime > > > of any simulation of sentience is good." > > > > > > Sounds attractive, and it's good as far as it goes, but it is > > > ultimately incoherent. > > > > > > With apologies to Lee, I'll use that word again, because it is > > > essential: There is no intrinsic good. "Good" is always necessarily > > > from the point of view of some subjective agent. > > > > #!?%#&*$! No word is *essential*. To believe that some particular > > word *is* essential, I fear, uncovers a bug in your thinking. As I've > > said before, all of us here have perfectly good vocabularies, > > Lee, I was using "essential" in its primary sense of capturing the > essence, rather than it's secondary meaning of indispensable. Sorry; that meaning didn't occur to me. But you have to admit that you've picked the rarer meaning, sowing confusion :-) > > Worse, Jef persists not only in using a phrase I don't understand > > at all, "intrinsic good", but denies that it even exists! > > Lee, having never me you in person, I have to wonder whether your > histrionics are real or just part of your email game. Alas, it may be bizarre (sorry about that), but it's for better or worse, the real me. > It seems pretty silly that you would argue that I can't refer to > a concept that represents something that doesn't actually exist. Oh, well, you have a point there. I know what people mean when they use the terms "God" and "unicorn". > I would venture to assert that the concept of "intrinsic good" is well > known to anyone who has thought deeply about ethics. An intrinsic good > is something which is considered good in and of itself. It's > interesting to me is that there are so many mutually exclusive beliefs > as to what goods are actually worthy of that description. Hedonists > claim that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Kantians claim that > that good will is the only intrinsic good. Aristotle claimed that > truth is the only intrinsic good. Some people claim that love is the > only intrinsic good in the universe. Okay, thanks for the explanation. You've swerved into a description/ definition that I can understand! > Jef [I] claims that, just as with each of the world's religions claiming > to possess or have access to the only true way, seekers or believers > of intrinsic good are asking the wrong question and therefore getting > the wrong answer. Well, it's not too surprising. Arguing about whether something is "intrinsically" good, I would think, would be as non-productive as arguing whether certain essences inhere in one thing or another. Why don't people quit using fancy abstractions and speak in simple everyday terms? It's *OBVIOUS* that you can examine any substance in the universe, and be unable to show that it has either the essence of "intrinsic goodness", or that is has the property of "intrinsic goodness". Like I say, the moment a word or phrase starts posing communications difficulties---or even appears at all suspect---ditch it in favor of (if need be) longer or more circuitous descriptions. The only point is to get the ideas across. > There is no intrinsic good because good is inherently subjective. > What appears good within any given context can always be shown to > be not good from a different context. That does not sound correct to me! You cannot necessarily *show* anything to anyone. The other entity is, in the final analysis, a physical device. It may simply not be wired to incorporate into its concepts whatever it is that you wish to *show*. Try, for example, showing to Hitler that Jews are as acceptable as other people. > I think it's important that futurists get this crucial point, > because we are poised for dramatic expansion of the context > of our lives and we need to understand what we mean by good > so we can make more effective decisions. Do we really have to use that concept? Why is it essential (in the "required" meaning of the word)? Ultimately, you can always say the much more accurate "X approves of Y", or "humans generally favor Y". Usage of terms like "good" indicates--- sorry---an adherence to Aristotelian definitions. > > Well, how about this: since it doesn't exist, would you mind > > dropping it from your discourse? > > Again, I really can't tell when you're being silly and when you're > being serious Lee. I'm quite serious! For heaven's sake, why does this seem silly? Why must you be wed to certain terms and phrases? Surely it's occurred to you that our terms (and even concepts)---which we have inherited from the recent past---may today not be optimal nor even appropriate? > > > The greatest assurance of good in human culture is the fact that > > > we share a common evolutionary heritage... and thus we hold deeply > > > and widely shared values. > > > > Yes, that's true, we do. But many other animals are solitary > > by nature. > > Not sure what point you're making here. Just want to make sure that you're restricting your descriptions to human evolved entities. > > > Increasing awareness of these increasingly shared values with > > > [will] lead to increasingly effective social decision-making > > > that will be increasingly seen as good. > > > > I believe that this indeed is the way we've progressed the last > > 10,000 years or so, but I don't think that you've put your finger > > on the actual mechanism. > > Our preferences are the result of an evolutionary process that has > operated over cosmic time, almost all of that without conscious > awareness, let alone intention. At a low level, we have instinctive > feelings of good and bad built into us by that process. Well, I'd say we have instinctive preferences. And you'll have to admit that in ev psych books, you'll not find many references to "good" and "bad". But you'll find plenty of references to preferences. > Just recently we have arrived at an even higher level of organization > where we can use information technology to increase our awareness of > our values, Yes! > apply our increasing awareness of what works, and thereby > implement increasingly effective decision-making, intentionally > promoting our values into the future, which is the very essence of > morality. Okay, though I'm not sure what the "essence of morality" is :-) But you're dead right (pardon the expression) to speak of us perpetuating our values into the future. > > For, were it just a matter of "increasing awareness", then why > > just the last 10,000 years? We had at least 80,000 years before > > that to become aware of our "shared values", but nothing really > > happened. > > It has always been about "what works" in the sense of natural > selection. Only recently are we becoming aware of our subjective > values and our increasingly objective understanding of what works, > and thus able to play an intentional role in our further development. I really have to reject your pragmatic "what works". Just because something works does not mean that we as "enlightened" people are going to approve of it. What if the U.S. were to conclude that its interests were best served by holding the rest of the world in nuclear terror? That may actually "work" just fine---given history as a guide---but most of us would strenuously object. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Jun 3 21:15:43 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 14:15:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Simplifying Singularity In-Reply-To: <20060603160119.30320.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anna writes > [Consider this:] "Singularity is a moment in time when technology will > change the course of humanity forever." > I'm just curious, I'm writing a script and would like to use the word > in a popular context and was wondering if this phrase would be appropriate. Actually, there have been a lot (many would say too many) tinmes when technology changed the course of humanity forever. E.g., gunpowder, the atomic bomb, and the transistor. You might add "change it unrecognizably", or some such. Googling for "singularity" will probably yield a lot of good ideas. Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Jun 3 21:37:35 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:37:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Simplifying Singularity Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060603173547.026af600@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:01 PM 6/3/2006 -0400, you wrote: >"Singularity is a moment in time when technology will change the course of >humanity >forever." That happened over two million years ago when humans discovered that the sharp edge from a broken rock was just the thing to get at the meat under a hide. The singularity is the time when our "sharp rocks" have become sharper than we are. Keith >I'm just curious, I'm writing a script and would like to use the word in a >popular >context and was wondering if this phrase would be appropriate. > >Any opinion would be appreciated. >Thanks >Anna Second try at sending this msg, same rejection based on not being able to talk to rogers.com. Keith From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 23:29:01 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 16:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] NEF tensor (was Psychogenic Fields) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060603232901.20654.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > : > >Well my original intent was simply to > mathematically > >abstract it as a tensor field which are routinely > used > >to model things which are not true "force fields" > like > >fluid vortexes and what not. I meant vortices. > I didn't read all of this thread, but the above > paragraph made > my head hurt. The way you are using these physics > terms does not > make sense. Sorry. This is why I wish I had more formal physics- math background than I do. I think you may be over complicating things. In this case by tensor field I mean simply a position specific "bundle of vectors" namely E(x,y,z) and B(x,y,z). > > Charges make an electric field (Ex, Ey, Ez); field > lines originate on > positive charges and terminate on negative charges. > > Moving charges create electric currents. > > Currents generate magnetic fields: (Bx,By,Bz) > > The electric field is a special vector function > whose curl is always > zero. > > A field tensor has 4x4=16 components. To describe > the > electrodynamic (magnetic+electric) field is: > > F01 - Ex/c > F02 = Ey/c > F03 = Ez/c > > F12 = Bz > F31 = By > F23 = Bx > > ... > > Written as an array, the field tensor is: > > > 0 Ex/c Ey/c Ez/c > > Ey/c 0 Bz -By > > -Ey/c -Bz 0 Bx > > -Ez/c By -Bx 0 > Correct. Now at any given instant in time, the elements of the above matrix will take on a unique set of specific numerical values at different points in space around the brain. Now if we could measure those specific values at each point for thousands of such points in parallel (e.g with a "helmet" consisting of thousands of miniture SQUIDs shielded from external magnetic sources ) and store them on a hard-drive, then we would have a high resolution map of my unfortunately named psychogenic field. Perhaps people will like the name "nuero-electric field" or NEF better. In my above example the SQUIDs would only measure B but since we can derive E from B and vice-versa, it should not matter. In any case the NEF is simply a huge array of field tensors stored on a computer that may correlate to specific quales experienced by the test subject while he was wearing the SQUID helmet. I have no equations to offer you and I am not suggesting that non-trivial analytic solutions to the NEF tensor exist. Although as a trivial solution, I would expect for a dead person, the tensor matrix will be filled with zeros. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jun 4 02:09:33 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 19:09:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Good Message-ID: <22360fa10606031909j4f241e46v93e32e2cd190a71f@mail.gmail.com> On 6/3/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef writes > > I would venture to assert that the concept of "intrinsic good" is well > > known to anyone who has thought deeply about ethics. An intrinsic good > > is something which is considered good in and of itself. It's > > interesting to me is that there are so many mutually exclusive beliefs > > as to what goods are actually worthy of that description. Hedonists > > claim that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Kantians claim that > > that good will is the only intrinsic good. Aristotle claimed that > > truth is the only intrinsic good. Some people claim that love is the > > only intrinsic good in the universe. > > Okay, thanks for the explanation. You've swerved into a description/ > definition that I can understand! > > > Jef [I] claims that, just as with each of the world's religions claiming > > to possess or have access to the only true way, seekers or believers > > of intrinsic good are asking the wrong question and therefore getting > > the wrong answer. > > Well, it's not too surprising. Arguing about whether something is > "intrinsically" good, I would think, would be as non-productive as > arguing whether certain essences inhere in one thing or another. > Why don't people quit using fancy abstractions and speak in simple > everyday terms? It's *OBVIOUS* that you can examine any substance > in the universe, and be unable to show that it has either the > essence of "intrinsic goodness", or that is has the property > of "intrinsic goodness". In the preceding text I switched from the abstract to discrete examples, citing the opposing views of hedonism, Kant, Aristotle, and "white lighters" as to what constitutes the ultimate good. You said that doing this helped you get the idea, but it seems to me we're only part way there, because none of those examples related to substance [which you refer to], but rather to more abstract concepts. The concept I am trying to convey is even more abstract [but with a very practical application!] and thus I can't provide discrete examples, but I try to build up to it by highlighting incoherence in lower-level thinking and thereby the need for a more encompassing understanding of what it really means to say that something is good. For reference, the abstract point I'm trying to make is the following: Increasing awareness of principles of what works (increasingly objective scientific/instrumental knowledge), applied to increasing awareness of our (increasingly intersubjective) values that work over increasing scope, leads to what is seen as increasingly moral decision-making. The practical application of that understanding is that it becomes clear that (1) we *can* increasingly agree on certain choices being better than other choices, and (2) we *should* facilitate this process of increasingly moral decision-making by intentionally building a technological framework to increase our awareness of our values and our instrumental knowledge and apply them to social decision-making. I wish I knew how to factor out (to abstract) all those "increasing's", but it's all about evolutionary growth and the Red Queen would agree that standing still is never an option. > Like I say, the moment a word or phrase starts posing communications > difficulties---or even appears at all suspect---ditch it in favor > of (if need be) longer or more circuitous descriptions. The only > point is to get the ideas across. Yes, my objective here is to get a certain idea across, and while it appears we may be making some progress, we're certainly not there yet. I do intend to write a more thorough exposition of this "Arrow of Morality" thinking, and I value your interaction as contributing to making my message clearer. > > There is no intrinsic good because good is inherently subjective. > > What appears good within any given context can always be shown to > > be not good from a different context. > > That does not sound correct to me! You cannot necessarily *show* > anything to anyone. The other entity is, in the final analysis, > a physical device. It may simply not be wired to incorporate into > its concepts whatever it is that you wish to *show*. Try, for > example, showing to Hitler that Jews are as acceptable as other > people. Strangely, it seems you are supporting my point while claiming to argue against it. It seems we are now agreeing that there can be no absolute agreement on what is good, because each agent functions as a physical device with differing inputs and differing transfer functions. > > I think it's important that futurists get this crucial point, > > because we are poised for dramatic expansion of the context > > of our lives and we need to understand what we mean by good > > so we can make more effective decisions. > > Do we really have to use that concept? Why is it essential > (in the "required" meaning of the word)? Ultimately, you can > always say the much more accurate "X approves of Y", or "humans > generally favor Y". Usage of terms like "good" indicates--- > sorry---an adherence to Aristotelian definitions. Right! When we understand what is really meant by "good" we will more clearly and effectively come to cooperate on actions which appear to be *better* at promoting our shared values, rather than competing over conflicting beliefs about what is "good." > > > > The greatest assurance of good in human culture is the fact that > > > > we share a common evolutionary heritage... and thus we hold deeply > > > > and widely shared values. > > > > > > Yes, that's true, we do. But many other animals are solitary > > > by nature. > > > > Not sure what point you're making here. > > Just want to make sure that you're restricting your descriptions > to human evolved entities. I'm not restricting this thinking to just humans. But I recognize that I tend to explain things in an abstract general sense while you may be focused on the specific that there is currently no example of a non-human moral agent. Just as you pointed out that "in the final analysis, the other entity is a physical device", there is no reason to accord priviledged status to humans over other entities. As you know, on the various transhumanist lists there are perrenial discussions of the moral rights of AIs or dolphins or apes, etc. The concept of "rights" is just as problematic as the concept of "good", and for similar reasons. Some insist that inalienable rights exist, rather than being the result of a "social contract" of sorts. Some insist that intrinsic good exists (as we've already discussed.) Some adhere to moral relativism and seem to ignore our understanding that some ideas really do work better than others. These positions often seem driven more by a strong feeling of "unfairness" in the world (another similarly problematic concept) than by an understanding of social and physical dynamics. In my metaethical thinking, there is no reason to distinguish between humans and other agents. Each agent pursues its own goals, and ethics is concerned with how we know what actions are better than other actions. To the extent that non-human agents can express their values, and to the extent that those values are seen to work, then quite naturally those agents should be accorded moral status. > > > > Increasing awareness of these increasingly shared values with > > > > [will] lead to increasingly effective social decision-making > > > > that will be increasingly seen as good. > > > > > > I believe that this indeed is the way we've progressed the last > > > 10,000 years or so, but I don't think that you've put your finger > > > on the actual mechanism. > > > > Our preferences are the result of an evolutionary process that has > > operated over cosmic time, almost all of that without conscious > > awareness, let alone intention. At a low level, we have instinctive > > feelings of good and bad built into us by that process. > > Well, I'd say we have instinctive preferences. And you'll have > to admit that in ev psych books, you'll not find many references > to "good" and "bad". But you'll find plenty of references to > preferences. Yes, you're making a finer distinction with which I agree. > > Just recently we have arrived at an even higher level of organization > > where we can use information technology to increase our awareness of > > our values, > > Yes! > > > apply our increasing awareness of what works, and thereby > > implement increasingly effective decision-making, intentionally > > promoting our values into the future, which is the very essence of > > morality. > > Okay, though I'm not sure what the "essence of morality" is :-) > But you're dead right (pardon the expression) to speak of us > perpetuating our values into the future. > > > > For, were it just a matter of "increasing awareness", then why > > > just the last 10,000 years? We had at least 80,000 years before > > > that to become aware of our "shared values", but nothing really > > > happened. > > > > It has always been about "what works" in the sense of natural > > selection. Only recently are we becoming aware of our subjective > > values and our increasingly objective understanding of what works, > > and thus able to play an intentional role in our further development. > > I really have to reject your pragmatic "what works". Just because > something works does not mean that we as "enlightened" people are > going to approve of it. Lee, please note that I consistently say that moral actions are *always* described by two factors: (1) Kowledge of what works, applied to (2) our subjective values. > What if the U.S. were to conclude that its > interests were best served by holding the rest of the world in > nuclear terror? That may actually "work" just fine---given history > as a guide---but most of us would strenuously object. That's why I keep using the phrase "over increasing scope". For a man alone on an island, the concept of morality doesn't even apply. As the intersubjective circle widens, then what works over increasing scope (of interactees, types of interactions, and duration of time) is seen as increasingly moral. - Jef From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Jun 4 02:27:21 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 04:27:21 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] NEF tensor (was Psychogenic Fields) In-Reply-To: <20060603232901.20654.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060603232901.20654.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42945.86.143.246.157.1149388041.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> The Avantguardian wrote: > Sorry. This is why I wish I had more formal physics- > math background than I do. I think you may be over > complicating things. In this case by tensor field I > mean simply a position specific "bundle of vectors" > namely E(x,y,z) and B(x,y,z). That is a vector field. A vector field consists of a vector at every point in space. Tensors are a bit more abstract, a bit like generalised matrices (a number or a vector is a particular kind of simple tensor). The important thing with these mathematical objects is that they change in predictable ways when you change the coordinate systems, so that an equation written in tensors (or vectors) remains true regardless of the coordinates (which are after arbitrary conventions). Very practical. > Correct. Now at any given instant in time, the > elements of the above matrix will take on a unique set > of specific numerical values at different points in > space around the brain. Now if we could measure those > specific values at each point for thousands of such > points in parallel (e.g with a "helmet" consisting of > thousands of miniture SQUIDs shielded from external > magnetic sources ) and store them on a hard-drive, > then we would have a high resolution map of my > unfortunately named psychogenic field. Think of it like this: each neuron is surrounded by a little NEF, and they all sum together. But the high frequency components decay over distance. The shape and information of the NEF from a single neuron gets blurred out a few micrometers away, and similarly a group of neurons also blend together if measured more than about their diameter or so. When measuring from outside the skull, about a centimeter away from the brain, you will only get information about activity patterns larger than one centimeter. Which leaves out all the interesting stuff. [Technically: the multipole fields decay as 1/r^3 or faster. And I'm fairly certain a Dirichlet boundary condition isn't enough to specify the source/sink distribution inside the skull. E.g. http://www.ipp.mpg.de/de/for/bereiche/stellarator/Comp_sci/CompScience/csep/csep1.phy.ornl.gov/bf/node3.html ] OK, if we could get all the field at a high resolution many researchers and doctors would be very happy, since there is much medically useful data here. Current EEG and MEG are still rather crude. > I have no equations to offer you and I am not > suggesting that non-trivial analytic solutions to the > NEF tensor exist. Although as a trivial solution, I > would expect for a dead person, the tensor matrix will > be filled with zeros. Or some somple electrical potential. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun Jun 4 02:27:30 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 22:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Simplifying Singularity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060604022730.20761.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lee wrote Actually, there have been a lot (many would say too many) tinmes when technology changed the course of humanity forever. E.g., gunpowder, the atomic bomb, and the transistor. You might add "change it unrecognizably", or some such. Googling for "singularity" will probably yield a lot of good ideas. Anna wrote > [Consider this:] "Singularity is a moment in time when technology will > change the course of humanity forever." > I'm just curious, I'm writing a script and would like to use the word > in a popular context and was wondering if this phrase would be appropriate. Anna writes Thank you Lee for your response. I may not be a genius when it comes to math, physics and science but i'm pretty sure I know how to Google, maybe we are not, Googling the same things) At the same time, your point is you think that the Singularity will be an unrecognizably event? I don't know. In my script, it's recognizable. I was just asking if it's a good phrase. Does it sum up exactly the definitions on Google or does it seem completely off? In one phrase, define Singularity? That's all I was trying to do. Thanks again, 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 amara at amara.com Sun Jun 4 05:34:55 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 07:34:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) Message-ID: Ever wonder what time zones they use in Antarctica? Me too, especially since there are more than one station! I think that they don't visit each other often. ;-) http://www.statoids.com/taq.html I don't know why I find this interesting and amusing. I think that colonies on the Moon will face similar frontier timezone demarcations ! Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun Jun 4 07:09:18 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 00:09:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Simplifying Singularity In-Reply-To: <20060604022730.20761.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anna writes > At the same time, your point is you think that the Singularity > will be an unrecognizable event? I'd say that the Singularity (or singularity) will itself be very recognizable if it comes on very fast, but not so if it happens slowly over the course of time. > I was just asking if it's a good phrase. No, your phrase was poor, for the reasons that I gave and the reason that Keith gave. > Does it sum up exactly the definitions on Google or does > it seem completely off? It seemed completely off. > In one phrase, define Singularity? That's all I was trying to do. Well, I can't beat Wikipedia's definition: technological singularity - a theoretical point in the development of a scientific civilization at which technological progress accelerates into infinity or beyond prediction. This is believed to occur when artificial intelligence or intelligence amplification reaches a certain level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun Jun 4 07:12:19 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 00:12:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amara writes > Ever wonder what time zones they use in Antarctica? No, the thought is entirely new to me :-) > Me too, especially since there are more than one > station! I think that they don't visit each other > often. ;-) > > http://www.statoids.com/taq.html > > I don't know why I find this interesting and amusing. It'll be especially amusing when several sites by different nations are set up at the pole! Now *that* will be a singularity! Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 09:00:00 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 02:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060604090001.2704.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > Ever wonder what time zones they use in Antarctica? > Me too, especially > since there are more than one station! I think that > they don't visit > each other often. ;-) Well imagine the confusion of setting a time for such a visit. > I don't know why I find this interesting and > amusing. I know. This is is precisely why I agree with those physicists that claim that time is an artifact created by "capitalist pigs" (whom I lovingly define as anyone with more money than me) to get me and my "Marxist comrades" (whom I lovingly define as anyone with less money than me) out of bed at inconvenient moments to go someplace and do stuff for them. >I think that > colonies on the Moon will face similar frontier > timezone demarcations. Hopefully by the time we have colonies on the moon, we will realize that time is no more than the opportunity window to strike while the iron is hot. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From scerir at libero.it Sun Jun 4 11:05:03 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 13:05:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEF tensor (was Psychogenic Fields) References: <1092945380.3442@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: <000701c687c6$bc58ac00$e9c51897@extropy> Avantguardian, in the "q-bio" you can find papers like these http://www.arxiv.org/abs/q-bio.NC/0605027 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/q-bio.OT/0309009 but ... you know ... it seems strange, imo, there is enough coherence to get real effects. From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Jun 4 11:31:34 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 13:31:34 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4052.81.152.102.14.1149420694.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Amara Graps wrote: > Ever wonder what time zones they use in Antarctica? Me too, especially > since there are more than one station! I think that they don't visit > each other often. ;-) > > http://www.statoids.com/taq.html > > I don't know why I find this interesting and amusing. I think that > colonies on the Moon will face similar frontier timezone demarcations ! Not to mention martian time! http://pweb.jps.net/~tgangale/mars/ I wonder how much we can simply do away with tying the cyclic part of time (days and years) to cyclic natural phenomena. On the moon days do not work, so it is not too hard to have a clock unlinked to nature. On Mars, sols probably do matter for most probes and visitors, so the clock need to be linked. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From amara at amara.com Sun Jun 4 11:43:35 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 13:43:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) Message-ID: Here is a blog from a Caltech postdoc who is in Antarctica for the 'wintover' working on the BICEP experiment, which is a CMB polarization telescope looking for a particular kind of polarization. The blog is fun and the borealis gorgeous. http://bmode.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/spblog05 (click on the "new link") Amara From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jun 4 11:43:38 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 07:43:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36455.72.236.102.125.1149421418.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > > Ever wonder what time zones they use in Antarctica? Me too, especially > since there are more than one station! I think that they don't visit > each other often. ;-) > > http://www.statoids.com/taq.html > > I don't know why I find this interesting and amusing. I think that > colonies on the Moon will face similar frontier timezone demarcations ! > What I find funny is that DST is used in the American stations... Are we nuts? Or am I so ignorant that I am misunderstanding? Isn't "daytime" rather different at the poles? What am I missing? Surely there aren't many crops for farmers to be working, to "take advantage of daylight hours" with daylight savings time.... And they're not even changing on the same date... ... DST, which I wish we'd do away with, personally. Why are we so hung up on DST? Regards, MB From amara at amara.com Sun Jun 4 13:13:21 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 15:13:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) Message-ID: MB: >What I find funny is that DST is used in the American stations... Are we >nuts? Or am I so ignorant that I am misunderstanding? Isn't "daytime" >rather different at the poles? What am I missing? The time zone assignments might not be for any physical reason, but for convenience instead, based on travel connections. McMurdo and Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station follow New Zealand's time zone with their respective daylight saving, probably for simple convenience to follow one country's time zone, and New Zealand's time zone makes the most logical sense if one has a choice to arbitrarily choose one zone. I think the only or most common way to reach Antarctica is via Cristchurch, New Zealand, at least I know it is via this route for scientists of NASA and other US projects. This is my best explanation. If I learn anything more on this, I'll let you know! 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 eugen at leitl.org Sun Jun 4 15:37:40 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 17:37:40 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) In-Reply-To: <4052.81.152.102.14.1149420694.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <4052.81.152.102.14.1149420694.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060604153740.GS28956@leitl.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 01:31:34PM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > I wonder how much we can simply do away with tying the cyclic part of time > (days and years) to cyclic natural phenomena. On the moon days do not Well, there already is TAI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time upon which UTC is defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC > work, so it is not too hard to have a clock unlinked to nature. On Mars, > sols probably do matter for most probes and visitors, so the clock need to > be linked. What we need is a number of synchronized high-precision oscillators driving a time standard, normalized for absolute rest and for flat spacetime. -- 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 sentience at pobox.com Sun Jun 4 16:33:26 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:33:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Two draft papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and biases Message-ID: <44830B56.3080003@pobox.com> These are drafts of my chapters for Nick Bostrom's forthcoming edited volume _Global Catastrophic Risks_. I may not have much time for further editing, but if anyone discovers any gross mistakes, then there's still time for me to submit changes. The chapters are: _Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks_ http://singinst.org/Biases.pdf An introduction to the field of heuristics and biases - the experimental psychology of reproducible errors of human judgment - with a special focus on global catastrophic risks. However, this paper should be generally useful to anyone who hasn't previously looked into the experimental results on human error. If you're going to read both chapters, I recommend that you read this one first. _Artificial Intelligence and Global Risk_ http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf The new standard introductory material on Friendly AI. Any links to _Creating Friendly AI_ should be redirected here. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jun 4 16:34:29 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 09:34:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606041651.k54Gp9p4020910@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Amara writes > > > Ever wonder what time zones they use in Antarctica? I don't know, but my intuition is that they would use zulu (GMT) everywhere on that continent, same on Luna and Mars. spike From xyz at iq.org Sun Jun 4 21:43:19 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:43:19 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1149457399.16089.263023749@webmail.messagingengine.com> I throughly recommend the blog bigdeadplace.com for anyone considering visiting Antarctica. Fantastic! On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 13:43:35 +0200, "Amara Graps" said: > Here is a blog from a Caltech postdoc who is in Antarctica for > the 'wintover' working on the BICEP experiment, which is a > CMB polarization telescope looking for a particular kind > of polarization. The blog is fun and the borealis gorgeous. > > http://bmode.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/spblog05 > (click on the "new link") > > Amara > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From xyz at iq.org Sun Jun 4 22:15:03 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 08:15:03 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 06:52:10 +0100, "Russell Wallace" said: > The truth is there isn't going to be any Singularity, in the usual > definition of the word; Jesus isn't coming anytime soon, nor is Great > Cthulhu, nor is their replacement in the AI mythology. What is and will > remain true is that we can keep going up, or we can go down. If we go up > we > go up, just as was true in the Cambrian explosion, the Neolithic, the > Industrial Revolution etc (none of which events wiped out life on Earth, > you > may notice :)); if we go down, we die. I say we go up, and look to life, > not > death. What say you? WW1 and WW2 were the bastard sons of the industrial revolution and WWIII was close, although there's an interesting argument that these were the result of stuffing development into a sack (nation state) which eventually burst its confines and wouldn't have happened if the sack was a sieve. There won't be Singularity (note capital S), unless there is a sacking of a substantial new energy input which is hard to envisage. The effects of intelligence are otherwise limited to optimisations on energy inputs and we're not so far from the thermodynamic limit already. From sentience at pobox.com Sun Jun 4 22:38:25 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:38:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> Harry Harrison wrote: > The effects of intelligence are otherwise limited to optimisations on > energy inputs and we're not so far from the thermodynamic limit > already. *Blink blink*. Er, there's a star nearby wasting more power per second than we use in a year... And the brain is around six orders of magnitude below thermodynamic efficiency limits for 300 Kelvin... Did you mean something nonobvious by your statement? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Jun 4 22:57:07 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 15:57:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:38:25PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Harry Harrison wrote: > > The effects of intelligence are otherwise limited to optimisations on > > energy inputs and we're not so far from the thermodynamic limit > > already. The Singularity of the evolution of Homo sapiens probably had more to do with structural changes and developing language than with simply using more energy. Then again, I'm skeptical that any phase changes like that exist in the future. OTOH, digital intelligence, with benefits of long life and copying and cognitive engineering might well give something one could call a Singularity. > And the brain is around six orders of magnitude below thermodynamic > efficiency limits for 300 Kelvin... Six? I get 3-5. Thermo limits of about 1e22 J kTln2*bits/s = power 1.38e-23*300*.693 * bits/s = 20 Brain: 1e14 synapses at 1e3 Hz = 1e17 ops/second, with an "op" probably being more than a bit/s, so up to 1e19 bits/s. Even 3 orders of magnitude offers a lot of room for growth, of course; OTOH I'd wonder if they can actually be safely tapped, or if doing so increases error rate, or if the brain is doing more than anticipated (hi, glial cells) -xx- Damien X-) From sentience at pobox.com Sun Jun 4 23:37:16 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 16:37:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> Message-ID: <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> Damien Sullivan wrote: > >>And the brain is around six orders of magnitude below thermodynamic >>efficiency limits for 300 Kelvin... > > Six? I get 3-5. Thermo limits of about 1e22 J > kTln2*bits/s = power > 1.38e-23*300*.693 * bits/s = 20 > > Brain: 1e14 synapses at 1e3 Hz = 1e17 ops/second, with an "op" probably > being more than a bit/s, so up to 1e19 bits/s. My computation was based on 1e14 synapses firing an *average* of 20 spikes per second. Not every neural circuit is active all the time, and 1e3 is not realistic even as the rate of a maximally activated neuron, except in special cases. Reality check: a traveling spike involves many ions being released from the cell membrane, traveling with the potential grade, then painstakingly pumped back in against the potential grade. It's not firing that takes the energy, it's preparation to fire. If I recall correctly, it takes one ATP->ADP reaction per ion pumped against the grade. And I would expect much more than a thousand ions released per total synaptic spike. So the inefficiency relative to the thermodynamic limit is surely more than just three orders of magnitude. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jun 5 00:10:58 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 02:10:58 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) In-Reply-To: <20060604153740.GS28956@leitl.org> References: <4052.81.152.102.14.1149420694.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060604153740.GS28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <38767.86.143.246.157.1149466258.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 01:31:34PM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: >> work, so it is not too hard to have a clock unlinked to nature. On Mars, >> sols probably do matter for most probes and visitors, so the clock need >> to >> be linked. > > What we need is a number of synchronized high-precision oscillators > driving a time standard, normalized for absolute rest and for flat > spacetime. We need that for some applications, but for everyday applications a calender is mostly used to coordinate the cyclic social activity of humans. Even today, with electric light, fast global communications, melatonin and a 24-hour society we still have fairly strong periodicities that are hard to skip (hence the failure of most polyphasic sleep programs). Sleepless transhumans might dispense with it and just view time as progressing linearly onwards, but mixed human-transhuman societies would still have cyclicities that need to be managed. It could also be that some processes in society are better done according to set periodicities than continously or "just in time", a bit like how periodic hormone release might have positive effects in the body (one theory suggests that sharp spike trains of insulin concentration allows efficient signalling without the problems of persistently high concentration). -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jun 5 00:41:08 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 02:41:08 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> Message-ID: <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Reality check: a traveling spike involves many ions being released from > the cell membrane, traveling with the potential grade, then > painstakingly pumped back in against the potential grade. It's not > firing that takes the energy, it's preparation to fire. If I recall > correctly, it takes one ATP->ADP reaction per ion pumped against the > grade. Actually, it is three sodium out and two potassium in per ATP. A very cool little pump. And indeed, it seems to be the main energy cost of the brain - the spike is just a release of the spring. > And I would expect much more than a thousand ions released per > total synaptic spike. Surprisingly enough, it is on the order of 100,000 ions. Much more than a thousand, but still far far from moles. The Wikipedia gives a calculations for a higher upper bound for a somewhat big spike, 50 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_potential#The_number_of_ions_involved_in_generating_the_resting_potential > So the inefficiency relative to the thermodynamic > limit is surely more than just three orders of magnitude. The Brillouin inequality is only about information erasure. Many of the brain computations may be rather information-preserving. A synaptic signal for example, if perfect, would not cost any thermodynamic cost for erasure. In practice the release probability is 10-30% according to Markram and Tsodyks ( http://diwww.epfl.ch/~gerstner/SPNM/node33.html ), so that would be on average 2-3 bits of erasure per synapse and signal. Hmm, around 8e14 synapses with an average population of 1-10% neurons firing at 1-100 Hz. That makes 1e9-1e12 firings affecting 8e12-8e15 synapses. At a cost of 2.4e-21 - 3.6e-21 J this is 1.9e-8 - 2.8e-5 W. So I get five-six order of magnitude for this with the most pessimistic calculation. Going backwards, we would have an allowance of 1.6e11 bits/s per neuron and 20e6 bits/s per synapse if all the energy use was for computation. Given a maximal input/output rate of the nervous system on the order of gigabits per second, this seems rather high. Ah, the Brillouin inequality, synaptic release probability and singularity all in one thread. It feels good to be on the Extropians list again! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jun 5 01:22:39 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 03:22:39 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Collective Singularities (Was: Desirability of Singularity) In-Reply-To: <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> Message-ID: <39911.86.143.246.157.1149470559.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:38:25PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >> Harry Harrison wrote: >> > The effects of intelligence are otherwise limited to optimisations on >> > energy inputs and we're not so far from the thermodynamic limit >> > already. > > The Singularity of the evolution of Homo sapiens probably had more to do > with structural changes and developing language than with simply using > more energy. Then again, I'm skeptical that any phase changes like that > exist in the future. OTOH, digital intelligence, with benefits of long > life and copying and cognitive engineering might well give something one > could call a Singularity. The "language singularity" was really about rapid spread of information and cumulative storage of it within human groups. Possibly we could speak of a second "writing singularity" too when the cumulative storage got more resilient - that really accelerated huamn growth, although the adjoining (and somewhat earlier) introduction of agriculture enabling and stimulating human population growth helped a lot. So maybe we can look for factors increasing individual cognitive capacity, increasing the knowledge/ability accumulation, decrease cooperation overheads and increase cooperation synergies. And increased total population. Increasing individual cognitive capacity has a big multiplicative effect on the economy, according to some of my current analysis (stay tuned :-). Just a small increase (a few points) in "mean IQ" would imply a doubling. On the other hand, we do not know how easy that is to achieve - in terms of nootropics we have no clue, yet we might have environmental Flynn effect like phenomena right now. I guess this is the core of the traditional singularity scenario, everybody becomes really smart. Increasing accumulation seems to be getting better, since we are approaching a world where everything people experience gets recorded, becomes distributable and searchable. We have a bit to go (6e9 people x 1e10 bits/s = 6e19 bit/s of raw sensorium, a 1 megapixel 24 bit 1000 Hz gnatbot eye every square meter of Earth is 1e25 bit/s). Today we produce a few exabytes formal information (paper, digital etc) per year, just about 3e11 bit/s. Just 8 orders of magnitude of discrepancy between human experience and what is being made storable. Maybe the next singularity will not be about intelligence per se, but just very good storage and search. A Google singularity, where the effective intelligence of humanity is amplified just by a very good collective memory able to learn from collective experience efficiently. Decreasing cooperation overheads not only allows more efficient cooperation but also larger cooperative groups, enabling larger skillsets to be applied. This might enable dealing with new parts of problem space. An open source singularity? Increased cooperation synergies would mean that we also get better at cooperating like the previous case, but also receive stronger incentives to cooperate. This might be the borganism or EarthWeb take on the singularity. Finally we have larger population: more raw brainpower. The non-hard takeoff AI singularity and Robin's upload economy fit in here: more brains and creators can be made as desired and needed. These are all very collectivist singularities involving lots of agents rather than the apotheosis of the hard takeoff. I guess they are "swells" rather than "spikes". It seems worthwhile to try to figure out which of these factors might be most amenable to being changed in the near future; right now the obvious money is on storage, but I don't know how well data mining will be able to scale along it. The intelligence factor might be tricky but is being studied rather intently. Reduced overhads and increased synergies might be the wildcards: they are in line with many internet phenomena and much work in human computer interfaces, management and spontaneous orders, but it seems rather unpredictable whether we will get any breakthroughs (maybe they can be measured in terms of the tech driven productivity growth that isn't attributable to individual performance increases?). The population singularity is far off right now, it will become relevant only when infomorphs start to have nontrivial brainpower but will then take off very fast. The desirability of these collective singularities probably depends quite a bit on the particular kind. I find Robins upload economy a bit worrying (awfully high Gini coefficient there), the cooperation enabling singularities might be very nice or borg vs. borg, the high intelligence/capability individual one might be messy due to rare but highly destructive individuals, and the google singularity might be a transparent world, something simultaneously goodbad. In general I think my optimism is based on the assumption/historical observation that on the whole humanity produces more wealth (both material, intellectual and emotional) than it destroys and that past singularities (if we call them that) have amplified this process. This may be because they were guided by human interests, and the next might have significant nonhuman actors with nonhuman interests. However, since it is a good chance that these actors will at least at the start be influenced by (or even imprinted on) human values even that situation has a fairly nonzero chance of being along previous lines. I guess the key question here is to identify some of the more clear attractors that are nasty and find proactionary ways of avoiding them. Just as Frindly AI is about avoiding a nasty hard takeoff singularity we might want to come up with "friendly borganism" or "compassionate upload wage slavery" to fix other potential attractors. :-) -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon Jun 5 01:56:30 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:56:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Collective Singularities (Was: Desirability of Singularity) In-Reply-To: <39911.86.143.246.157.1149470559.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <39911.86.143.246.157.1149470559.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060605015630.GA12441@ofb.net> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:22:39AM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Damien Sullivan wrote: > > The Singularity of the evolution of Homo sapiens probably had more to do > > with structural changes and developing language than with simply using > > more energy. Then again, I'm skeptical that any phase changes like that > > exist in the future. OTOH, digital intelligence, with benefits of long > The "language singularity" was really about rapid spread of information > and cumulative storage of it within human groups. Possibly we could speak For practical purposes, yeah. I was thinking of the jump to being approximately Turing-complete, though, being able to be arbitrarily precise and complex in our reference to the world, including references to past and future and things not present, and ability to trade complex instructions. Biologists like to talk about gradualism, but computer science actually gives us some hard jumps, and reasons for humans and dogs to not be on the same plane. It doesn't encourage belief in a plane above ours, though. As for energy efficiency of the brain, I don't know. Even my numbers gave three orders of magnitude, yeah. An evolutionist might suspect we're missing something: is anything else in biology that thermodynamically crappy? Metabolism compares well to our heat engines, AFAIK. Plants turn about 1% of sunlight into sugars but I suspect they're limited by the difficulty of extracting CO2 from 1/10,000 concentrations -- CO2 as the rate limiter, not energy, though one could wonder why nitrogen wasn't sucked out and used as a storage mechanism. But computation is a millionth of potential limits? -xx- Damien X-) From george at betterhumans.com Mon Jun 5 01:51:48 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 21:51:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Collective Singularities (Was: Desirability of Singularity) In-Reply-To: <39911.86.143.246.157.1149470559.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <39911.86.143.246.157.1149470559.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <44838E34.4000204@betterhumans.com> > Increasing individual cognitive capacity has a big multiplicative effect > on the economy, according to some of my current analysis (stay tuned :-). While I'm sure that there's some truth to your analysis, one factor you must be sure to consider is the impact of wide scale under-employment. Already today the cognitive demands of work isn't matching what many people are truly capable of (ie people are over-educated relative to their jobs). In the future, I can imagine more of the same; just because you have groups of populations with high IQs doesn't mean that the cognitive demands of jobs will follow accordingly. Cheers, George From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Jun 5 02:06:25 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:06:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A party, at last Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060604220554.076bd7f8@unreasonable.com> Somehow I managed to not have a quarterly party last year. With a birthday coming up that is a round number in both hex and octal, it's about frinking time. My version of Sasha's old gatherings. If you are going to be in the Boston area, you're welcome to attend. There's crash-space here, if you need it. You may be able to get a ride from NYC or other parts south; use the exi-east list or me to coordinate. If you're not around but coming to town in the future, let us know. We can usually lure a quorum of Bostropians. My house. Hudson, New Hampshire. A couple miles from the MA border and the Nashua malls. Roughly 20 minutes north of Rt. 128. Saturday, June 24. 2 PM until the last person not me leaves. OK to arrive late if you have other commitments; most everyone will still be here. Anyone on this list is specifically invited. If you have someone else in mind, run it by me. It will probably be okay, whether you're able to come or not. Additionally, I will invite a few friends-of-extropy, such as sf writer, nano, LP, MIT, Alcor types. Bring to augment existing: food, drink; musical instruments; interesting stuff to show people. We'll order Chinese food at some point. RSVP to me and the exi-east list. -- David Lubkin. lubkin at unreasonable.com From amara at amara.com Mon Jun 5 02:34:23 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 04:34:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) Message-ID: Harry Harrison xyz at iq.org : >I throughly recommend the blog bigdeadplace.com for anyone considering >visiting Antarctica. Fantastic! There's a book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0922915997/ (That web site: http://bigdeadplace.com/ is now only an archive) but you can look at (more) real life, as well: http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/WinterDC.html Amara From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jun 5 02:44:08 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 04:44:08 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Collective Singularities (Was: Desirability of Singularity) In-Reply-To: <20060605015630.GA12441@ofb.net> References: <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <39911.86.143.246.157.1149470559.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060605015630.GA12441@ofb.net> Message-ID: <40820.86.143.246.157.1149475448.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Sullivan wrote: > For practical purposes, yeah. I was thinking of the jump to being > approximately Turing-complete, though, being able to be arbitrarily > precise and complex in our reference to the world, including references > to past and future and things not present, and ability to trade complex > instructions. Biologists like to talk about gradualism, but computer > science actually gives us some hard jumps, and reasons for humans and > dogs to not be on the same plane. I think the jump is more like a sigmoid, but still sharp enough to be dramatic. Working memory puts a bit of a limit on the Turing-completeness - we are 7+-2 register machines :-) > It doesn't encourage belief in a plane above ours, though. Yes, I have tried to bring it up around the philosophers here but with no luck yet (mostly, likely, because of me phrasing my question badly). From an ethical standpoint this is relevant, since if there is nothing above us then if moral is something that can be discovered or deduced all posthumans will be equivalent in potential understanding of morality. But maybe there are moral truths or decisions that can only be reached using quantum computing? (OK, that is likely just an exponential speedup, not something new). > As for energy efficiency of the brain, I don't know. Even my numbers > gave three orders of magnitude, yeah. An evolutionist might suspect > we're missing something: is anything else in biology that > thermodynamically crappy? Metabolism compares well to our heat engines, > AFAIK. Plants turn about 1% of sunlight into sugars but I suspect > they're limited by the difficulty of extracting CO2 from 1/10,000 > concentrations -- CO2 as the rate limiter, not energy, though one could > wonder why nitrogen wasn't sucked out and used as a storage mechanism. Probably too inert as a gas, breaking its triple bonds costs a lot and nitrogen fixation is expensive. > But computation is a millionth of potential limits? We may not have needed much for most of evolution and are now trapped in a bad solution like the insect trachea. Ion pumps and channels as transmission mechanisms are extremely old, probably far far before precambrium and with single-celled precursors. Our ancestors may have run into that alley a billion years ago, when it was no problem. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jun 5 02:56:10 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 04:56:10 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Collective Singularities (Was: Desirability of Singularity) In-Reply-To: <44838E34.4000204@betterhumans.com> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <39911.86.143.246.157.1149470559.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <44838E34.4000204@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <40915.86.143.246.157.1149476170.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> George Dvorsky wrote: >> Increasing individual cognitive capacity has a big multiplicative effect >> on the economy, according to some of my current analysis (stay tuned >> :-). > > While I'm sure that there's some truth to your analysis, one factor you > must be sure to consider is the impact of wide scale under-employment. > Already today the cognitive demands of work isn't matching what many > people are truly capable of (ie people are over-educated relative to > their jobs). In the future, I can imagine more of the same; just because > you have groups of populations with high IQs doesn't mean that the > cognitive demands of jobs will follow accordingly. Having overeducated people in simple jobs suggests that there isn't enough entrepreneurship, venture capital or whatever for them to find new niches; I don't think that is an unavoidable consequence of too much brainpower. Maybe it is rather a sign that we have too little economic flexibility (individually and societally). One approach to estimate the use of higher IQ for GDP is to look at correlations between IQ and salaries, and then do a bit of extrapolation (adding in changes in probability of holding a job, some lowered social costs for prisons and poorhouses etc). Those are based on a status quo assumption about the structure of the economy, so they might not hold very far into the future (I would also love to have a way of including a competition factor in such models). Another is to look at the productivity residual and assume some of it is due to technological ability increase; that produces a multiplicative factor that is probably a more robus mixture of lots of smaller factors. A third, and honestly fairly iffy approach, is to base it on http://www.iapsych.com/articles/dickerson2006ip.pdf that suggests that national IQ is multiplicative of GDP. Here the cause and effect are likely tightly meshed and the raw data is suspect, so this should be taken with a ton of salt. But overall, the impression I get is that higher intelligence overall produces a big effect on the overall economy, even if it might be just a smaller group that does most of the smart work. A bit like Florida's creative and service classes: if the creatives are smart and productive enough, it doesn't matter that most others do macjobs. The entire economy grows fast anyway. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon Jun 5 02:47:30 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 22:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Simplifying Singularity Message-ID: <20060605024730.37529.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anna wrote "Singularity is a moment in time when technology will change the course of humanity forever." Is this better? "The Singularity may be a moment in time when a new technology may change the course of humanity forever". Again, still trying to to find a sentence that the average joe may understand. Thanks for taking your time Lee and Keith. Anna Any piece of knowledge I acquire today has a value at this moment exactly proportioned to my skill to deal with it. Tomorrow, when I know more, I recall that piece of knowledge and use it better. -Mark van Doren --------------------------------- Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon Jun 5 03:48:09 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 20:48:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Truths (was Collective Singularities) In-Reply-To: <40820.86.143.246.157.1149475448.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: Anders writes > Damien Sullivan wrote: > > For practical purposes, yeah. I was thinking of the jump to being > > approximately Turing-complete, though, being able to be arbitrarily > > precise and complex in our reference to the world, including references > > to past and future and things not present, Just to be clear, you [Damien] are saying humans achieved Turing completeness (well, at least as much as any error-prone physical device can) quite a long time ago. I agree. > > It doesn't encourage belief in a plane above ours, though. > > Yes, I have tried to bring it up around the philosophers here but with no > luck yet I assume that I'm correctly assuming that we have no inkling of any level level of computability beyond the most general one we are familiar with, and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to suppose that no such level exists. > From an ethical standpoint this is relevant, since if there is nothing > above us then if moral is something that can be discovered or deduced > all posthumans will be equivalent in potential understanding of morality. Do you in fact believe that what is moral can be deduced or discovered? If so, why? I must say that to me, the entire notion of evolutionary- independent morality is extremely dubious. > But maybe there are moral truths or decisions that can only be reached > using quantum computing? Well, until you persuade me that moral truths exist at all, this will continue to sound pretty silly :-) Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon Jun 5 03:51:10 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 20:51:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Collective Singularities In-Reply-To: <40915.86.143.246.157.1149476170.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: Anders writes > George Dvorsky wrote: > >> Increasing individual cognitive capacity has a big multiplicative effect > >> on the economy, according to some of my current analysis (stay tuned > >> :-). > > > > While I'm sure that there's some truth to your analysis, one factor you > > must be sure to consider is the impact of wide scale under-employment. > > Already today the cognitive demands of work isn't matching what many > > people are truly capable of (ie people are over-educated relative to > > their jobs). In the future, I can imagine more of the same; just because > > you have groups of populations with high IQs doesn't mean that the > > cognitive demands of jobs will follow accordingly. > > Having overeducated people in simple jobs suggests that there isn't enough > entrepreneurship, venture capital or whatever for them to find new niches; > I don't think that is an unavoidable consequence of too much brainpower. > Maybe it is rather a sign that we have too little economic flexibility > (individually and societally). Anders knocks the ball out of the park! (To use an American expression.) Omigod! I can't find anything whatsoever to disagree with here. And I swore that I'd never write a "me too" post. Huzza. Lee > One approach to estimate the use of higher IQ for GDP is to look at > correlations between IQ and salaries, and then do a bit of extrapolation > (adding in changes in probability of holding a job, some lowered social > costs for prisons and poorhouses etc). Those are based on a status quo > assumption about the structure of the economy, so they might not hold very > far into the future (I would also love to have a way of including a > competition factor in such models). > > Another is to look at the productivity residual and assume some of it is > due to technological ability increase; that produces a multiplicative > factor that is probably a more robust mixture of lots of smaller factors. > > A third, and honestly fairly iffy approach, is to base it on > http://www.iapsych.com/articles/dickerson2006ip.pdf that suggests that > national IQ is multiplicative of GDP. Here the cause and effect are likely > tightly meshed and the raw data is suspect, so this should be taken with a > ton of salt. > > But overall, the impression I get is that higher intelligence overall > produces a big effect on the overall economy, even if it might be just a > smaller group that does most of the smart work. A bit like Florida's > creative and service classes: if the creatives are smart and productive > enough, it doesn't matter that most others do macjobs. The entire economy > grows fast anyway. > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jun 5 03:34:17 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 20:34:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200606050348.k553msdn004742@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg .. > > Ah, the Brillouin inequality, synaptic release probability and singularity > all in one thread. It feels good to be on the Extropians list again! > > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University It's great to have you back Anders. Your sig line has the word Oxford in there twice. Is this an intentional redundancy? {8-] spike From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon Jun 5 03:57:15 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 20:57:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Simplifying Singularity In-Reply-To: <20060605024730.37529.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anna writes > Is this better? > "The Singularity may be a moment in time when a new technology > may change the course of humanity forever". Sorry, it's not. I mean (1) it *will* change the course, but (2) a lot of other things have also. So it gives the mistaken impression that technology changing the course of humanity hasn't happened before. Or a lot. Maybe something like: "The Singularity will see a new technology may changing the course of humanity with unprecedented speed." > Again, still trying to find a sentence that the average Joe > may understand. Good luck! > Thanks for taking your time Lee and Keith. You are quite welcome. Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jun 5 04:01:59 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 21:01:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Almaden Institute 2006, Cognitive Computing In-Reply-To: <48D4E4B7-5A0D-4EBF-8AB9-484BB161629B@singinst.org> References: <48D4E4B7-5A0D-4EBF-8AB9-484BB161629B@singinst.org> Message-ID: <22360fa10606042101q9452af4ycc2e20f059c48f8a@mail.gmail.com> Forwarding item of general interest to the Extropy list. - Jef ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tyler Emerson Date: Jun 4, 2006 8:02 PM Subject: Almaden Institute 2006, Cognitive Computing To: sl4 at sl4.org, wta-talk at transhumanism.org Video and presentations from Almaden Institute's Cognitive Computing Conference: http://www.almaden.ibm.com/institute/agenda.shtml Gerald Edelman, Henry Markram, Christof Koch, Robert Hecht-Nielsen, Jeff Hawkins, V. S. Ramachandran et al. From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Jun 5 03:30:56 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:30:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A party, at last Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060604233024.06bd5298@unreasonable.com> Two minutes after I post, I realize that that day and the following Saturday are both encompassed by this years PorcFest. Is there anyone who (a) would be able to come to the party if it didn't conflict or, contrawise, (b) can come if I move it to a weekday for once, just before or just after PorcFest, because they've come from afar for that or, widdershins, (c) would *prefer* that it conflict with PorcFest, to avoid those who would otherwise attend? -- David. From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jun 5 04:09:13 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 21:09:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution and bee tracheas In-Reply-To: <40820.86.143.246.157.1149475448.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200606050409.k5549xuf020398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg ... > > > But computation is a millionth of potential limits? > > We may not have needed much for most of evolution and are now trapped in a > bad solution like the insect trachea... > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University Interesting comment. I am trying to establish some bee colonies in Oregon. The beekeepers there are fighting an infestation of mites that get into the bee's trachea. The mites do not actually slay the bee, but rather control their numbers while living on the bee's blood. This makes her sick and unable to work as hard as she would otherwise. This is a double tragedy for a bee, for she then loses her identity in a sense, like a slow cheetah or a shark with a finicky appetite. http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/PDFs/Tracheal.pdf The real tragedy is that there are no bugs that get inside mosquitoes and devour those wretched beasts from the inside. I propose we design a bug or nanobot that devours only mosquito proboscises. The result would be billions of mosquitoes buzzing harmlessly about with big stupid proboscisless looks on their faces. spike From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon Jun 5 04:27:28 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 21:27:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Good In-Reply-To: <22360fa10606031909j4f241e46v93e32e2cd190a71f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef writes > Increasing awareness of principles of what works (increasingly > objective scientific/instrumental knowledge), applied to increasing > awareness of our (increasingly intersubjective) values that work over > increasing scope, leads to what is seen as increasingly moral > decision-making. May I paraphrase? You "what works" always sounds as though it favors expediency and the end over the means. Since you don't mean that, my advice is to stop using the phrase; believe me, you'll have a lot better luck doing that than trying to *persuade* people to stop using words the way they presently do, and start using them the way you do. "Increasing awareness of principles of objective scientific/ instrumental knowledge, applied to increasing awareness of our values, leads to ever greater moral decision-making. "It should also be said that over time our values become more and more intersubjective, and are applicable over a larger scope." :-) This allows folks to read what you write without going on a conscious hunt for the verb! You might add something to mollify those, like me, who deny that anything is objectively moral, and so might be prone to dismiss what you are saying out of hand: "Here it is understood that by "moral" is meant that which is in maximal agreement with what is deemed moral by most religions and cultures, and appears to be innately human", or something like that. > The practical application of that understanding is that it becomes > clear that (1) we *can* increasingly agree on certain choices being > better than other choices, and (2) we *should* facilitate this process > of increasingly moral decision-making by intentionally building a > technological framework to increase our awareness of our values and > our instrumental knowledge and apply them to social decision-making. Well, what kind of technological framework could increase our awareness of our collective human values? > I wish I knew how to factor out (to abstract) all those > "increasing's", but it's all about evolutionary growth and the Red > Queen would agree that standing still is never an option. Well, that's where maybe I've helped! :-) > I do intend to write a more thorough exposition of this "Arrow of > Morality" thinking, and I value your interaction as contributing to > making my message clearer. You are welcome. Lee P.S. More later. From amara at amara.com Mon Jun 5 04:55:21 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 06:55:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution and bee tracheas Message-ID: spike: >The real tragedy is that there are no bugs that get inside mosquitoes >and devour those wretched beasts from the inside. I propose we design a >bug or nanobot that devours only mosquito proboscises. Wasps have a handle on cockroaches though. http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/03/wasp_performs_roachb.html Maybe the mosquito scientists haven't looked hard enough to find mosquito zombies. 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/ ******************************************************************** "My life has a superb cast but I can't figure out the plot." --Ashleigh Brilliant From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jun 5 10:05:27 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:05:27 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Truths (was Collective Singularities) In-Reply-To: References: <40820.86.143.246.157.1149475448.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <1306.163.1.72.81.1149501927.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Lee Corbin wrote: > I assume that I'm correctly assuming that we have no inkling of any level > level of computability beyond the most general one we are familiar with, > and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to suppose that no such level > exists. Actually, there is a whole menagerie of hypercomputing. It is just that we don't know how (or if we can) do it: http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/many-forms.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/math/papers/0209/0209332.pdf >> From an ethical standpoint this is relevant, since if there is nothing >> above us then if moral is something that can be discovered or deduced >> all posthumans will be equivalent in potential understanding of >> morality. > > Do you in fact believe that what is moral can be deduced or discovered? > If so, why? I must say that to me, the entire notion of evolutionary- > independent morality is extremely dubious. Well, on alternate weeks I am positive about this, otherwise I doubt it. Obviously some aspects of morality are evolution independent like the demand that it be self-consistent (an inconsistent morality leads to dilemma situations; an otherwise similar morality without dilemmas would at least be more efficient to apply). However, I think most of these aspects are fairly trivial (others disagree). If morality is derived from evolution then we need practical intelligence to discover and apply it, since clearly just relying on evolved moral intuitions will be problematic when we get outside of our environment of adaptation. >> But maybe there are moral truths or decisions that can only be reached >> using quantum computing? > > Well, until you persuade me that moral truths exist at all, this will > continue to sound pretty silly :-) Suppose we speak about "practical moral truths" in the sense of "if you do this, things will usually be good". One can see them as policy functions in reinforcement learning that maximize some utility function for you (i.e. we leave out the issue of what that utility ought to be, which is what most moral philosophers would likely consider real morality). Some "truths" of this kind are heuristics of how to handle prisoners dilemma situations, whether to cheat or not, or how one ought to deal with unjust government. Clearly finding answers to such questions (even when merely assuming a particular utility function) can be arbitrarily complex. Hence there are likely practical moral truths that we cannot deduce using mere Turing computation but actually would need something more powerful to get at. (The idea of an "inner voice" in Christianity and Socrates is amusingly like Turing-Oracle machines, where there is a black box that gives hyperturing help) -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jun 5 10:31:56 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:31:56 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution and bee tracheas In-Reply-To: <200606050409.k5549xuf020398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <40820.86.143.246.157.1149475448.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606050409.k5549xuf020398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1567.163.1.72.81.1149503516.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: > http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/PDFs/Tracheal.pdf Amazing and nasty little critters. > The real tragedy is that there are no bugs that get inside mosquitoes and > devour those wretched beasts from the inside. I propose we design a bug > or > nanobot that devours only mosquito proboscises. The result would be > billions of mosquitoes buzzing harmlessly about with big stupid > proboscisless looks on their faces. Apparently the mosquitos do have enemies. http://pested.unl.edu/catmans/public/chapter3.pdf mentions Mermithid nematodes as killing up to 80% of all mosquito larvae. But it is hard to mass-produce, since it has to be grown in larvae. http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu/imagemap/nemmap/ent156html/nemas/romanomermisculicivorax The microbe Amblyospora californica is even cooler. http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2004/2/sexsidebar.cfm mentions that it infects mosquito larvae, kills *male* larvae and places spores in the corpse. Then the corpse gets eaten by a crustacean, and the microbe takes over its ovaries if it is female to produce more spores. Makes a nice Species to go with the Alien of the Mermithids. Seems we already have something to go on to create the embarrassing and efficient mosquitovore. But I would also like to promote the idea of injectable mosquito poisons. Imagine filling up people with some insecticide that killed or (better) sterilizied mosquitos. It is not just a revenge, but an evolutionary pressure on the species to focus on other mammals. Mosquitos are fine as long as they only harass the elks. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jun 5 10:49:07 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:49:07 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxford ( Was: Desirability of Singularity ) In-Reply-To: <200606050348.k553msdn004742@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606050348.k553msdn004742@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1621.163.1.72.81.1149504547.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: >> Anders Sandberg, >> Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics >> Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University > > It's great to have you back Anders. Your sig line has the word Oxford in > there twice. Is this an intentional redundancy? It is probably an echo of the era when I had a double .sig :-) Redundancy is the essence of the Oxford academic experience. I had never realized how informal and flexible Sweden was till I got here. I enjoy the university bureaucracy as a kind of cultural heritage not unlike the gothic buildings in the city - impractical, but interesting if you have the time. To clear out where I am: I work for the EU ENHANCE project, which is shared between several groups (in Bristol, Maastricht, Milan and Stockholm). My part is under the Uehiro Centre, which in turn is a part of the Philosophy Faculty. So far so good. Here is the complicating factor: part of the Uehiro Centre is also part of the James Martin 21st Century School as the Programme on Ethics of the New Biosciences. The School is a cluster of projects in the university funded by a big donation. Another part of it is the Future of Humanity Institute, Nick Bostrom's place (also under the philosophy faculty). It is physically located on the next floor, and in practice working together with the Uehiro centre. I'm associate there too. To further complicate things, the Uehiro centre is part of *another* big project, the OXCSOM (Oxford Centre for Science of the Mind) that includes the departments of Anatomy, Pharmacology, Philosophy, Physiology and Theology (!). I'm actually not a part of it formally, but in practice I work for the Pharmacology department off-hours. Have you drawn your Venn diagrams yet? :-) In the end, it is all a big bundle (katamari?) of confusing project and institute loyalties. I love it here. Did I mention that redundancy is the essence of the Oxford academic experience? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From amara at amara.com Mon Jun 5 12:28:20 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:28:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) Message-ID: >The time zone assignments might not be for any physical reason, but for >convenience instead, based on travel connections. MB: My guess was right. See the end of the comments of this thread: http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/29/to-the-ends-of-the-earth/ -- ******************************************************************** 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 eugen at leitl.org Mon Jun 5 12:34:51 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:34:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <8d71341e0606011928t7ddc56d2l34930e5cad4b932d@mail.gmail.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <20060605123451.GE28956@leitl.org> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:15:03AM +1000, Harry Harrison wrote: > There won't be Singularity (note capital S), unless there is a sacking of a substantial new energy input which is hard to envisage. The effects of intelligence are otherwise limited to optimisations on energy inputs and we're not so far from the thermodynamic limit already. I have three quibbles with that. We already have a free, clean wireless source of fusion power. All is needed is a cheap antenna. Things are even better only slightly higher in this gravity well. Human designs are ridiculously energy-inefficient, biology shows what's practically feasible -- though by no means being the end of the line. Solid state civilisations are mostly about computation, and computation has very few practical limits (with reversible computation, even not thermodynamics). -- 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 rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Jun 5 13:47:53 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:47:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Collective Singularities In-Reply-To: References: <40915.86.143.246.157.1149476170.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060605093839.024a27f8@gmu.edu> On 6/4/2006, Lee Corbin answers Anders Sandberg answering George Dvorsky: > > >> Increasing individual cognitive capacity has a big multiplicative effect > > >> on the economy, according to some of my current analysis (stay tuned > >> > > > While I'm sure that there's some truth to your analysis, one factor you > > > must be sure to consider is the impact of wide scale under-employment. > > > Already today the cognitive demands of work isn't matching what many > > > people are truly capable of (ie people are over-educated relative to > > > their jobs). In the future, I can imagine more of the same; just because > > > you have groups of populations with high IQs doesn't mean that the > > > cognitive demands of jobs will follow accordingly. > > > > Having overeducated people in simple jobs suggests that there isn't enough > > entrepreneurship, venture capital or whatever for them to find new niches; > > I don't think that is an unavoidable consequence of too much brainpower. > > Maybe it is rather a sign that we have too little economic flexibility > > (individually and societally). > >Anders knocks the ball out of the park! (To use an American expression.) >Omigod! I can't find anything whatsoever to disagree with here. >And I swore that I'd never write a "me too" post. Huzza. I agree that it doesn't make sense to say people have too high an IQ for their jobs. A higher IQ can make people more productive on just about any job. But as I note in http://hanson.gmu.edu/dreamautarky.html (and as many others have said for a long time) our modern economy demands more cognitive specialization that our minds were designed for. So most people do naturally and correctly feel that their jobs do not exercise most of the cognitive range they are capable of. > > But overall, the impression I get is that higher intelligence overall > > produces a big effect on the overall economy, even if it might be just a > > smaller group that does most of the smart work. A bit like Florida's > > creative and service classes: if the creatives are smart and productive > > enough, it doesn't matter that most others do macjobs. The entire economy > > grows fast anyway. I'm not much of a fan of Florida's work, and have a longer comment on that coming online elsewhere in two days. 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 pharos at gmail.com Mon Jun 5 19:03:19 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 03:03:19 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler 'Engines of Creation' now free online Message-ID: Boing Boing has reported that Drexler's famous book is now available free online. It seems to be only in HTML format at present. The main page has some of Drexler's newer writing available as pdf files. BillK From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 19:17:49 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Ethics In-Reply-To: <22360fa10606020846gc987f55s4c247413fd50d389@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060605191749.61559.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello, Back from a much needed vacation from the simulation-ethics discussion. Looking back over my posts from the last several days, I wanted to apologize to the readers of this list for possibly being a little overly critical or accusative. As I said toward the beginning of this thread, this is a topic I have extremely strong feelings about. I occasionally wish that I could "take back" or erase, certain things that I've written or said in the past. But... our world doesn't really work that way, especially in this Internet Age. I realize that Transhumanists represent a well-meaning set of folks, and I consider myself as frequently agreeing with it's philosophies. I just wanted to offer a quick summary of what my wishes for the future are. I realize that my views aren't really "mainstream", even among Transhumanists, but I hope that as time passes and we draw nearer to the Singularity that there will be a wider respect and appreciation for consciousness, in all of its forms (animal, human, "artificial", and "simulated"). Because after all, there is no hard line that separates any of these four groups. We are all machines!!! :-) Some machines are just purely lucky to be better "designed" and better situated, than others. And consider that any individual taken from any one of the four groups has a *potential* to reach super-intelligence level; I think moral status should not be assigned only based on current intelligence level, it should be considered in view of the fact that any conscious being has the potential to reach a "higher" level of existence. It really is all just about blind luck. And blind luck should *not* be the deciding factor of "who deserves what". My ultimate wish is that when the Singularity finally arrives, there will be something approaching a universal recognition that consciousness (in all it's forms) is something worth cherishing, and worth protecting from abuse. This goal may seem unrealistic to some, but it is not *impossible*, and it certainly seems worthy of attempting. The short-term future in front of us represents a tremendous leverage point from which we can also *possibly* bring subjective happiness to *all* conscious beings who are alive at the time of Singularity. That is the best possible future that I can imagine. Does it bother me that *this* may be a simulation? Sure, of course it does. I find that to be a very unsettling possibility. But even so, we should not allow our fear of the unknown to dictate our moral decision-making, or our advocacy of what is moral and what isn't. At least in my opinion. 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 mstriz at gmail.com Mon Jun 5 20:03:00 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:03:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 6/4/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > And I would expect much more than a thousand ions released per > > total synaptic spike. > > Surprisingly enough, it is on the order of 100,000 ions. Much more than a > thousand, but still far far from moles. Is that really surprising? Typical extra/intracellular chemical concentrations are in the nanomolar range, and only a tiny fraction of that would be involved in the reaction along the axonal membrane. The MW of sodium is 23. Would you expect 23 grams of sodium to be involved in a single spike event? > > So the inefficiency relative to the thermodynamic > > limit is surely more than just three orders of magnitude. > > The Brillouin inequality is only about information erasure. Many of the > brain computations may be rather information-preserving. A synaptic signal > for example, if perfect, would not cost any thermodynamic cost for > erasure. In practice the release probability is 10-30% according to > Markram and Tsodyks ( http://diwww.epfl.ch/~gerstner/SPNM/node33.html ), > so that would be on average 2-3 bits of erasure per synapse and signal. > > Hmm, around 8e14 synapses with an average population of 1-10% neurons > firing at 1-100 Hz. That makes 1e9-1e12 firings affecting 8e12-8e15 > synapses. At a cost of 2.4e-21 - 3.6e-21 J What is the conversion you're using (i.e. J/spike)? How do you derive it? Are you taking the total energy demands of a neuron over time divided by the average number of spikes over the same time? Or are you counting just the thermodynamics of the axon and boutons? > this is 1.9e-8 - 2.8e-5 W. So I > get five-six order of magnitude for this with the most pessimistic > calculation. I'm not sure what you're comparing here, what a neuron could accomplish if all of its energy input were used for computation rather than metabolism (and minimal loss as heat)? Or are you suggesting that there's energy loss somewhere else? Martin From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jun 5 21:15:09 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:15:09 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <51517.86.143.246.157.1149542109.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Martin Striz wrote: > On 6/4/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: >> Hmm, around 8e14 synapses with an average population of 1-10% neurons >> firing at 1-100 Hz. That makes 1e9-1e12 firings affecting 8e12-8e15 >> synapses. At a cost of 2.4e-21 - 3.6e-21 J > > What is the conversion you're using (i.e. J/spike)? How do you derive > it? Are you taking the total energy demands of a neuron over time > divided by the average number of spikes over the same time? Or are > you counting just the thermodynamics of the axon and boutons? The Brillouin inequality states that if you erase one bit of information you have to at least pay an entropy cost of kT ln(2) Joules (where k is Boltzmann's constant and T is the temperature). This is of course a lower bound, being the reduction of entropy a bit erasure represents. A synapse having probability p of failing will on average erase -pln(p)/log(2) bits of information for each signal. Hence N synapses receiving f signals per second will require at least -NfkTp*ln(p) J/s. I find it rather curious that you have to *pay* energy for having unreliable synapses. But it really a cleanup bill, where the presynaptic neuron has to restore itself to its previous state no matter what happens. Of course, the real processes of neurotransmitter and vesicle recycling are much more energy demanding than this minimal cost. >> this is 1.9e-8 - 2.8e-5 W. So I >> get five-six order of magnitude for this with the most pessimistic >> calculation. > > I'm not sure what you're comparing here, what a neuron could > accomplish if all of its energy input were used for computation rather > than metabolism (and minimal loss as heat)? Or are you suggesting > that there's energy loss somewhere else? This would be the energy needed to run a thermodynamically perfect replica of the brain, with neurons not requiring any energy to run and just information erasure losses. In reality there are certainly more energy loss, and even the perfect brain might have a few more entropic losses (signal summation at the soma seems plausible: ~8000 bits of information gets turned into one - that is about the same energy demand as from erasing information at all the synapses). -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon Jun 5 21:23:25 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:23:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: References: <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060605212325.GA2559@ofb.net> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 04:03:00PM -0400, Martin Striz wrote: > I'm not sure what you're comparing here, what a neuron could > accomplish if all of its energy input were used for computation rather > than metabolism (and minimal loss as heat)? Or are you suggesting The brain is 2% of body mass but 20% of body heat; I expect most of the energy is being used for computation, or to maintain readiness to compute. Of course this might be in neurotransmitter recyling as well as in spike trains. -xx- Damien X-) From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Jun 5 21:36:44 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:36:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Antarctica timezone(s) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36770.72.236.103.190.1149543404.squirrel@main.nc.us> > >>The time zone assignments might not be for any physical reason, but for >>convenience instead, based on travel connections. > > MB: My guess was right. See the end of the comments of this thread: > http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/29/to-the-ends-of-the-earth/ > Thanks, Amara! This is all making fascinating reading! Regards, MB From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon Jun 5 21:39:06 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:39:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives Message-ID: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> In light of Bayesian wannabes coming to agree on matters of fact, would a pure population of Bayesian wannabes have use for a derivatives market, or more generally for making bets? Seems the point of a bet (outside of games of pure chance) is the belief that you know more about an outcome than the other guy. But if a Bayesian offers a bet and another Bayesian takes it, seems like both should pause for further thought. Actually, simple knowledge that someone was offering a bet should make the second Bayesian pause to reconsider. Robin? Hal? Help? :) -xx- Damien X-) From mstriz at gmail.com Mon Jun 5 22:08:42 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <51517.86.143.246.157.1149542109.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1F3EB4DD-9E77-4469-81A0-0AE88C017DEF@mac.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <51517.86.143.246.157.1149542109.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 6/5/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > What is the conversion you're using (i.e. J/spike)? How do you derive > > it? Are you taking the total energy demands of a neuron over time > > divided by the average number of spikes over the same time? Or are > > you counting just the thermodynamics of the axon and boutons? > > The Brillouin inequality states that if you erase one bit of information > you have to at least pay an entropy cost of kT ln(2) Joules (where k is > Boltzmann's constant and T is the temperature). This is of course a lower > bound, being the reduction of entropy a bit erasure represents. A synapse > having probability p of failing will on average erase -pln(p)/log(2) bits > of information for each signal. Hence N synapses receiving f signals per > second will require at least -NfkTp*ln(p) J/s. Gotcha, so you're assuming a computational substrate that has zero energy demands other than for information erasure according to the Brillouin inequality. > > I'm not sure what you're comparing here, what a neuron could > > accomplish if all of its energy input were used for computation rather > > than metabolism (and minimal loss as heat)? Or are you suggesting > > that there's energy loss somewhere else? > > This would be the energy needed to run a thermodynamically perfect replica > of the brain, with neurons not requiring any energy to run and just > information erasure losses. Understood now, but what's the point? To say that evolution is X% inefficient with respect to some idealized (and impossible) substrate is rather uninformative. Are you trying to use that as a canonical metric for comparing any future computational substrate? A perfect computational substrate, i.e. one that also has zero information erasure, runs on zero energy. :) Have I said anything interesting? I thought a useful calculation would be to determine how efficient you could make cells for computation, but that of course is unknown. Neurons, as it happens, are probably greater than 90% efficient with respect to /their design/, i.e. there's little heat loss. Martin From sentience at pobox.com Mon Jun 5 22:13:14 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:13:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> References: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> Message-ID: <4484AC7A.4020409@pobox.com> Damien Sullivan wrote: > In light of Bayesian wannabes coming to agree on matters of fact, would > a pure population of Bayesian wannabes have use for a derivatives > market, or more generally for making bets? Seems the point of a bet > (outside of games of pure chance) is the belief that you know more about > an outcome than the other guy. But if a Bayesian offers a bet and > another Bayesian takes it, seems like both should pause for further > thought. Actually, simple knowledge that someone was offering a bet > should make the second Bayesian pause to reconsider. Sounds right to me. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Mon Jun 5 22:20:28 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:20:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> References: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> Message-ID: <4484AE2C.8050402@pobox.com> Damien Sullivan wrote: > In light of Bayesian wannabes coming to agree on matters of fact, would > a pure population of Bayesian wannabes have use for a derivatives > market, or more generally for making bets? Seems the point of a bet > (outside of games of pure chance) is the belief that you know more about > an outcome than the other guy. But if a Bayesian offers a bet and > another Bayesian takes it, seems like both should pause for further > thought. Actually, simple knowledge that someone was offering a bet > should make the second Bayesian pause to reconsider. Actually, let me rephrase: A population of Bayesians only uses derivatives/futures markets to arbitrage their risks, never to speculate. They buy insurance, but only major medical. They buy stocks during the original IPO if they (and everyone else) believe the company can use the inflowing money to make more money. They only sell the stock if it becomes too large a portion of their current assets, or if it develops a risk/benefit probability distribution that, given their utility curve as a function of money, implies that the stock should be sold to someone with a different income profile... Homo economicus, in short. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Jun 5 21:51:59 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:51:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> References: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060605174655.02300d18@gmu.edu> At 05:39 PM 6/5/2006, Damien Sullivan wrote: >In light of Bayesian wannabes coming to agree on matters of fact, would >a pure population of Bayesian wannabes have use for a derivatives >market, or more generally for making bets? Seems the point of a bet >(outside of games of pure chance) is the belief that you know more about >an outcome than the other guy. But if a Bayesian offers a bet and >another Bayesian takes it, seems like both should pause for further >thought. Actually, simple knowledge that someone was offering a bet >should make the second Bayesian pause to reconsider. >Robin? Hal? Help? :) Risk-averse Bayesian wannabes would not make pure bets with each other seeking financial gain. Risk-loving ones might make bets, but only to achieve the risk they want, not because of any disagreement. Derivatives markets supposedly help people to hedge risk, and not just to make bets. And a patron who wanted to get answers to a question might subsidize a betting market, thereby inducing Bayesian wannabes to bet there. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From amara at amara.com Tue Jun 6 01:37:00 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 03:37:00 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Flight of the Lawnchair Man Message-ID: Wow! ---------- http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/walters.asp The incredible flight of Larry Walters, a 33-year-old Vietnam veteran and North Hollywood truck driver with no pilot or balloon training, took place on 2 July 1982. Larry filled 45 weather balloons with helium and tethered them in four tiers to an aluminum lawn chair he purchased at Sears for $110, loading his makeshift aircraft (dubbed the "Inspiration I") with a large bottle of soda, milk jugs full of water for ballast, a pellet gun, a portable CB radio, an altimeter, and a camera. Donning a parachute, Larry climbed into his chair from the roof of his girlfriend's home in San Pedro while two friends stood at the ready to untether the craft. He took off a little earlier than expected, however, when his mooring line was cut by the roof's sharp edges. As friends, neighbors, reporters and cameramen looked on, Larry Walters rocketed into the sky above San Pedro. A few minutes later Larry radioed the ground that he was sailing across Los Angeles Harbor towards Long Beach. Walters had planned to fly 300 miles into the Mojave Desert, but the balloons took him up faster than expected and the wind didn't cooperate, and Walters quickly found himself drifting 16,000 feet above Long Beach. (He later reported that he was "so amazed by the view" that he "didn't even take one picture.") As Larry and his lawnchair drifted into the approach path to Long Beach Municipal Airport, perplexed pilots from two passing Delta and TWA airliners alerted air traffic controllers about what appeared to be an unprotected man floating through the sky in a chair. Meanwhile, Larry, feeling cold and dizzy in the thin air three miles above the ground, shot several of his balloons with the pellet gun to bring himself back down to earth. He attempted to aim his descent at a large expanse of grass of a north Long Beach country club, but Larry came up short and ended up entangling his tethers in a set of high-voltage power lines in Long Beach about ten miles from his liftoff site. The plastic tethers protected Walters from electrocution as he dangled above the ground until firemen and utility crews could cut the power to the lines (blacking out a portion of Long Beach for twenty minutes). Larry managed to maneuver his chair over a wall, step out, and cut the chair free. (He gave away the chair to some admiring neighborhood children, a decision he later regretted when his impromptu flight brought him far more fame than he had anticipated.) Larry, who had just set a new altitude record for a flight with gas-filled clustered balloons (although his record was not officially recognized because he had not carried a proper altitude-recording device with him) became an instant celebrity, but the Federal Aviation Administration was not amused. Unable to revoke Walters' pilot's license because he didn't have one, an FAA official announced that they would charge Walters "as soon as we figure out which part [of the FAA code] he violated." Larry hit the talk show circuit, appearing with Johnny Carson and David Letterman, hosting at a New York bar filled with lawn chairs for the occasion, and receiving an award from the Bonehead Club of Dallas while the FAA pondered his case. After Walters' hearing before an agency panel, the FAA announced on 17 December 1982 that they were fining him $4,000 for violating four regulations: operating "a civil aircraft for which there is not currently in effect an air-worthiness certificate," creating a collision danger to other aircraft, entering an airport traffic area "without establishing and maintaining two-way communications with the control tower," and failing to take care to prevent hazards to the life and property of others. Larry quickly indicated that he intended to challenge the fines, stating sardonically that if "the FAA was around when the Wright Brothers were testing their aircraft, they would never have been able to make their first flight at Kitty Hawk." He also informed the FAA (and reporters) that he couldn't possibly pay the fine, because he'd put all the money he could save or borrow into his flight. In April the FAA signalled their willingness to compromise by dropping one of the charges (they'd decided his lawnchair didn't need an air-worthiness certificate after all) and lowering the fine to $3,000. Walters countered by offering to admit to failing to maintain two-way radio contact with the airport and to pay a $1,000 penalty if the other two charges were dropped. The FAA eventually agreed to accept a $1,500 payment because "the flight was potentially unsafe, but Walters had not intended to endanger anyone." ---------- (and there's more.. with a sad ending) -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "Dare to be naive." -- Buckminster Fuller From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jun 6 01:54:20 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:54:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060605174655.02300d18@gmu.edu> References: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20060605174655.02300d18@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <4484E04C.1020600@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > > Risk-averse Bayesian wannabes would not make pure bets with each other > seeking financial gain. Risk-loving ones might make bets, but only to > achieve the risk they want, not because of any disagreement. Derivatives > markets supposedly help people to hedge risk, and not just to make bets. > And a patron who wanted to get answers to a question might subsidize > a betting market, thereby inducing Bayesian wannabes to bet there. Why would Bayesian wannabes with common knowledge of each other's rationality have any expectation of gain in a betting market? Why would I ever sell my bet - given the fact that you offer me more money than I thought my bet was worth, and I believe you to be rational, and I believe you expect to make a profit? Wouldn't I just adjust my estimate of the fair price upward, and then refuse to sell? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 01:34:38 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] NEF tensor (was Psychogenic Fields) In-Reply-To: <000701c687c6$bc58ac00$e9c51897@extropy> Message-ID: <20060606013438.87430.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- scerir wrote: > Avantguardian, > in the "q-bio" you can find papers like these > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/q-bio.NC/0605027 > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/q-bio.OT/0309009 Thanks. > but ... you know ... it seems strange, imo, > there is enough coherence to get real effects. I agree. It is truly bizarre that you can get such macroscopic quantum behavior out of cells. I would not believe in high temperature quantum coherence in living organisms if I hadn't seen the photomicrographs and published work of Mae-Wan Ho et. al. It's almost as if cells were some kind of crazy aqueous mixture of high-temperature bose-einstein condensates. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dmasten at piratelabs.org Tue Jun 6 03:16:02 2006 From: dmasten at piratelabs.org (David Masten) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:16:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <4484E04C.1020600@pobox.com> References: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20060605174655.02300d18@gmu.edu> <4484E04C.1020600@pobox.com> Message-ID: <1149563762.5436.71.camel@localhost> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:54 -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Robin Hanson wrote: > > > > Risk-averse Bayesian wannabes would not make pure bets with each other > > seeking financial gain. Risk-loving ones might make bets, but only to > > achieve the risk they want, not because of any disagreement. Derivatives > > markets supposedly help people to hedge risk, and not just to make bets. > > And a patron who wanted to get answers to a question might subsidize > > a betting market, thereby inducing Bayesian wannabes to bet there. > > Why would Bayesian wannabes with common knowledge of each other's > rationality have any expectation of gain in a betting market? Because the two Bayesian wannabes have different goals, and different comparative advantages. Even though they both agree on all the facts of the matter at hand, they have different subjective valuations of the bet. A couple of possible scenarios: "A" may be looking for insurance against the downside possibility, while "B" is looking to gain revenue and can handle the downside. Even though both may agree on the odds, "A" will gladly pay a premium and "B" will gladly take it. Another example, "A" wants to cash out and use the cash elsewhere (most likely to do something where she has a better comparative advantage), "B" wants to buy a position. Again, "A" will subjectively value the bet at less than "B" will and therefore they will trade. > Why would I ever sell my bet - given the fact that you offer me more > money than I thought my bet was worth, and I believe you to be > rational, and I believe you expect to make a profit? Wouldn't I just > adjust my estimate of the fair price upward, and then refuse to sell? Depends. If your objective is to raise cash or otherwise change your current positions, then you want to trade, not estimate an upward price and refuse to sell. Dave From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jun 6 09:05:34 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:05:34 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: References: <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <51517.86.143.246.157.1149542109.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060606090533.GM28956@leitl.org> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 06:08:42PM -0400, Martin Striz wrote: > Gotcha, so you're assuming a computational substrate that has zero > energy demands other than for information erasure according to the > Brillouin inequality. You don't have to erase bits. That's what reversible computing is all about. > Understood now, but what's the point? To say that evolution is X% > inefficient with respect to some idealized (and impossible) substrate > is rather uninformative. Why on earth "impossible"? All of technology used to be impossible, quite a short while back. > Are you trying to use that as a canonical metric for comparing any > future computational substrate? A perfect computational substrate, > i.e. one that also has zero information erasure, runs on zero energy. > :) Have I said anything interesting? No, you can come quite close to zero energy. In practice, perfectly reversible means slow, and perfect doesn't exist. > I thought a useful calculation would be to determine how efficient you > could make cells for computation, but that of course is unknown. > Neurons, as it happens, are probably greater than 90% efficient with > respect to /their design/, i.e. there's little heat loss. Neurons just happens to be cells with a pretty high metabolic rate. Calling them optimal in regards to computation is a pretty weak joke. -- 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 Tue Jun 6 09:14:02 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:14:02 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> References: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060606091402.GP28956@leitl.org> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 02:39:06PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > an outcome than the other guy. But if a Bayesian offers a bet and > another Bayesian takes it, seems like both should pause for further > thought. Actually, simple knowledge that someone was offering a bet > should make the second Bayesian pause to reconsider. Perfect knowledge about the real world doesn't exist. No two bases of knowledge are alike. I must be missing something, since I don't see this as a 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 eugen at leitl.org Tue Jun 6 09:18:57 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:18:57 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <20060605212325.GA2559@ofb.net> References: <8d71341e0606022231k269664d7j44d60ea0b8fae73a@mail.gmail.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060605212325.GA2559@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060606091857.GQ28956@leitl.org> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 02:23:25PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > The brain is 2% of body mass but 20% of body heat; I expect most of the > energy is being used for computation, or to maintain readiness to > compute. Of course this might be in neurotransmitter recyling as well > as in spike trains. The brain is also an area of high metabolism, material transfer, and high genetic activity. Maintaining dynamic gradients clearly takes a major fraction of brain's metabolism, but hardly the only one. http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/neur-sci/1998-August/033208.html claims half, but this doesn't strike me as well-grounded. -- 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 Tue Jun 6 10:18:42 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:18:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <20060606090533.GM28956@leitl.org> References: <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <51517.86.143.246.157.1149542109.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060606090533.GM28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0606060318t422e180ekf2f054acc2b669b7@mail.gmail.com> On 6/6/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Neurons just happens to be cells with a pretty high metabolic rate. > Calling them optimal in regards to computation is a pretty weak joke. > There are proposals, at least in outline, for how e.g. a multiplier circuit could be made to work for less energy than neurons use to do the equivalent. Are there any proposals, even in outline, for how bits could be transmitted over distances of millions of nanometers, for less energy than neurons use to do that? (I'm not saying it is or isn't possible, just wondering if anyone has an idea how it might be done.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jun 6 10:44:24 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:44:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0606060318t422e180ekf2f054acc2b669b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <51517.86.143.246.157.1149542109.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060606090533.GM28956@leitl.org> <8d71341e0606060318t422e180ekf2f054acc2b669b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060606104424.GX28956@leitl.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:18:42AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > There are proposals, at least in outline, for how e.g. a multiplier circuit > could be made to work for less energy than neurons use to do the equivalent. Neurons are not particularly good at multiplication. However... Is 0.3 eV for a single switching event good enough for you? http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/2/11 Notice that a spintronics device is completely static; i.e. it consumes no energy when it's not switching. > Are there any proposals, even in outline, for how bits could be transmitted > over distances of millions of nanometers, for less energy than neurons use Would single-photon emitters and detectors be good enough for you? In principle you can compute with about the same amount of energy a single enzymatic reaction takes. Plenty of room at the bottom, obviously. > to do that? (I'm not saying it is or isn't possible, just wondering if > anyone has an idea how it might be done.) Of course. Just don't use our current computers for a yardstick. -- 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 Tue Jun 6 11:05:22 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:05:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <20060606104424.GX28956@leitl.org> References: <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <51517.86.143.246.157.1149542109.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060606090533.GM28956@leitl.org> <8d71341e0606060318t422e180ekf2f054acc2b669b7@mail.gmail.com> <20060606104424.GX28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0606060405o7024b24at11bee014e767381f@mail.gmail.com> On 6/6/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Neurons are not particularly good at multiplication. However... > Is 0.3 eV for a single switching event good enough for you? > http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/2/11 > > Notice that a spintronics device is completely static; i.e. it consumes > no energy when it's not switching. Yeah, spintronics looks very promising. Would single-photon emitters and detectors be good enough for you? > In principle you can compute with about the same amount of energy > a single enzymatic reaction takes. Plenty of room at the bottom, > obviously. Yeah... you'd be looking at, what, theoretically on the order of 100 kT per bit... which is actually pretty good considering it's nearly independent of distance, not to mention fast. Fiber optic threads are fat compared to molecules of course... (or transmit across free space, but then the receptors need to be large compared to molecules)... but you could use optics for long haul transmission, and something more compact for more local transmission. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Jun 6 11:14:59 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 13:14:59 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] NEF tensor (was Psychogenic Fields) In-Reply-To: <20060606013438.87430.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <000701c687c6$bc58ac00$e9c51897@extropy> <20060606013438.87430.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2951.163.1.20.64.1149592499.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> The Avantguardian wrote: > I agree. It is truly bizarre that you can get such > macroscopic quantum behavior out of cells. I would not > believe in high temperature quantum coherence in > living organisms if I hadn't seen the photomicrographs > and published work of Mae-Wan Ho et. al. It's almost > as if cells were some kind of crazy aqueous mixture of > high-temperature bose-einstein condensates. Hmm, checking out a bit about that character leaves me with a distinctly bad taste in the mouth. Rave reviews from new age and deep ecology magazines, very little science on homepage but a lot of science activism against biotech and nanotech (including the claim that nanomachines can't work because of quantum fuzziness, which we know to be wrong). The only Pubmed citation was about energy production and has three self citations (to what appears to be a popular science book!) in the *abstract*. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed (ah, there are more citations, I was wrong. But much of the other sounds equally suspicious: acupuncture is explained through interaction with the "continuum of liquid crystalline collagen fibers that make up the bulk of the connective tissues" forming a body-soul). This sounds like typical cosmythology intended to keep people happy about their existing beliefs. So far there is no generally accepted macroscopic quantum effects in biology. There is indeed no shortage of people claiming there are, but just like quantum superpositions their claims tend to evaporate when people do an independent analysis. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jun 5 16:52:55 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:52:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia: Transhumanism Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060605115037.02f71d68@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Congratulations to those who worked on this piece. I just took a look and found it to be concise and pretty darn close to the mark. I did make some suggestions which I hope are taken as positive comments. I urge everyone to go take a look. 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 rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Jun 6 11:48:16 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:48:16 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <4484E04C.1020600@pobox.com> References: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20060605174655.02300d18@gmu.edu> <4484E04C.1020600@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060606074532.0245f0f8@gmu.edu> At 09:54 PM 6/5/2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky responded to me: > > Risk-averse Bayesian wannabes would not make pure bets with each other > > seeking financial gain. Risk-loving ones might make bets, but only to > > achieve the risk they want, not because of any disagreement. Derivatives > > markets supposedly help people to hedge risk, and not just to make bets. > > And a patron who wanted to get answers to a question might subsidize > > a betting market, thereby inducing Bayesian wannabes to bet there. > >Why would Bayesian wannabes with common knowledge of each other's >rationality have any expectation of gain in a betting market? Why would >I ever sell my bet - given the fact that you offer me more money than I >thought my bet was worth, and I believe you to be rational, and I >believe you expect to make a profit? Wouldn't I just adjust my estimate >of the fair price upward, and then refuse to sell? My first sentence above reaffirms that they would not disagree about any expected value, and so would not make pure bets. The rest of my comments were explaining why they might trade in a betting market even if they had the same expected values for everything. 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 Tue Jun 6 11:51:33 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:51:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <20060606091402.GP28956@leitl.org> References: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> <20060606091402.GP28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060606075006.02459908@gmu.edu> At 05:14 AM 6/6/2006, Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 02:39:06PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > > an outcome than the other guy. But if a Bayesian offers a bet and > > another Bayesian takes it, seems like both should pause for further > > thought. Actually, simple knowledge that someone was offering a bet > > should make the second Bayesian pause to reconsider. > >Perfect knowledge about the real world doesn't exist. No two bases >of knowledge are alike. I must be missing something, since I don't >see this as a problem. No one mentioned any assumptions of perfect knowledge, or perfectly identical knowledge. And such assumptions are not required for Bayesians, or Bayesian wannabes, to realize that both sides can't be right in expecting to win a bet. 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 kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Jun 6 14:48:04 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:48:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wisdom of Crowds References: Message-ID: <001301c68978$3851bec0$650fa8c0@kevin> So why not post a poll about the date of the coming singularity? > On 5/15/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > > > But more fundamentally, according to a book I've read recently, The Wisdom > > of Crowds (a phrase Kurzweil used quite a bit) by James Surowiecki, there > > is something of a paradox in human estimation ability. Individually we > > tend to be highly overconfident. But, collectively, our estimates > > are often extremely good. Surowiecki describes classic examples like > > guessing the weight of a pig, or the number of jelly beans in a jar. > > Collecting guesses from a crowd and averaging them, the result is usually > > right to within a few percent. Often the crowd's result is closer than > > any individual guess. > > > > Surowiecki sees this phenomenon as being behind the success of such > > institutions as futures markets, including idea futures. The reason > > these institutions work is because they are successful at aggregating > > information from a diverse set of participants. Surowiecki emphasizes the > > importance of diversity of viewpoints and describes a number of studies > > showing that, for example, ethnically diverse juries do a better job. > > He also describes several traps that can arise, such as a copycat effect > > where people are polled publicly and sequentially for their guesses, > > causing later participants to amend their mental estimates to fall into > > line with the emerging consensus. Markets are sometimes vulnerable to > > this but at least the financial incentive is always there to encourage > > honesty. > > > > The bottom line is that the wisdom of crowds is one of the best guides > > we have to the future, and so when people refuse to make guesses because > > they have recalibrated themselves into a mental fog, they are no longer > > contributing to the social welfare. It's much better, when being polled > > like this, for people to try to cut through the uncertainty and find that > > "50%" point where they feel they are as likely to be too low as too high. > > If they can do that, and avoid being influenced by the guesses of those > > who speak before them, and if the group is reasonably diverse, you can > > get about as good an estimate as you're going to get. I would have liked > > to have received that estimate, and would have found it one of the most > > valuable pieces of information I took away that day. > > > > > This very popular book may be exaggerating the benefits of popular opinion. > > It is correct to claim that the crowd *sometimes* can be a useful > predictor. But to get a good result you have to be very careful about > the selection of the crowd, the selection of the possible results, and > control of the crowd behaviour. > > Michael Shermer reviewed this book in Dec 2004 > > > Everybody can think of cases that disprove the wisdom of crowds. > Surowiecki mentions some of them in his book. Earlier books have put > the opposite case. Mackay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the > Madness of Crowds' include the well known tulipmania phenomenon. > Canetti wrote 'Crowds and Power' with the shouts of Hitler's Nuremberg > rally figuratively ringing in his ears. Also sociologists such as > Gustave Le Bon, in his classic work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular > Mind: "In crowds it is stupidity and not mother wit that is > accumulated." > Lynch mobs are another example. > > Surowiecki makes a major point of the stock market's reaction on > January 28, 1986, the day the space shuttle Challenger exploded. Of > the four major shuttle contractors--Lockheed, Rockwell International, > Martin Marietta and Morton Thiokol--the last (the builder of the > defective solid-rocket booster) was hit hardest, with a 12 percent > loss, compared with only 3 percent for the others. Given four > possibilities, the masses voted correctly. > > But the next shuttle disaster supported the opposite conclusion. > "Herding" can be a problem when the members of a group think uniformly > in the wrong direction. The stock market erred after the space shuttle > Columbia disaster on February 1, 2003, dumping stock in the booster's > manufacturer even though the boosters were not involved. > > The crowd tossed a coin and came up right once and wrong once. > > > As Shermer says: > For a group to be smart, it should be autonomous, decentralized and > cognitively diverse, which the committee that rejected the foam-impact > theory of the space shuttle Columbia while it was still in flight was > not. In comparison, Google is brilliant because it uses an algorithm > that ranks Web pages by the number of links to them, with those links > themselves valued by the number of links to their page of origin. This > system works because the Internet is the largest autonomous, > decentralized and diverse crowd in history, IMHO. > ------------------ > > So, just ask Google, they know the answer to everything! :) > (assuming they fix their recent search problems). > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From mstriz at gmail.com Tue Jun 6 17:40:16 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 13:40:16 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <20060606090533.GM28956@leitl.org> References: <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <51517.86.143.246.157.1149542109.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060606090533.GM28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 6/6/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 06:08:42PM -0400, Martin Striz wrote: > > > Gotcha, so you're assuming a computational substrate that has zero > > energy demands other than for information erasure according to the > > Brillouin inequality. > > You don't have to erase bits. That's what reversible computing is all about. > > > Understood now, but what's the point? To say that evolution is X% > > inefficient with respect to some idealized (and impossible) substrate > > is rather uninformative. > > Why on earth "impossible"? All of technology used to be impossible, > quite a short while back. It's a Gibb's free energy thing. You could design a computational system with a complex set of internal transition states that maps an input to an output. You could rig it to be spontaneous in the forward direction when an input is present. But if you want to use it more than once, you'll have to input energy to reset it. I suppose you could have a reversible system, but then the probability of getting the computation done is lower. > > Are you trying to use that as a canonical metric for comparing any > > future computational substrate? A perfect computational substrate, > > i.e. one that also has zero information erasure, runs on zero energy. > > :) Have I said anything interesting? > > No, you can come quite close to zero energy. In practice, perfectly > reversible means slow, and perfect doesn't exist. Very well, I just find it to be a nontraditional use of the term "efficient." To me that is a measure of the percentage of input energy that gets used to do the work of the system, versus the percentage that is lost as heat, etc. By that measure, neurons are pretty efficient. There's very little heat loss. Your head isn't warm due to heat loss. It's kept warm on purpose because enzyme kinetics are optimized for 37 C. Neurons are complex. However, sometimes complexity can be used to create efficiency. For example, cellular respiration is a controlled combustion reaction, whereby the reduction potential, rather than being lost as heat, is captured as energy stepwise through many intermediates. Efficiency is maintained. > > I thought a useful calculation would be to determine how efficient you > > could make cells for computation, but that of course is unknown. > > Neurons, as it happens, are probably greater than 90% efficient with > > respect to /their design/, i.e. there's little heat loss. > > Neurons just happens to be cells with a pretty high metabolic rate. > Calling them optimal in regards to computation is a pretty weak joke. Not ops/unit energy, but see above. Martin From mstriz at gmail.com Tue Jun 6 18:08:45 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 14:08:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <20060605212325.GA2559@ofb.net> References: <1149310791.19517.262956665@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8d71341e0606022252n26222d52o4fd385ea6f842e5@mail.gmail.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060605212325.GA2559@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 6/5/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > The brain is 2% of body mass but 20% of body heat; I expect most of the > energy is being used for computation, or to maintain readiness to > compute. Of course this might be in neurotransmitter recyling as well > as in spike trains. That's a different claim from the one that I typically hear, "the brain is 2% of body mass but consumes 20% of the energy." It also consumes 40% of serum glucose, but that shouldn't be surprising since glucose metabolism is turned off in neurons. But to answer your question, here's one analysis: http://striz.org/docs/neuron-energy-budget.pdf The resting state consumes 13% of the energy (which probably includes background metabolism, gene expression, etc.), while 87% is in one way or another involved in signaling (firing, postsynaptic activity, and neurotransmitter recycling). It should be noted that glutamatergic neurons were used for this analysis, but they constitute the major excitatory circuits in the brain. I must admit, the percentage is higher than I had expected. Half of the genes in the genome are expressed in the brain, so I would have expected more energy to be used during resting state activities. Martin From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jun 6 18:26:00 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:26:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <20060606091402.GP28956@leitl.org> References: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> <20060606091402.GP28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4485C8B8.8030203@pobox.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Perfect knowledge about the real world doesn't exist. No two bases > of knowledge are alike. I must be missing something, since I don't > see this as a problem. The problem is related to (a) "the winner's curse" in auctions (b) Aumann's Agreement Theorem. Aumann's Agreement Theorem: While a Bayesian doesn't know the other Bayesian's specific evidence, they can guess that the other guy has seen *some* sort of unspecified evidence that makes them willing to pay more for the stock, or pay more for the bet in an idea-futures market. The winner's curse: If everyone has some error in how much they estimate as the fair price of a good, with the error being e.g. normally distributed around the true value, then whoever wins an auction will tend to overpay. When you're guessing a fair price at the start of a problem, you don't yet have access to the information represented by everyone else's bids. If, at the start of the problem, you bid your best guess for a fair price, then as soon as you win, your estimate of a fair price will go down - this is the winner's curse. Thus, you should offer less in auctions than you think is the fair price, because what you are really trying to offer is a fair price *conditional* on everyone else having offered less than you, because that is the only condition under which your offer will be accepted. Thus the only way you can run an idea-futures market with Bayesian bettors is if they don't have common knowledge of each other's rationality, or if they deliberately try to bet as if they weren't taking the other's information-of-pricing into account. In either case, it isn't a real idea-futures market because you require the participants to deliberately ignore their profit motive. You might as well employ some other means of aggregating their information. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jun 6 19:14:54 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:14:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Two draft papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and biases In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4485D42E.5080809@pobox.com> Bill Hibbard wrote: > Eliezer, > >> http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf > > In Section 6.2 you quote my ideas written in 2001 for > hard-wiring recognition of expressions of human happiness > as values for super-intelligent machines. I have three > problems with your critique: Bill, First, let me explain why the chapter singles you out for criticism, rather than any number of AI researchers who've made similar mistakes. It is because you published the particular comment that I quoted in a peer-reviewed AI journal. The way I found the quote was that I read the online version of your book, and then looked through your journal articles hoping to find a quotation that put forth the same ideas. I specifically wanted a journal citation. The book editors specifically requested that I quote specific persons putting forth the propositions I was arguing against. In most cases, I felt I couldn't really do this, because the arguments had been put forth in spoken conversation or on email lists, and people don't expect emails composed in thirty minutes to be held to the same standards as a paper submitted for journal publication. Before discussing the specific issues below, let me immediately state that if you write a response to my critique, I will, no matter what else happens in this conversation, be willing to include a link to it in a footnote, with the specific note that you feel my criticism is misdirected. I may also include a footnote leading to my response to your response, and you would be able to respond further in your previous URL, and so on. Space constraints are a major issue here. I didn't have time to discuss *anything* in detail in that book chapter. If we can offload this discussion to separate webpages, that is a good thing. > 1. Immediately after my quote you discuss problems with > neural network experiments by the US Army. But I never said > hard-wired learning of recognition of expressions of human > happiness should be done using neural networks like those > used by the army. You are conflating my idea with another, > and then explaining how the other failed. Criticizing an AI researcher's notions of Friendly AI is, typically, an awkward issue, because obviously *they* don't believe that their proposal will destroy the world if somehow successfully implemented. Criticism in general is rarely comfortable. There's a number of "cheap" responses to an FAI criticism, especially when the AI proposal has not been put forth in mathematical detail - i.e., "Well, of course the algorithm *I* use won't have this problem." Marcus Hutter's is the only AI proposal sufficiently rigorous that he should not be able to dodge bullets fired at him in this way. I'd have liked to use Hutter's AIXI as a mathematically clear example of a similar FAI problem, but that would have required far too much space to introduce; and my experience suggests that most AI academics have trouble understanding AIXI, let alone a general academic audience. You say, "Well, I won't use neural networks like those used by the army." But you have not exhibited any algorithm which does *not* have the problem cited. Nor did you tell your readers to beware of it. Nor, as far as I can tell from your most recent papers, have you yet understood the problem I was trying to point out. It is a general problem. It is not a problem with the particular neural network the army was using. It is a problem that people run into, in general, with supervised learning using local search techniques for traversing the hypothesis space. The example given is one that is used to vividly illustrate this general point - it's not to warn people against some particular, failed neural network algorithm. I don't think it inappropriate to cite a problem that is general to supervised learning and reinforcement, when your proposal is to, in general, use supervised learning and reinforcement. You can always appeal to a "different algorithm" or a "different implementation" that, in some unspecified way, doesn't have a problem. If you have magically devised an algorithm that avoids this major curse of the entire current field, by all means publish it. > 2. In your section 6.2 you write: > > If an AI "hard-wired" to such code possessed the power - and > [Hibbard, B. 2001. Super-intelligent machines. ACM SIGGRAPH > Computer Graphics, 35(1).] spoke of superintelligence - would > the galaxy end up tiled with tiny molecular pictures of > smiley-faces? > > When it is feasible to build a super-intelligence, it will > be feasible to build hard-wired recognition of "human facial > expressions, human voices and human body language" (to use > the words of mine that you quote) that exceed the recognition > accuracy of current humans such as you and me, and will > certainly not be fooled by "tiny molecular pictures of > smiley-faces." You should not assume such a poor > implementation of my idea that it cannot make > discriminations that are trivial to current humans. Oh, so the SI will know "That's not what we really mean." A general problem that AI researchers stumble into, and an attractor which I myself lingered in for some years, is to measure "stupidity" by distance from the center of our own optimization criterion, since all our intelligence goes into searching for good fits to our own criterion. How stupid it seems, to be "fooled" by tiny molecular smiley faces! But you could have used a galactic-size neural network in the army tank classifer and gotten exactly the same result, which is only "foolish" by comparison to the programmers' mental model of which outcome *they* wanted. The AI is not given the code, to look it over and hand it back if it does the wrong thing. The AI *is* the code. If the code *is* a supervised neural network algorithm, you get an attractor that classifies most instances previously seen. During the AI's youth, it does not have the ability to tile the galaxy with tiny molecular pictures of smiling faces, and so it does not receive supervised reinforcement that such cases should be classifed as "not a smile". And once the AI is a superintelligence, it's too late, because your frantic frowns are outweighed by a vast number of tiny molecular smileyfaces. In general, saying "The AI is super-smart, it certainly won't be fooled by foolish-seeming-goal-system-failure X" is not, I feel, a good response. I realize that you don't think your proposal destroys the world, but I am arguing that it does. We disagree about this. You put forth one view of what your algorithm does in the real world, and I am putting forth a *different* view in my book chapter. As for claiming that "I should not assume such a poor implementation", well, at that rate, I can claim that all you need for Friendly AI is a computer program. Which computer program? Oh, that's an implementation issue... but then you do seem to feel that Friendly AI is a relatively easy theoretical problem, and the main issue is political. > 3. I have moved beyond my idea for hard-wired recognition of > expressions of human emotions, and you should critique my > recent ideas where they supercede my earlier ideas. In my > 2004 paper: > > Reinforcement Learning as a Context for Integrating AI Research, > Bill Hibbard, 2004 AAAI Fall Symposium on Achieving Human-Level > Intelligence through Integrated Systems and Research > http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/FS104HibbardB.pdf > > I say: > > Valuing human happiness requires abilities to recognize > humans and to recognize their happiness and unhappiness. > Static versions of these abilities could be created by > supervised learning. But given the changing nature of our > world, especially under the influence of machine > intelligence, it would be safer to make these abilities > dynamic. This suggests a design of interacting learning > processes. One set of processes would learn to recognize > humans and their happiness, reinforced by agreement from > the currently recognized set of humans. Another set of > processes would learn external behaviors, reinforced by > human happiness according to the recognition criteria > learned by the first set of processes. This is analogous > to humans, whose reinforcement values depend on > expressions of other humans, where the recognition of > those humans and their expressions is continuously > learned and updated. > > And I further clarify and update my ideas in a 2005 > on-line paper: > > The Ethics and Politics of Super-Intelligent Machines > http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/SI_ethics_politics.doc I think that you have failed to understand my objection to your ideas. I see no relevant difference between these two proposals, except that the paragraph you cite (presumably as a potential replacement) is much less clear to the outside academic reader. The paragraph I cited was essentially a capsule introduction of your ideas, including the context of their use in superintelligence. The paragraph you offer as a replacement includes no such introduction. Here, for comparison, is the original cited in AIGR: > "In place of laws constraining the behavior of intelligent machines, we need to give them emotions that can guide their learning of behaviors. They should want us to be happy and prosper, which is the emotion we call love. We can design intelligent machines so their primary, innate emotion is unconditional love for all humans. First we can build relatively simple machines that learn to recognize happiness and unhappiness in human facial expressions, human voices and human body language. Then we can hard-wire the result of this learning as the innate emotional values of more complex intelligent machines, positively reinforced when we are happy and negatively reinforced when we are unhappy. Machines can learn algorithms for approximately predicting the future, as for example investors currently use learning machines to predict future security prices. So we can program intelligent machines to learn algorithms for predicting future human happiness, and use those predicti ons as emotional values." If you are genuinely repudiating your old ideas and declaring a Halt, Melt and Catch Fire on your earlier journal article - if you now think your proposed solution would destroy the world if implemented - then I will have to think about that a bit. Your old paragraph does clearly illustrate some examples of what not to do. I wouldn't like it if someone quoted _Creating Friendly AI_ as a clear example of what not to do, but I did publish it, and it is a legitimate example of what not to do. I would definitely ask that it be made clear that I no longer espouse CFAI's ideas and that I have now moved on to different approaches and higher standards; if it were implied that CFAI was still my current approach, I would be rightly offended. But I could not justly *prevent* someone entirely from quoting a published paper, though I might not like it... But it seems to me that the paragraph I quoted still serves as a good capsule introduction to your approach, even if it omits some of the complexities of how you plan to use supervised learning. I do not see any attempt at all, in your new approach, to address any of the problems that I think your old approach has. However, I could not possibly refuse to include a footnote disclaimer saying that *you* believe this old paragraph is no longer fairly representative of your ideas, and perhaps citing one of your later journal articles, in addition to providing the URL of your response to my criticisms. If you are repudiating any of your old ideas, please say specifically which ones. If anyone on these mailing list would like to weigh in with an outside opinion of what constitutes fair practice in this case, please do so. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jun 6 20:53:39 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 13:53:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns Message-ID: <20060606205331.GA23394@ofb.net> John Quiggin talks about how doomsayers on both sides are wrong, both the Deep Greens who say we need to cut our standard of living and "Dark Browns" who say we can't afford to protect the environment because it would cut our standard of living. http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/05/against-the-doomsayers/ And he links to an article on the ozone hole and the history of skepticism to that, and the tactics used by industry and Republican politicians. I invite people still wondering about anthropogenic global warming to draw analogies, and also to link to Bayesian agreement, e.g. "if the mass of peer-reviewed scientists say X, and you want to believe Y, how likely is it that you are smarter or less biased than they, especially in light of the ozone hole history, and the human predilection to underestimate one's own bias?" http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp -xx- Damien X-) From mstriz at gmail.com Tue Jun 6 21:27:29 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:27:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060606205331.GA23394@ofb.net> References: <20060606205331.GA23394@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 6/6/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > I invite people still wondering about anthropogenic global > warming to draw analogies, and also to link to Bayesian agreement, e.g. > "if the mass of peer-reviewed scientists say X, and you want to believe > Y, how likely is it that you are smarter or less biased than they, > especially in light of the ozone hole history, and the human > predilection to underestimate one's own bias?" There are three factors that are connected by the oil problem: energy, environment, and security. Even if you don't buy the idea that renewable energy will lead to a cleaner environment (and lower social and economic costs) down the line, or that removing the military from the Middle East and cutting off business ties with despots like Chavez will make you safer, the fact remains that the oil reserves are finite. There is no debate. The transition must be made. Oil prices will start skyrocketing about 10-15 years after Peak Oil, while the cost per unit energy of extraction from renewable resources continues to drop. If these lines cross low on the graph, then a smooth energy transition can be made. Whether they will is unknown. If you factor in the defense budget costs for maintaining oil security, the lines are closer than you think (btw, thanks to the American military, the rest of the world gets the insurance without paying the premium). Going back to Chavez, some pundits have made the observation that "our oil" tends to be under the ground of people who hate us. But I think that's putting the cart before the horse. Despots can thrive in places where they have natural resources that force us to do business with them. Chavez, the Saudi family, the Mullahs in Iran, would crumble without their oil reserves. So renewable energy is good for spreading democracy, too. :) Martin From hal at finney.org Tue Jun 6 21:05:00 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 14:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Wisdom of Crowds Message-ID: <20060606210500.0419757FD1@finney.org> [First, apologies for disappearing from the list for a few weeks. I will try to get back to some of the old threads, time permitting.] Kevin Freels writes: > So why not post a poll about the date of the coming singularity? I did better than that! I asked Google. Googling for "when is the singularity?" didn't give me much useful. I figured that it is not able to handle questions too well yet. (I hear they're working on that.) So then I asked, more simply, "singularity date?" And here's the first response: "The short answer is that the near edge of the Singularity is due about the year 2035 AD." So there you have it - the wisdom of the crowd, via Google. Hal From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Jun 6 22:44:54 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 00:44:54 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: References: <20060606205331.GA23394@ofb.net> Message-ID: <64993.86.143.246.157.1149633894.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> A fun way to annoy both climate sceptics and greenhousers alike is to point out the need for climate regulation. Even without believing doomsayer predictions the historical evidence shows that climate change can be bad from a human perspective, both in the small (like the Little Ice Age) and the large (climate changes before, during and since the ice Age). So clearly we need to be on guard for climate change no matter its cause, and to prevent undesirable changes. If the current climate swings are in some significant part due human action, that implies that human action can affect the climate and we ought to interfere. If we are not the cause, we better learn to be the cause. A common argument against climate control is that it is so complex we don't know what we should do. This is rather interesting as an argument, since it is often made by the same people who presupposes that emission reductions would have a predictable effects. However, that is based on the assumption that climate is not path dependent and that other factors like albedo change can be disregarded. This seems pretty implausible, given the changes in biome distribution caused by climate changes, the spread of human-modified land with deviant albedo, contrails, ship tracks and aerosols. In fact, just reducing greenhouse gases without fixing albedo change might be a bad thing. Hence even a return to some baseline state would require much more than reduction of emissions, and most likely properly would require a fairly tricky balancing of different factors. That the climate is complex is no excuse for inaction but rather suggests a need for more attempts to both understand it and finding ways of affecting it (even if those methods might not be useful in our current situation). Similarly, many people who think that climate is too complex to mess with think that the economy is something simple where interference produces reliable results. A curious assumption, but most people do not really understand dynamical systems. My guess is that we can map out the major interactions within the Earth's dynamical upper layers to a high degree within a few decades, and we will be able to use chaos control to influence at least short term cycles much earlier (for chaos control one only needs reconstructed phase space, not a real model). The deep issues that make people dislike climate control is IMHO the natural order assumption (nature is good whatever it does, human action is neutral or suspect), the need for global agreements and that it forces us to consider what we would regard as the ideal climate. As long as it is only about avoiding a waguely dark future by doing one simple thing, the greenhouse debate can bludgeon everybody in the same direction. A wider debate about what we actually want to do with the Earth would be far less easily cohered. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Jun 6 23:15:17 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 01:15:17 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: References: <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1149459303.18326.263024293@webmail.messagingengine.com> <448360E1.60301@pobox.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <51517.86.143.246.157.1149542109.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060606090533.GM28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <65516.86.143.246.157.1149635717.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Martin Striz wrote: > Very well, I just find it to be a nontraditional use of the term > "efficient." To me that is a measure of the percentage of input > energy that gets used to do the work of the system, versus the > percentage that is lost as heat, etc. By that measure, neurons are > pretty efficient. There's very little heat loss. Your head isn't > warm due to heat loss. It's kept warm on purpose because enzyme > kinetics are optimized for 37 C. And why that temperature? In the end 37 C is a kind of compromise. Higher body temperature means faster kinetics for many processes, faster nerve conduction velocities (increasing body temperature by 0.2 degrees improves cognition in some tests; beyond that there is no improvement) but also higher metabolic costs (increasing exponentially with higher temperature) and in males increased mutation frequency. Basal body temperature seems to be set by evolutionary adaptation to a particular environment and ecological niche, varying within related species quite a bit and it is possible to push the enzyme kinetics quite a bit with sufficient evolution. Instead of using pumped ion gradients to power action potentials the nervous system could have used passive membrane conduction with local Ranvier-node-like amplifiers, which would likely have produced a far less energy consuming system. This is more similar to the invertebrate nervous system, actually. But the rewards for fast reactions and coevolutionary driving likely got us mammals stuck with these expensive, energy wasting central nervous systems. I'm certain radically different solutions are possible, but since terrestrial evolution had such a wide array of ion channels and pumps going long before Ediacara it used them. Todays fun neuroscience fact: the spinal cord system for regulating urination appears to be lateralized in humans but not other animals. Gert Holstege, Micturition and the soul, The Journal of Comparative Neurology Volume 493, Issue 1 , Pages 15 - 20 -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jun 7 01:04:17 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:04:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <64993.86.143.246.157.1149633894.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200606070120.k571KL6w001559@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 3:45 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns > > > A fun way to annoy both climate sceptics and greenhousers alike is to > point out the need for climate regulation... Anders this post is brilliant, thanks. > > The deep issues that make people dislike climate control is IMHO the > natural order assumption (nature is good whatever it does, human action is > neutral or suspect)... > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University I have been pointing out this logical tension for years, in many contexts including life extension. If someone argues that natural is good but human action is suspect, then I press by asking: are humans natural? If the answer is no, then I ask if the person is a creationist. Few nature lovers want to get in bed with that crowd. If they are creationists, the first page of their holy scriptures urge them to subdue and dominate nature, be fruitful and multiply, etc. On the other hand, if humans are natural, then would we need to define everything that humans do as natural. Environmental modification and economy lead to wildly complex questions. Like the beaver, human technology helps some species and harms others. How do we judge if the overall effect is good or bad? Regarding teraforming the earth, assume we discovered a technology to warm the poles while lowering the temperature of the equator. Would we do it? If we were to melt the northern icecap, Sweden would be poised to become a manufacturing powerhouse, for it would become the nearest highly industrialized nation to the enormous markets of Western Canada, California and Mexico. Did any of you see the recent movie March of the Penguins? Do rent that. I thought it excellent, a refreshing change from the usual Hollyweird nonsense. If we melted the poles it would be the end of the road for those guys, which would be so sad. But if we could warm the poles enough to melt the snow, could we not move the world's low lying island communities to that vast empty continent? Could we not move the teeming hordes of Bangladesh to the northern shores of Canada, Alaska and Siberia? spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 00:59:41 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] NEF tensor (was Psychogenic Fields) In-Reply-To: <2951.163.1.20.64.1149592499.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060607005941.38852.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Anders Sandberg wrote: > > The Avantguardian wrote: > > I agree. It is truly bizarre that you can get such > > macroscopic quantum behavior out of cells. I would > not > > believe in high temperature quantum coherence in > > living organisms if I hadn't seen the > photomicrographs > > and published work of Mae-Wan Ho et. al. It's > almost > > as if cells were some kind of crazy aqueous > mixture of > > high-temperature bose-einstein condensates. > > Hmm, checking out a bit about that character leaves > me with a distinctly > bad taste in the mouth. Rave reviews from new age > and deep ecology > magazines, very little science on homepage but a lot > of science activism > against biotech and nanotech (including the claim > that nanomachines can't > work because of quantum fuzziness, which we know to > be wrong). > > The only Pubmed citation was about energy production > and has three self > citations (to what appears to be a popular science > book!) in the > *abstract*. > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed > (ah, there are more citations, I was wrong. But much > of the other sounds > equally suspicious: acupuncture is explained through > interaction with the > "continuum of liquid crystalline collagen fibers > that make up the bulk of > the connective tissues" forming a body-soul). > > This sounds like typical cosmythology intended to > keep people happy about > their existing beliefs. > > So far there is no generally accepted macroscopic > quantum effects in > biology. There is indeed no shortage of people > claiming there are, but > just like quantum superpositions their claims tend > to evaporate when > people do an independent analysis. Obviously I don't care much for her Luddite politics. But I am not one of those people that believe the laws of nature care about a person's politics. Have you found anything using polarized light microscopy that contradicts her findings? Damn. There are times when I think that even in science if you want something done right you have to do it yourself. When did science become as filled with "noise" as politics is? I thought the whole point of the peer review process was to weed out bullshit. It is becoming truly ridiculous. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jun 7 01:25:18 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:25:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060606205331.GA23394@ofb.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060606211814.04e9c028@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:53 PM 6/6/2006 -0700, you wrote: >John Quiggin talks about how doomsayers on both sides are wrong, both >the Deep Greens who say we need to cut our standard of living and "Dark >Browns" who say we can't afford to protect the environment because it >would cut our standard of living. Both are right. There is no doubt we are living on resources that are running out so we have to cut back. But cutting back, lowering the standard of living, will cause xenophobic memes to build up that eventually will tip into wars. There is a low tech and a high tech solution to this problem. A substantial fraction of the population dying is the low tech solution. Developing full blown nanotechnology were we can exploit (for example) geosynch solar power is the other. In either case we will be living in interesting times (a quote from Eric Frank Russell). Keith Henson From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Jun 7 03:15:55 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:15:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <4484E04C.1020600@pobox.com> References: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20060605174655.02300d18@gmu.edu> <4484E04C.1020600@pobox.com> Message-ID: <9FD6C837-AF99-440F-A452-53D83902F43D@mac.com> On Jun 5, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > Why would Bayesian wannabes with common knowledge of each other's > rationality have any expectation of gain in a betting market? The prices of the underlying stocks, commodities and so on cannot be fully (to say the least) predicted. If it could there would be no point in derivatives. Thus different Bayesians, even with full common knowledge (very hard to come by in practice regarding markets especially) may make different derivative plays. It is not a "betting" market. > Why would > I ever sell my bet - given the fact that you offer me more money > than I > thought my bet was worth, and I believe you to be rational, and I > believe you expect to make a profit? Because your market theory, fundamental and technical analysis may be more accurate at least in the short run. This notion that exactly the same knowledge, mathematically rendered the same is available to all players and they all have effectively equal skill and intelligence to boot is a far-fetched fantasy. > Wouldn't I just adjust my estimate > of the fair price upward, and then refuse to sell? No. You might decide to recheck your conclusions though. - samantha From transcend at extropica.com Wed Jun 7 02:52:07 2006 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 21:52:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <4484E04C.1020600@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200606070318.k573IokZ018321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Isn't there some advantage in this scenario of the perfectly rational Bayesian wannabe to act in a calculatedly irrational manner in order to betray the expectations of his rivals? The others would take into account the possibility of "rationally calculated irrationality" but would that be sufficient to counter the phenomena? For example, it might be Bayesian wannabe A's goal to deceive wannabe B into a particular action...to manipulate how B weighs decisions? To "mess with his priors?" (Is there such a thing as Bayesian slang in a homo economicus culture?) I presume the "victim" would already have determined a certain possible outcome in which they are deceived... BUT, this does lead to a scenario in which making a bet could be a tactic of rationally calculated irrationality. This is the soul of the betting game: making bets that disguise your intent, such that it isn't clear when your bets are rational or irrational. That seems to me to answer Mr. Sullivan's question "would a population of Bayesian wannabes have use for making bets." Unless the universal rational recognition of the possibility of rationally calculated irrationality leads to the conclusion that such behavior is ultimately not productive. Or the opposite spectrum is that the benefit is consistent enough that you devolve into a society of sociopathic cheats. Hehe. Brandon Reinhart -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:54 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives Robin Hanson wrote: > > Risk-averse Bayesian wannabes would not make pure bets with each other > seeking financial gain. Risk-loving ones might make bets, but only to > achieve the risk they want, not because of any disagreement. Derivatives > markets supposedly help people to hedge risk, and not just to make bets. > And a patron who wanted to get answers to a question might subsidize > a betting market, thereby inducing Bayesian wannabes to bet there. Why would Bayesian wannabes with common knowledge of each other's rationality have any expectation of gain in a betting market? Why would I ever sell my bet - given the fact that you offer me more money than I thought my bet was worth, and I believe you to be rational, and I believe you expect to make a profit? Wouldn't I just adjust my estimate of the fair price upward, and then refuse to sell? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Jun 7 06:47:36 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 23:47:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060606211814.04e9c028@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20060606205331.GA23394@ofb.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20060606211814.04e9c028@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060607064736.GA4740@ofb.net> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:25:18PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > There is no doubt we are living on resources that are running out so we > have to cut back. But cutting back, lowering the standard of living, will Only clear one seems to be fossil fuels. And growing area, if we add too many people or meat-eaters. > There is a low tech and a high tech solution to this problem. A > substantial fraction of the population dying is the low tech > solution. Developing full blown nanotechnology were we can exploit (for > example) geosynch solar power is the other. I don't think all that is needed. Deployed renewables, fission, or a mix should be able to support us. Car and jet fuel might be pricier than we're used to. -xx- Damien X-) From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Jun 7 09:56:47 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 11:56:47 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] NEF tensor (was Psychogenic Fields) In-Reply-To: <20060607005941.38852.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> References: <2951.163.1.20.64.1149592499.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060607005941.38852.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <34056.86.143.246.157.1149674207.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> The Avantguardian wrote: > But I am not one of those people that believe the laws > of nature care about a person's politics. Have you > found anything using polarized light microscopy that > contradicts her findings? Polarized light microscopy is widely used in science, but it has nothing to do with "coherent energy fields" and biological quantum mechanics beyond the normal energy and quantum aspects of optics. There is no evidence for Ho's claim that living beings use quantum superpositions to move large amounts of energy around quickly. While my previous post was a bit ad hominem, I do think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If someone claims that macroscopic quantum states are important in organisms they better demonstrate it. It shouldn't be accepted because it would be so cool. As long as there is no experiment that rules out the simpler (and well tested) model that living organisms do not use macro quantum states Occhan's razor tells us to keep to the "classical" theory. >From my understanding of her writings one of the claims is that the benefits of these macrostates is that they can produce large effects with very small causes. But this makes the noise problem even worse - how do you prevent random pinpricks from redirecting the "energy fields" fatally? Normal biochemical regulation theory has nice, tested answers to that in the case of chemical signals (various amplification and transduction cascades, levels of feedback inhibition), but invoking quantum physics means throwing out the possibility of using these solutions. > Damn. There are times when I > think that even in science if you want something done > right you have to do it yourself. EXACTLY! Far too many people just repeat papers they have read and do not think about the implications, even less repeat the experiments or do new critical tests. Now I'm off to actually do a bit of experimentation myself (OK, the data processing part - but there was a rat involved at the start). No sign of anything quantum in these brain slices at least (but voltage sensitive dyes - wow! that is cool quantum mechanics!). -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jun 7 09:06:04 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 05:06:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cats, was I am a moral, intelligent being In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060606213257.026acbf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060607040535.04da8360@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:37 AM 6/7/2006 -0400, Michael Vassar wrote: >Yes analogies are always suspect... >And existance proofs really do always demonstrate possibility... >So so long as the existance proof is valid and people really *can* want to >remain moral and become more intelligent the analogy is simply a waste of >our time. > >If you want to get serious, at the very least you have to make a serious >case that the robustness of human morality under carefully considered and >bias corrected self-modification has not been adequately demonstrated (or >that human morality is not robust under bias correction) and give us some >reason for seriously doubting it. Succeed in that and you still won't >have prooved that Friendlyness is impossible, you will just be in a >position analogous to those who claimed that heavier than air flying >machines capable of lifting humans are impossible rather than that of >those who claim that NO object of any size or with any other >characteristics can fly. I am sorry to say I don't understand the basis of your complaint against my post. "The dire reality is that reproduction cannot be unlimited in a limited world--so we go *SNIP* to cat gonads. This is good from the moral viewpoint of a substantial majority of humans." (I should correct the above to a substantial fraction of western culture members.) My point was that more intelligent AIs or upgraded humans may have a different view of what is moral as we have a different view of what is moral compared to cats. If you upgraded a cat to human level intelligence would it think controlling the population of regular cats the way we do was moral? (I have no idea.) I certainly had no intent to prove Friendlyness impossible either. I would be more inclined to attempt to prove it possible or even likely. But I do think Friendly AIs will have to make some hard decisions if unmodified humans remain in the world--analogous to the decisions we make about cats and for the same reason. I think you may be objecting to my word use. The word "solved" (in quotes) was in the literary device sense i.e., for the story. I make no claims at all about this being a solution for the real world outside the story. Though it does have the flavor of what we do with cats . . . . Keith Henson PS. If the list snippers clip it, we should move this to the extopy-chat list. In preparation I will cc that list. >>From: Keith Henson >>Reply-To: sl4 at sl4.org >>To: sl4 at sl4.org >>Subject: Re: I am a moral, intelligent being (was Re: Two draft >>papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and biases) >>Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:53:24 -0400 >> >>At 09:46 AM 6/6/2006 -0700, robin wrote: >> >>snip >> >>>It blows my mind that any intelligent and relevantly-knowledgeable >>>person would have failed to perform this thought experiment on >>>themselves to validate, as proof-by-existence, that an intelligent >>>being that both wants to become more intelligent *and* wants to >>>remain kind and moral is possible. >> >>>Really bizarre and, as I said, starting to become offensive to me, >>>because it seems to imply that my morality is fragile. >> >>Analogy is always suspect, but consider cats. We treat them as morally >>as we can. >> >>The dire reality is that reproduction cannot be unlimited in a limited >>world--so we go *SNIP* to cat gonads. This is good from the moral >>viewpoint of a substantial majority of humans. >> >>But I have my doubts about how the cats feel about it. At least it is my >>observation that intact cats have more interesting personalities. >> >>I "solved" this problem in the fiction I have been writing by putting >>rules on the AIs that they would analyze as being such a good idea they >>would not want to do otherwise. Namely, no reproduction inside uploaded >>simulations and no food production by the AIs outside the simulations. >> >>And the simulations were so attractive compared to the real world that >>the big problem was getting enough people to have children in the >>physical world to keep up a remnant population. >> >>(The AIs were constructed without the desire to reproduce and were only >>brought into existence by physical state humans.) >> >>Keith Henson > From test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu Wed Jun 7 17:24:55 2006 From: test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:24:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Two draft papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and biases In-Reply-To: <4485D42E.5080809@pobox.com> Message-ID: Eliezer, > I don't think it > inappropriate to cite a problem that is general to supervised learning > and reinforcement, when your proposal is to, in general, use supervised > learning and reinforcement. You can always appeal to a "different > algorithm" or a "different implementation" that, in some unspecified > way, doesn't have a problem. But you are not demonstrating a general problem. You are instead relying on specific examples (primitive neural networks and systems that cannot distingish a human from a smiley) that fail trivially. You should be clear whether you claim that reinforcement learning (RL) must inevitably lead to: 1. A failure of intelligence. or: 2. A failure of friendliness. Your example of the US Army's primitive neural network experiments is a failure of intelligence. Your statement about smiley faces assumes a general success at intelligence by the system, but an absurd failure of intelligence in the part of the system that recognizes humans and their emotions, leading to a failure of friendliness. If your claim is that RL must lead to a failure of intelligence, then you should cite and quote from Eric Baum's What is Thought? (in my opinion, Baum deserves the Nobel Prize in Economics for his experiments linking economic principles with effective RL in multi-agent learning systems). If your claim is that RL can succeed at intelligence but must lead to a failure of friendliness, then it is reasonable to cite and quote me. But please use my 2004 AAAI paper . . . > If you are genuinely repudiating your old ideas ... . . . use my 2004 AAAI paper because I do repudiate the statement in my 2001 paper that recognition of humans and their emotions should be hard-wired (i.e., static). That is just the section of my 2001 paper that you quoted. Not that I am sure that hard-wired recognition of humans and their emotions inevitably leads to a failure of friendliness, since the super-intelligence (SI) may understand that humans would be happier if they could evolve to other physical forms but still be recognized by the SI as humans, and decide to modify itself (or build an improved replacement). But if this is my scenario, then why not design continuing learning of recognition of humans and their emotions into the system in the first place. Hence my change of views. I am sure you have not repudiated everything in CFAI, and I have not repudiated everything in my earlier publications. I continue to believe that RL is critical to acheiving intelligence with a feasible amount of computing resources, and I continue to believe that collective long-term human happiness should be the basic reinforcement value for SI. But I now think that a SI should continue to learn recognition of humans and their emotions via reinforcement, rather than these recognitions being hard-wired as the result of supervised learning. My recent writings have also refined my views about how human happiness should be defined, and how the happiness of many people should be combined into an overall reinforcement value. > I see no relevant difference between these two proposals, except that > the paragraph you cite (presumably as a potential replacement) is much > less clear to the outside academic reader. If you see no difference between my earlier and later ideas, then please use a scenario based on my later papers. That will be a better demonstration of the strength of your arguments, and be fairer to me. Of course, it would be best to demonstrate your claim (either that RL must lead to a failure of intelligence, or can succeed at intelligence but must lead to a failure of friendliness) in general. But if you cannot do that and must rely on a specific example, then at least do not pick an example that fails for trivial reasons. As I wrote above, if you think RL must fail at intelligence, you would be best to quote Eric Baum. If you think RL can succeed at intelligence but must fail at friendliness, but just want to demonstrate it for a specific example, then use a scenario in which: 1. The SI recognizes humans and their emotions as accurately as any human, and continually relearns that recognition as humans evolve (for example, to become SIs themselves). 2. The SI values people after death at the maximally unhappy value, in order to avoid motivating the SI to kill unhappy people. 3. The SI combines the happiness of many people in a way (such as by averaging) that does not motivate a simple numerical increase (or decrease) in the number of people. 4. The SI weights unhappiness stronger than happiness, so that it focuses it efforts on helping unhappy people. 5. The SI develops models of all humans and what produces long-term happiness in each of them. 6. The SI develops models of the interactions among humans and how these interactions affect the happiness of each. If you demonstrate a failure of friendliness against a weaker scenario, all that really demonstrates is that you needed the weak scenario in order to make your case. And it is unfair to me. As I said, best would be a general demonstration, but if you must pick an example, at least pick a strong example. I do not pretend to have all the answers. Clearly, making RL work will require solution to a number of currently unsolved problems. Jeff Hawkins' work on hierarchical temporal memory (HTM) is interesting in this respect, given the interactions within the human brain between the cortex (modeled by HTM) and lower brain areas where RL has been observed (in my view RL is in a lower area because it is fundamental, and the higher areas evolved to create the simulation model of the world necessary to solve the credit assignment problem for RL). Clearly RL is not the whole answer, but I think Eric Baum has it right that it is critical to intelligence. I appreciate your offer to include my URL in your article, where I can give my response. Please use this (please proof read carefully for typos in the final galleys): http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/AIRisk_Reply.html If you take my suggestion, by elevating your discussion to a general explanation of why RL systems must fail or at least using a strong scenario, that will make my response more friendly since I am happier to be named as an advocate of RL than to be conflated with trivial failure. I would prefer that you not use the quote you were using from my 2001 paper, as I repudiate supervised learning of hard-wired values. Please use some quote from and cite my 2004 AAAI paper, since there is nothing in it that I repudiate yet (but you will find more refined views in my 2005 on-line paper). Bill p.s., Although I receive digest messages from extropy-chat, for some reason my recent posts to it have all bounced. Could someone please forward this message to extropy-chat? From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jun 7 16:08:08 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:08:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cats In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060607040535.04da8360@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060606213257.026acbf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060607094057.04f19830@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Keith wrote: > Though it does have the flavor of what we do with cats . . . . Some time ago I spent a few weeks with an old lady who has cats. (She wasn't much older than me, but I will be 64 this year.) She had 10 or maybe it was 11 cats--you never saw them all at once. They were all indoor cats. About half of them were feral cats. They had been trapped, neutered or spayed many years ago. They approached to beg tasty food but ran if anyone tried to pet them. The cats were getting old, two of them were over 20. She loves her cats and dotes on them. When I was there they were taken care of about as well as we would take care of aging humans. One of them had had his colon removed and while he could use a litter box he did not. That one looked particularly awful but seemed reasonably active for an old cat and not in pain. Some of them had to be chased down and caught every day because they were getting daily injections and one of them was getting fluid under the skin. Her vet bill runs to $15k a year; a cancer operation on one of them cost several thousand dollars (the effort did not extend the cat's life). One of the best sets of books on space colonies is _The Revolution From Rosinante_ trilogy by Alexis A. Gilliland. The trilogy is also perhaps the first to use the concept of incorporation to give an AI legal rights. Two of the AIs (one was trained up by a religious nut) used his/her deep knowledge of human psychology to create a new religion that was both consistent with known science and deeply appealed to the "reptile brain" in us. Near the end of the last book, one of the AI is talking about the symbiotic relation that was developing between AIs and humans. I don't have a copy out right now, but from memory the AI characterized it as "Like cats. You live in *their* house and take care of them." I am not going to try to draw morals from this set of data (some of it from a fictional source) but I know I would not like to be one of her cats. Keith Henson PS I suspect my libertarian leanings extend even to pets. If an animal wants to be a pet, that's fine, but I am not inclined to keep one locked up. From mstriz at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 20:58:44 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:58:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Singularity (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <65516.86.143.246.157.1149635717.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1149313458.21379.262957637@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20060604225707.GA7172@ofb.net> <44836EAC.6060407@pobox.com> <39193.86.143.246.157.1149468068.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <51517.86.143.246.157.1149542109.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060606090533.GM28956@leitl.org> <65516.86.143.246.157.1149635717.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 6/6/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > And why that temperature? In the end 37 C is a kind of compromise. Higher > body temperature means faster kinetics for many processes, faster nerve > conduction velocities (increasing body temperature by 0.2 degrees improves > cognition in some tests; beyond that there is no improvement) but also > higher metabolic costs (increasing exponentially with higher temperature) > and in males increased mutation frequency. Basal body temperature seems to > be set by evolutionary adaptation to a particular environment and > ecological niche, varying within related species quite a bit and it is > possible to push the enzyme kinetics quite a bit with sufficient > evolution. Extremophiles demonstrate that peptides can be designed for optimal activity within a wide range, from close to freezing, to close to boiling (all life perforce lives within the confines of acqueous solutions). However, I dn't think you adequately explain why 37 C would be an optimal trade off. Why have most warm-blooded animals converged on 35-40 C? My educated guess would be that, since most airborn microbes have enzymes optimized for ambient atmospheric tempratures (20-30 C), warm-blooded potential hosts ratcheted up their homeostatic setpoint as a defense mechanism. Enzymes tend to denature at just a few degrees above their optimum (actually, they continue to work faster above the so-called "optimum" but the percentage of denatured enzymes in the population starts to increase, so the total enzyme activity of the population is seen as a decrease, and the whole thing looks like a bell curve). So by maintaining our thermostatic setpoint a little above atmospheric temperatures, we can fight off many microbes. Of course, over evolutioanary time, persistent pathogens evolved enzymes that function at an optimum of 37 C. In other words, if it weren't for pathogens, we would probably have lower body temperatures, because the energy cost increases faster than the metabolic rate. Actual metabolism/energy efficiency is better at much lower temperatures. Cheers, Martin From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Jun 7 22:44:15 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Opinions on Singularity Message-ID: <20060607224415.58038.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm hoping for opinions on: What are the advantages to The Singularity occuring? What do most people think the biggest risks are? What is most important to you when it comes to technology? I already have many ideas based on the posts in the last few months but it's always nice to hear new opinions and be able to summarize. This is just plain curiosity nothing else, so critical or unwanted sarcasm is not necessary:) (Again, not quite ready to give up on the smileys) Thanks again for your time Anna Any piece of knowledge I acquire today has a value at this moment exactly proportioned to my skill to deal with it. Tomorrow, when I know more, I recall that piece of knowledge and use it better. -Mark van Doren __________________________________________________ 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jun 8 01:13:34 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 02:13:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Help requested for friend Message-ID: <8d71341e0606071813p2c3b70d3wa465ee853244fce7@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, A friend of mine over in America has been having some difficulties and I'm trying to find some help or advice for her; I figured if there's any group of people who'd have ideas, it's this one. It started a few weeks ago when she broke her knee playing softball; the damage is pretty bad, she's getting treatment but it's estimated at least another few weeks before she's up and about again. Now she's discovered she doesn't have a job to go back to - office politics were involved apparently - which in turn scuppers her plan to adopt her 7 year old foster daughter. She's had legal advice on the adoption issue and apparently there's nothing that can be done about that, but I've been trying to come up with advice on the issue of finding a new job. She's a meteorological technician, which apparently is a rather specialized job, such that it's going to be very hard to find another vacancy in that field; but from looking at her resume it seems to me that it ought to be possible for her to switch to a slightly different position, at worst with a modest amount of retraining; my own field is software rather than hardware, though, so I'm drawing a blank on specifics. If anyone has advice on what she can do from here, we'd appreciate it; her email address is dboncore -at- gmail -dot- com and I'm hosting her resume for the moment at http://homepage.eircom.net/~russell12/debraresume.txt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 01:13:32 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution and bee tracheas In-Reply-To: <200606050409.k5549xuf020398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060608011332.86053.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders > Sandberg > > We may not have needed much for most of evolution > and are now trapped in a > > bad solution like the insect trachea... Actually insect tracheas are not that bad of a solution, speaking in an evolutionary sense. Consider the following sobering statistic from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/26/14028 "Ants are arguably the greatest success story in the history of terrestrial metazoa. On average, ants monopolize 15-20% of the terrestrial animal biomass, and in tropical regions where ants are especially abundant, they monopolize 25% or more." Albeit insect tracheas evolved to deal with the high oxygen tension resulting from the initial colonization of plants on land during the carboniferous era, it is probably fortunate for us humans that the oxygen tension now does not support dragonflies with 2 foot wingspans and other giant insects. Considering that ants invented agriculture (fungus farms) and animal husbandry (aphid dairies) long before the first protohumans wandered the earth, I am rather thankful that insects didn't have anything better than diffusion operated tracheas or they might have been the ones debating the singularity these days instead of us. As it is, I doubt that any apocalypse - technological, asteroidal, or otherwise would put so much as a dent in the insect supremacy. Should self-replicating misanthropic AIs ever manage to knock us off our pedestal, I am rather confident that there will still be cockroaches scurrying around under the Terminator's metallic feet. --- spike wrote: > > Interesting comment. I am trying to establish some > bee colonies in Oregon. > The beekeepers there are fighting an infestation of > mites that get into the > bee's trachea. The mites do not actually slay the > bee, but rather control > their numbers while living on the bee's blood. This > makes her sick and > unable to work as hard as she would otherwise. This > is a double tragedy for > a bee, for she then loses her identity in a sense, > like a slow cheetah or a > shark with a finicky appetite. > > http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/PDFs/Tracheal.pdf > > The real tragedy is that there are no bugs that get > inside mosquitoes and > devour those wretched beasts from the inside. I > propose we design a bug or > nanobot that devours only mosquito proboscises. The > result would be > billions of mosquitoes buzzing harmlessly about with > big stupid > proboscisless looks on their faces. Well there are people working on a vaccine against mosquitos by immunizing the subject with the proteins in a mosquito's gut for example. The idea being that when the mosquito bit somebody, the person's antibodies and complement cascade would attack the mosquito from the inside, perforating the intestinal lining of the mosquito. Although I like the irony of a mosquito being digested by its ill-gotten meal, I haven't heard about any successful vaccines yet. The people trying to come up with a vaccine against ticks seem to be having more success perhaps due to the longer feeding time of the tick relative to a mosquito. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hal at finney.org Thu Jun 8 01:27:57 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns Message-ID: <20060608012757.4B11A57FD1@finney.org> Recently I've run across a couple of presentations on technological solutions to reverse global warming. The most interesting is to put stuff into the upper atmosphere to block UV light. Not only does this reduce warming due to sunlight, it has an immediate payoff in terms of reduction in skin cancer. Analyses suggests that it would actually pay for itself in terms of just that effect, independent of the benefits for climate change. Here is one presentation, a 7-minute audio interview with UCI physicist (and science fiction author) Greg Benford: http://www.desmogblog.com/gregory-benford-podcast (http://www.desmogblog.com/audio/download/310) And here is a paper by Dr. Edward Teller of Livermore Labs on the subject, which I think is the work Benford is referring to: http://www.llnl.gov/global-warm/ http://www.llnl.gov/global-warm/148012.pdf Teller's paper actually describes two mitigation schemes, one involving putting stuff in the stratosphere, and the other a more ambitious plan to station material at the Earth-Sun L1 point. This is a semi-stable orbital point approximately a million miles towards the Sun from the Earth. Teller et al calculate that only 3000 tons of smart material located at L1 would diffract away enough sunlight from Earth to eliminate global warming. Of course it will be some time before we can put or manipulate this much material in space. Benford suggests (in his interview) beginning a pilot scheme to put 100 micron particles into the arctic stratosphere during the summer, in order to try to reverse the loss of arctic sea ice and save the polar bears. By design (and in fact, it's hard to avoid) these would snow out every year so they have to be replaced each summer, at an annual cost of about $100 million, he estimates. The bottom line is, as Benford notes, "we're going to have to run this planet." Sooner or later the message will sink in that Kyoto and other conservation efforts are too little, too late (and too expensive). Geo-engineering will be forced on the human race, luddites and all, by the climate change threat of the 21st century. Hal Finney From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jun 8 03:39:54 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:39:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060608012757.4B11A57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <200606080340.k583e5wA008662@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" > > Benford suggests (in his interview) beginning a pilot scheme to put 100 > micron particles into the arctic stratosphere during the summer, in order > to try to reverse the loss of arctic sea ice and save the polar bears... > > Hal Finney Would not these be terribly expensive bears? We are forced to use longer alternative shipping paths for trade routes between northern Europe and pretty much everywhere because of arctic sea ice. This uses still more oil. If we were to melt the ice and sacrifice the bears, we could have shorter, faster, cheaper sea lanes and at the same time save a bunch of seals that would otherwise be devoured by the bears. What is the value of a polar bear? Couldn't we just breed the Canadian grisly to be white? spike From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu Jun 8 03:58:19 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:58:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <200606080340.k583e5wA008662@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606080340.k583e5wA008662@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7983E3D5-F283-40EA-8266-D143F6FE21A6@ceruleansystems.com> On Jun 7, 2006, at 8:39 PM, spike wrote: > Couldn't we just breed the Canadian grisly to be white? Probably. Grizzly (brown) and Polar bears can interbreed, so they are very close genetically. Her is an example of a Grizzly/Polar hybrid found in the wild: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766217.stm J. Andrew Rogers From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Jun 8 08:41:54 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 10:41:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRANSHUMANIST DAY IN SECOND LIFE Message-ID: <470a3c520606080141m16f47139w77aa22d015fd6d0f@mail.gmail.com> TRANSHUMANIST DAY IN SECOND LIFE. The official opening of uvvy island in Second Life took place on Wednesday June 7, 2006, 2 pm EST, with a "Transhumanist Day" dedicated to promoting the transhumanist worldview and outlining its scientific and philosophical roots. About 40 people participated. See the full report here: http://uvvy.com/index.php/Report070606 From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jun 8 09:02:45 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:02:45 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution and bee tracheas In-Reply-To: <20060608011332.86053.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200606050409.k5549xuf020398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060608011332.86053.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060608090245.GM28956@leitl.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 06:13:32PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > As it is, I doubt that any apocalypse - technological, > asteroidal, or otherwise would put so much as a dent Do you know any insects who can survive in molten lava? Or simply in water at 140 C, for that matter? > in the insect supremacy. Should self-replicating > misanthropic AIs ever manage to knock us off our They don't have to be misantrophic, just uncaring. > pedestal, I am rather confident that there will still > be cockroaches scurrying around under the Terminator's > metallic feet. So if you strip-mine the planet for carbon, and nuke off the volatiles your cockroaches will scamper on bare rock, in a vacuum? -- 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 Thu Jun 8 09:28:50 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:28:50 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060608012757.4B11A57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060608012757.4B11A57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060608092850.GP28956@leitl.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 06:27:57PM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Teller's paper actually describes two mitigation schemes, one involving > putting stuff in the stratosphere, and the other a more ambitious plan Arguably with airbreathing hydrogen engines to power aerospace of the near future there will be lots of water ice in the stratosphere by side effect. Truly spectacular clouds. > to station material at the Earth-Sun L1 point. This is a semi-stable > orbital point approximately a million miles towards the Sun from the > Earth. Teller et al calculate that only 3000 tons of smart material > located at L1 would diffract away enough sunlight from Earth to eliminate > global warming. Of course it will be some time before we can put or > manipulate this much material in space. It would be easier to launch material from Luna, using linear motors. Launching 3 kT (assuming, it's enough -- smart materials sounds rather sketchy to me) to L1 by means of chemical rockets is a cure worse than the disease (some 1-3 k launches required, assuming some 20 M$/launch that's a lot of money which is better invested in renewables). -- 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 Thu Jun 8 09:33:30 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:33:30 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <200606080340.k583e5wA008662@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20060608012757.4B11A57FD1@finney.org> <200606080340.k583e5wA008662@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060608093330.GQ28956@leitl.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 08:39:54PM -0700, spike wrote: > would otherwise be devoured by the bears. What is the value of a polar > bear? Couldn't we just breed the Canadian grisly to be white? What's the value of methane released from permafrost clathrates into the atmosphere? -- 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 aiguy at comcast.net Thu Jun 8 09:26:03 2006 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 05:26:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution and bee tracheas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <01c401c68add$91a3e280$2b64ec47@GaryMiller01> Please include fleas and ticks to the insect hit list. Getting rid of them is an expensive yearly battle if you have pets. I would guess inside pet owners spend an average of $100 a year trying to control the problem and a full fledged infestation can cost many times that. If we could immunize the pet with the bug or nanobots then We wouldn't have to worry about about as many environmental issues. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 12:55 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution and bee tracheas spike: >The real tragedy is that there are no bugs that get inside mosquitoes >and devour those wretched beasts from the inside. I propose we design >a bug or nanobot that devours only mosquito proboscises. Wasps have a handle on cockroaches though. http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/03/wasp_performs_roachb.html Maybe the mosquito scientists haven't looked hard enough to find mosquito zombies. 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/ ******************************************************************** "My life has a superb cast but I can't figure out the plot." --Ashleigh Brilliant _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jun 8 16:01:45 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:01:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060608093330.GQ28956@leitl.org> References: <20060608012757.4B11A57FD1@finney.org> <200606080340.k583e5wA008662@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060608093330.GQ28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606080901w2a4046cap241e59f3176e4351@mail.gmail.com> On 6/8/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 08:39:54PM -0700, spike wrote: > > > would otherwise be devoured by the bears. What is the value of a polar > > bear? Couldn't we just breed the Canadian grisly to be white? > > What's the value of methane released from permafrost clathrates > into the atmosphere? > ### Immense. An increase in the average temperatures will be very useful to expand farming to feed the burgeoning population of the world. The benefits of even modest warming have been calculated by economists to run into billions of dollars in the US alone (I can dig up the reference from Marginal Revolution if anybody is interested). Rafal From acy.stapp at gmail.com Thu Jun 8 16:10:54 2006 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:10:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bayes, betting and derivatives In-Reply-To: <9FD6C837-AF99-440F-A452-53D83902F43D@mac.com> References: <20060605213905.GA4654@ofb.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20060605174655.02300d18@gmu.edu> <4484E04C.1020600@pobox.com> <9FD6C837-AF99-440F-A452-53D83902F43D@mac.com> Message-ID: On 6/6/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Because your market theory, fundamental and technical analysis may be > more accurate at least in the short run. This notion that exactly > the same knowledge, mathematically rendered the same is available to > all players and they all have effectively equal skill and > intelligence to boot is a far-fetched fantasy. > > - samantha Indeed one of the key evolutionary drivers of human intelligence was hiding and detecting cheating behavior. Cheating will always be an aspect of intelligence, because cheaters gain an advantage in the short-run and there will always be discounting of the future. In any betting scenario you get a huge growth in informational complexity when you recursively take into account the motives and truthfulness of the participants. ("Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!") -- Acy Stapp "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983) From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jun 8 16:33:01 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:33:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606080901w2a4046cap241e59f3176e4351@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060608012757.4B11A57FD1@finney.org> <200606080340.k583e5wA008662@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060608093330.GQ28956@leitl.org> <7641ddc60606080901w2a4046cap241e59f3176e4351@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060608163301.GO28956@leitl.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 11:01:45AM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Immense. An increase in the average temperatures will be very > useful to expand farming to feed the burgeoning population of the > world. The benefits of even modest warming have been calculated by What about those regions with lots of population, subsistence agriculture which will be hit by draught? There will be precipiation shifts, and arguably a decrease of arable land overall. Water wars will ensue, resulting in mayhem amplification. This is certainly difficult to quantify in $$$, as is loss of human life (Sahel & Co is perpetually fucked up, they really don't need a yet another hammer). This summer is just awful (sleet in June), so I really hope it's not an artefact of the weakining Gulf stream. I don't know where the warming/cooling separatrix is going to be, but I'm probably not exactly on it. > economists to run into billions of dollars in the US alone (I can dig > up the reference from Marginal Revolution if anybody is interested). I don't think there is any reliable model which is going to predict the bad/good outcome. Whenever human lifes are on the line excessive, unwarranted optimism is usually not a good idea. Our only excuse is that collectively we have very little choice on minimizing climate forcing, where hordes of freely behaving irrational primates are at play. Let's hope not much is going to happen, or if something happens it will be quite visible and not disrupt too much so we can adapt and start homesteading this place, instead of exercising habitually poor stewardship of this resource. -- 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 Jun 8 16:47:10 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:47:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060608163301.GO28956@leitl.org> References: <20060608012757.4B11A57FD1@finney.org> <200606080340.k583e5wA008662@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060608093330.GQ28956@leitl.org> <7641ddc60606080901w2a4046cap241e59f3176e4351@mail.gmail.com> <20060608163301.GO28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 6/8/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > What about those regions with lots of population, subsistence agriculture > which will be hit by draught? There will be precipiation shifts, and > arguably a decrease of arable land overall. Water wars will ensue, > resulting in mayhem amplification. This is certainly difficult > to quantify in $$$, as is loss of human life (Sahel & Co is perpetually > fucked up, they really don't need a yet another hammer). > You think maybe all the people moving from the flooded coastal cities and the southern states bothered by desertification and new tropical diseases might get a bit upset at being told their problems are a benefit for agriculture? Especially when they notice that warmed up tundra is not very useful for farming? BillK From hal at finney.org Thu Jun 8 17:58:58 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 10:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns Message-ID: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> Regarding the cost/benefit of global warming, here is a paper on the topic by Richard Tol in the journal Energy Policy. He summarizes over 100 studies which attempt to estimate that very factor in economic terms: http://www.uni-hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/enpolmargcost.pdf Now, they are actually looking at marginal costs, not total cost; that is, the cost of an incremental change. And they are measuring it in terms of tons of carbon (tC), not degrees. But the way the calculations are done, they go from tC to degrees via climatology models, and then attempt to estimate economic costs and benefits. These are then discounted to the present day via standard discount rates. There is quite a range in the studies, but the median cost value is $14/tC. That's not super high, compared to estimated costs of conservation, but it does mean that global warming is a net cost. The article notes that the greater impacts occur in the Third World, particularly Africa and southeast Asia. It also appears that slight warming, on the order of 1 degree C, could actually be beneficial, while larger changes are harmful. So global warming will be harmful, at least under a current "best guess" of 3 degrees C. (This value is based on the assumptions that we will roughly double the preindustrial 280 ppm even with strict emission controls, and that climate sensitivity to a doubling is 3 C - see http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html). At the same time, the costs of conservation are very high. The realclimate.org blog exists largely to oppose global warming nay-sayers, so they are credible when they admit the high costs of emimssions reductions. They recently commented, "Compliance with Kyoto, a mere 5% reduction in Narbon emissions, was forecast by Nordhaus [2001] to cost a few percent of GDP globally. The cost to stop emission completely and immediately may not even be calculable." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/buying-a-stairway-to-heaven/ Global GDP is $44 trillion so we are talking about a cost of a trillion dollars a year to comply with Kyoto, yet there is widespread consensus that this modest 5% reduction will have essentially no effect on global temperatures; it will be lost in the noise. For a trillion dollars a year, we gain nothing. Compare that to costs of the technological mitigations presented earlier, more like a billion dollars a year to stop and reverse warming. They are over a thousand times more efficient. >From what I can see, emissions reductions do not make economic sense at this time. The costs of substantial reductions are enormous, and there are a number of strategies on the table (ocean fertilization, planting forests, stratospheric aerosols, space shields, exotic nanotech and biotech engineering) which should be able to do the job cheaper, well before the end of this century. One final point. I haven't yet seen Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth. However I'll note that the title is somewhat misleading, as the "truth" that he presents is actually quite convenient for supporters of centralization, world government, economic controls, and collective action - in short, for leftists, and for Al Gore himself. Listening to a TV review of the movie, they quoted Gore as saying that within 10 years we will reach a tipping point, and if we don't do something by then we are doomed to very bad consequences. This is his "inconvenient truth". But listen to what Science magazine wrote a few weeks ago: > A central feature of this long baseline is this: At no time in at > least the past 10 million years has the atmospheric concentration > of CO2 exceeded the present value of 380 ppmv. At this time in the > Miocene, there were no major ice sheets in Greenland, sea level was > several meters higher than today's (envision a very skinny Florida), > and temperatures were several degrees higher. A more recent point of > reference, and the subject of two papers in this issue, is the Eemian: > the previous interglacial, about 130,000 to 120,000 years ago. This > was a warm climate, comparable to our Holocene, during which sea levels > were several meters higher than today's, even though CO2 concentrations > remained much lower than today's postindustrial level. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5768/1673 See also http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/ice/ for additional stories. The point is that the actual truth is even more inconvenient than Gore admits (from what I have read about the movie), and is inconvenient even for the collectivists I listed above. The truth is that the tipping point is not ten years away, but many years in the past. We have already put too much carbon into the atmosphere. Even today's level of CO2 (absent technological mitigation) has commited us to enough sea level rise to cover most of Florida, as well as major coastal cities. And there is no plausible enforcement policy which can stop CO2 level from continuing to rise for many decades. We are at 380 now, will pass 400 shortly, and only with the most stringent restrictions will we be able to level off at 500 or 550 ppm. This commits us to far more warming, even if everyone listens to and believes Al Gore. The real inconvenient truth is that emissions reductions will not stop the catastrophic consequences of global warming. Even enormously costly efforts will make only a small difference. The only solution is technology. This is not a lesson that Al Gore is particularly eager to teach, but it is what the world must learn in order to deal with this problem rationally and efficiently. Hal P.S. I have to admit that just as Al Gore's truth is convenient for him, my own truth is convenient for me. I like technology and I like the idea of a world which actively utilizes technology to manage climate and other global issues. From george at betterhumans.com Thu Jun 8 16:30:21 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 12:30:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606080901w2a4046cap241e59f3176e4351@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060608012757.4B11A57FD1@finney.org> <200606080340.k583e5wA008662@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060608093330.GQ28956@leitl.org> <7641ddc60606080901w2a4046cap241e59f3176e4351@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4488509D.1040904@betterhumans.com> These issues and potential resolutions will have to be weighed and offset against the effects of global dimming which is also impacting on global temperatures and the abilities of plants to photosynthesize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming Cheers, George From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Jun 8 19:57:54 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:57:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060608155420.0240cdb8@gmu.edu> At 01:58 PM 6/8/2006, Hal Finney wrote: >Regarding the cost/benefit of global warming, here is a paper on the >topic by Richard Tol in the journal Energy Policy. ... >There is quite a range in the studies, but the median cost value >is $14/tC. That's not super high, compared to estimated costs of >conservation, but it does mean that global warming is a net cost. ... > From what I can see, emissions reductions do not make economic sense >at this time. The costs of substantial reductions are enormous, and >there are a number of strategies on the table (ocean fertilization, >planting forests, stratospheric aerosols, space shields, exotic nanotech >and biotech engineering) which should be able to do the job cheaper, >well before the end of this century. ... Perhaps, but it seems to at least make sense to tax carbon at something like its estimated externality cost on others. A $14/tC tax might be a lot less that some people want, an a zero tax might be better than those large taxes people want, but the $14 tax would be better than either. Then you'd want to pay people who create those substitutes for reductions at that same level, and if they come up with stuff great, if not fine too. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From hal at finney.org Thu Jun 8 21:08:36 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns Message-ID: <20060608210836.BC60557FD1@finney.org> Robin writes: > At 01:58 PM 6/8/2006, Hal Finney wrote: > > From what I can see, emissions reductions do not make economic sense > >at this time. > > Perhaps, but it seems to at least make sense to tax carbon at something > like its estimated externality cost on others. A $14/tC tax might be a lot > less that some people want, an a zero tax might be better than those large > taxes people want, but the $14 tax would be better than either. Then > you'd want to pay people who create those substitutes for reductions at > that same level, and if they come up with stuff great, if not fine too. I see two problems with this. One is the institutional difficulties in setting up this worldwide tax collection mechanism. Probably Kyoto is the closest model, and it is a good example of what happens to such efforts after passing through the maw of a government committee. It is full of exceptions and subsidies that make it highly inefficient at even the modest emission reductions it aims to achieve. While a uniform carbon tax would be much better, it is questionable whether our present global institutions can come up with anything better than Kyoto. There is always the risk that China and India will prefer to raise their standard of living today and fix the problem tomorrow, hence there is enormous political pressure to craft exceptions and special cases. Nordhaus talks at the link below about the inefficiency of Kyoto. He agrees with the preferability of a straight carbon tax, but my concern is that if we limit ourselves to what is politically practical, we will probably end up once again with something that does more harm than good: http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/nordhaus_science_110901.pdf The second problem is that there will probably be ways of solving the problem for much less than $14/tC, hence charging people that much today is inefficient. Wouldn't it make more sense to charge people today based on the expected cost of the cleanup effort, rather than the expected damage if cleanup never occurs? Teller claims that a ONE-TIME set-aside today of 1.74 billion dollars would generate enough interest in 50 years to indefinitely fund a stratospheric shield. Compare to about $60 billion per year in taxes if we used the $14/tC figure (based on current rates of carbon accumulation in the atmosphere of 4 Gt/year). This suggests that $14/tC could be hundreds of times larger than is necessary. http://www.llnl.gov/global-warm/148012.pdf Hal From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Jun 8 23:19:55 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:19:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060608210836.BC60557FD1@finney.org> References: <20060608210836.BC60557FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060608231955.GA20479@ofb.net> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:08:36PM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote: > damage if cleanup never occurs? Teller claims that a ONE-TIME set-aside > today of 1.74 billion dollars would generate enough interest in 50 years > to indefinitely fund a stratospheric shield. Compare to about $60 billion So as we put more and more CO2 into the air, increasing the greenhouse capability, we dim the sun more and more to make up for it? I sense a problem down that road. As for costs, I'd note that Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute and Winning the Oil Endgame (www.rmi.org, www.oilendgame.com) argues we can cut emissions a lot for low cost or even profit, with lightweight strong-material cars being a big part of it. Lots of existing unused efficiency potential, in cars and buildings. -xx- Damien X-) From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Jun 8 23:24:00 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:24:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060608210836.BC60557FD1@finney.org> References: <20060608210836.BC60557FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060608184518.0244ab38@gmu.edu> At 05:08 PM 6/8/2006, Hal Finney wrote: > > > From what I can see, emissions reductions do not make economic sense > > >at this time. > > > > Perhaps, but it seems to at least make sense to tax carbon at something > > like its estimated externality cost on others. A $14/tC tax might be a lot > > less that some people want, an a zero tax might be better than those large > > taxes people want, but the $14 tax would be better than either. Then > > you'd want to pay people who create those substitutes for reductions at > > that same level, and if they come up with stuff great, if not fine too. > >I see two problems with this. ... Kyoto ... is full of exceptions >and subsidies >that make it highly inefficient ... While a uniform carbon tax would be much >better, it is questionable whether our present global institutions can come up >with anything better than Kyoto. Yes of course, an inefficient non-uniform tax could be worse than no tax. >The second problem is that there will probably be ways of solving the >problem for much less than $14/tC, hence charging people that much today >is inefficient. ... Teller claims that a ONE-TIME set-aside >today of 1.74 billion dollars would generate enough interest in 50 years >to indefinitely fund a stratospheric shield. It depends on our confidence in these lowering prices. I wouldn't just want to talk Teller's word for it, though I'd probably believe a prediction market. Paying more than we needed to might not be near as bad as not doing as much as we should have. 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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Jun 9 00:02:20 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:02:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] [PHIL] Hofstadter on Singularity; naturalism Message-ID: <20060609000220.GA27550@ofb.net> Douglas Hofstadter gave a longer version of his Summit talk on the Singularity at IU yesterday, and I tried writing up some notes. http://mindstalk.livejournal.com/12240.html I also just ran into a website on Naturalism, with links to Susan Blackmore and Dan Dennett, among others. Seems well-written and -thought out so far. http://naturalism.org/ -xx- Damien X-) From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 01:09:04 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060608163301.GO28956@leitl.org> References: <20060608012757.4B11A57FD1@finney.org> <200606080340.k583e5wA008662@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060608093330.GQ28956@leitl.org> <7641ddc60606080901w2a4046cap241e59f3176e4351@mail.gmail.com> <20060608163301.GO28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606081809y402e1573rdc520860c8138be5@mail.gmail.com> On 6/8/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 11:01:45AM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > ### Immense. An increase in the average temperatures will be very > > useful to expand farming to feed the burgeoning population of the > > world. The benefits of even modest warming have been calculated by > > What about those regions with lots of population, subsistence agriculture > which will be hit by draught? There will be precipiation shifts, and > arguably a decrease of arable land overall. Water wars will ensue, > resulting in mayhem amplification. This is certainly difficult > to quantify in $$$, as is loss of human life (Sahel & Co is perpetually > fucked up, they really don't need a yet another hammer). ### This is a common assumption but to the best of my knowledge it is not supported by research of appropriate quality. It is now well-known that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide greatly improves plant growth, *especially* in the hottest climate, in deserts. The mechanism has to do with the reduced need for respiration in plants which have more CO2 in the air, which allows them to shut their stomata, leading to less transpiration, and overall better growth. The laboratory studies are borne out by observations of increased plant growth in the Sahel region, well-noticeable on satellite images. I have no doubt that there will be regions which will experience negative economic consequences of warming and I agree with you that nobody has yet sufficient data to confidently weigh them against the expected gains. Which is for me a sufficient reason to support massive spending on research, and to not give a single penny for remediation or restitution, until iron-clad data are available. Rafal From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jun 9 02:07:51 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 19:07:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <200606090218.k592Ib90027862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" ... > > So global warming will be harmful, at least under a current "best guess" > of 3 degrees C... Hal These models tend to assume a nearly uniform increase in temperature, but I am more ambitious than that. What if we could warm the poles and cool the tropics. Would not that be a good thing? How about making the deserts wetter and the soggy areas dryer? What if we had to sacrifice the polar bears and the penguins to do it? But if we gave up those two species, and made new habitat for a hundred new ones, wouldn't that be a good deal? Or by expanding current habitats we were to save a hundred existing species? spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 04:59:41 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution and bee tracheas In-Reply-To: <20060608090245.GM28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060609045941.27148.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 06:13:32PM -0700, The > Avantguardian wrote: > > > As it is, I doubt that any apocalypse - > technological, > > asteroidal, or otherwise would put so much as a > dent > > Do you know any insects who can survive in molten > lava? > Or simply in water at 140 C, for that matter? Unlikely hypotheticals aside, my argument operates off of the 500 million or so years of natural history as portrayed in the fossil record. Please see the excellently informative insect evolution time-line at http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/ent201/content/diversity.pdf for elucidation. Keep in mind that the width of the shaded areas of the histogram represent the diversity of species within given orders of insects. The horizontal lines most likely represent asteroid impacts that presumably were era-ending boundary events. Notice that each causes a bottle neck of diversity within the various orders but MOST of the orders survive and immediately afterwards blossom into even greater diversity than before. The lower line represents the Permian-Triassic extinction event, the greatest in the fossil record, wiping out over 90% of species. It is believed to have been caused by TWO impactors of aproximately 30 miles in diameter that gave rise to the Wilkes Land crater in Antartica and Bedout crater off the coast of Australia. These impacts were thought to cause of a chain reaction of hyper-volcanism, global warming, and frozen methane release that wreaked havoc on the biosphere but merely served to turn the world into an insect paradise. Amusingly , the Cretacious-Tertiary boundary event (a mere 6 mile wide asteroid) that killed off the dinosaurs did not even slow the growth of most of the insect orders notably the beetles, the flies, and the bees/wasps/ants. Then again none of these impacts boiled all the oceans (let alone vaporized it to reach your figure of 140 C) or turned all the land into molten lava. Something that catastropic would probably require an asteroid the size of Ceres at 500 miles wide. While such an impact may wipe out the insects, it is probably sure to wipe out any computers upon which AIs are running and atomize all nanotech anyways. After all molten slag is how they killed the Terminator in the second movie. :) > > in the insect supremacy. Should self-replicating > > misanthropic AIs ever manage to knock us off our > > They don't have to be misantrophic, just uncaring. It is hard to be hyperintelligent AND completely uncaring. It would require a mental disorder bordering on psychopathy. I am not a superintelligence yet I pity the worms on the sidewalk after a rain. > > > pedestal, I am rather confident that there will > still > > be cockroaches scurrying around under the > Terminator's > > metallic feet. > > So if you strip-mine the planet for carbon, and nuke > off the volatiles your cockroaches will scamper on > bare rock, in a vacuum? Unless these as of yet uncreated AI are designed as nihilistic smart-WMD, they would have little motive to do something like that. If smart humans are any kind of model for superintelligence, they would not even be fast replicators. After all, why would hyperintelligent beings create more competition for themselves by runaway procreation? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From xyz at iq.org Fri Jun 9 05:06:30 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:06:30 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <200606090218.k592Ib90027862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606090218.k592Ib90027862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1149829590.4306.263419348@webmail.messagingengine.com> > am more ambitious than that. What if we could warm the poles and cool > the > tropics. Would not that be a good thing? How about making the deserts Heat is not enough for life; you also need an energy gradient. While making the poles less reflective by covering them with pants will bring down more solar energy, the total received by artic regions will still be close to zero six months of the year, only reaching a little above (due to the longer day) 0.6 equatorial solar energy units during the summer solstice. This is an interesting calculation to do analytically, btw. But a warmer south pole would make life easier for mining companies and fossil prospectors. From sjatkins at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 08:13:21 2006 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 01:13:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <48DFA0C3-C544-41EF-94CB-9E2229AA7CCF@mac.com> On Jun 8, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Hal Finney wrote: > > One final point. I haven't yet seen Al Gore's global warming movie, > An Inconvenient Truth. However I'll note that the title is somewhat > misleading, as the "truth" that he presents is actually quite > convenient > for supporters of centralization, world government, economic controls, > and collective action - in short, for leftists, and for Al Gore > himself. This really misses the point completely. Centralization is not necessarily the only or the best way to deal with global warming. > > Listening to a TV review of the movie, they quoted Gore as saying > that within 10 years we will reach a tipping point, and if we don't do > something by then we are doomed to very bad consequences. This is his > "inconvenient truth". But listen to what Science magazine wrote a few > weeks ago: > >> A central feature of this long baseline is this: At no time in at >> least the past 10 million years has the atmospheric concentration >> of CO2 exceeded the present value of 380 ppmv. At this time in the >> Miocene, there were no major ice sheets in Greenland, sea level was >> several meters higher than today's (envision a very skinny Florida), >> and temperatures were several degrees higher. A more recent point of >> reference, and the subject of two papers in this issue, is the >> Eemian: >> the previous interglacial, about 130,000 to 120,000 years ago. This >> was a warm climate, comparable to our Holocene, during which sea >> levels >> were several meters higher than today's, even though CO2 >> concentrations >> remained much lower than today's postindustrial level. > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5768/1673 > > The real inconvenient truth is that emissions reductions will not > stop the catastrophic consequences of global warming. Even enormously > costly efforts will make only a small difference. The only solution > is technology. This is not a lesson that Al Gore is particularly > eager > to teach, but it is what the world must learn in order to deal with > this > problem rationally and efficiently. > Al Gore is usually a strong advocate of technology. Do you really thing he cares more about centralization than about doing what can be done to mitigate a disaster? Perhaps we could all do with a bit less sniping of one another and instead work together on solutions. - samantha From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Jun 9 08:26:17 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 01:26:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [PvT] Re: Climate skepticism patterns Message-ID: <448930A9.4000609@mindspring.com> It's not at all smart to mess with Mother Nature (or Gaia, whomever you chose). You can not go around upsetting the balance with which the Earth and most particularly the atmosphere handles incoming Solar radiation-certainly the CFC problem with the O3 layer and the current problems with Climate Change should tell everyone that. First off, you start increasing snowfall in the Arctic and you might end up with too much snow that doesn't melt during the Summer which will increase Earth's Albedo and could lead to something far beyond the realm of anyone's thinking right now. UV radiation from the Sun is critical to plant growth and in the formation of natural vitamins in our food supply. Also, it's the annual variation in UV due to the changing insolation during the seasons that triggers both leaf fall and the leafing out of deciduous trees-no UV no fruit. Steve -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jun 9 10:56:05 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:56:05 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution and bee tracheas In-Reply-To: <20060609045941.27148.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060608090245.GM28956@leitl.org> <20060609045941.27148.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060609105605.GQ28956@leitl.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:59:41PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > As it is, I doubt that any apocalypse - > > technological, > > > asteroidal, or otherwise would put so much as a > > dent > > > > Do you know any insects who can survive in molten > > lava? > > Or simply in water at 140 C, for that matter? > > Unlikely hypotheticals aside, my argument operates off Do you think the Mars-sized impactor which created Luna was unlikely? I agree. It has happend, though. Do you think that solar constant going up as Sun starts going up the main sequence (due in about half a gigayear) is unlikely, too? There are certainly no insects on Venus. A few more % of the solar constant, and this planet won't look too hot (pun intended). > of the 500 million or so years of natural history as No fair cherry-picking data. What has gone before and what will come after (unless we interfere) will be equally natural, and quite deadly. > portrayed in the fossil record. Please see the > excellently informative insect evolution time-line at > http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/ent201/content/diversity.pdf > for elucidation. Keep in mind that the width of the > shaded areas of the histogram represent the diversity > of species within given orders of insects. Again, what is insect diversity at 450 K Earth surface temperature? What is insect diversity at 6 mbar N2? > The horizontal lines most likely represent asteroid > impacts that presumably were era-ending boundary > events. Notice that each causes a bottle neck of > diversity within the various orders but MOST of the > orders survive and immediately afterwards blossom into > even greater diversity than before. Do you think biology survived the Mars-sized impactor which melted the crust and wreaked havoc to volatiles? > The lower line represents the Permian-Triassic > extinction event, the greatest in the fossil record, > wiping out over 90% of species. It is believed to have > been caused by TWO impactors of aproximately 30 miles > in diameter that gave rise to the Wilkes Land crater > in Antartica and Bedout crater off the coast of > Australia. These impacts were thought to cause of a > chain reaction of hyper-volcanism, global warming, and > frozen methane release that wreaked havoc on the > biosphere but merely served to turn the world into an > insect paradise. Amusingly , the Cretacious-Tertiary > boundary event (a mere 6 mile wide asteroid) that > killed off the dinosaurs did not even slow the growth > of most of the insect orders notably the beetles, the > flies, and the bees/wasps/ants. > > Then again none of these impacts boiled all the oceans Right. Molten Earth crust doesn't preserve fossil records. > (let alone vaporized it to reach your figure of 140 C) > or turned all the land into molten lava. Something > that catastropic would probably require an asteroid > the size of Ceres at 500 miles wide. While such an > impact may wipe out the insects, it is probably sure > to wipe out any computers upon which AIs are running A solid-state civilization would 1) not live on just planetary surfaces 2) be capable of predicting and deflecting Ceres-sized impactor 3) would probably have eaten that Ceres-sized impactor for breakfast, and everything else but the gas giants (arguably, even gas giants). Unfortunately, they would also mean teotwawki to biology. > and atomize all nanotech anyways. After all molten > slag is how they killed the Terminator in the second > movie. :) Ah, Hollywood science again. > It is hard to be hyperintelligent AND completely > uncaring. It would require a mental disorder bordering I disagree. I'm completely uncaring about virus particles in the pond 325.25 km from here which is right now being turned into parking lot. No harsh feelings, it isn't personal. > on psychopathy. I am not a superintelligence yet I > pity the worms on the sidewalk after a rain. But why are you tolerating the sidewalk, if worms are so precious? Maybe being able to drive to work is more important than a few drowned worms? Speaking about extinctions, we're busily causing one which could become the greatest ever -- ultimatively resulting in our own extinction. > > So if you strip-mine the planet for carbon, and nuke > > off the volatiles your cockroaches will scamper on > > bare rock, in a vacuum? > > Unless these as of yet uncreated AI are designed as > nihilistic smart-WMD, they would have little motive to No, that's just plain evolution. It's just postbiology has a different niche than biology, and unless postbiology collectively cares about preserving biology we will leave even less traces than prebiotic chemistry formerly covering the surface of this planet. > do something like that. If smart humans are any kind > of model for superintelligence, they would not even be What makes you think postbiology will be superintelligent? The bulk of the biomass isn't exactly intelligent. > fast replicators. After all, why would > hyperintelligent beings create more competition for Why do you think the bulk of postbiomass will be hyperintelligent? > themselves by runaway procreation? Following your logic, life would never have happened. Why expand beyond the first pond? -- 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 natasha at natasha.cc Fri Jun 9 13:42:25 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:42:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MEDIA: Meme Therapy on Transhumanism Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060609084111.041e1b00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> The interview with me at Meme Therapy is up. http://www.memetherapy.blogspot.com/ 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 natasha at natasha.cc Fri Jun 9 14:13:18 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:13:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MEDIA: Meme Therapy on Transhumanism Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060609091239.0419ec20@pop-server.austin.rr.com> The interview with me at Meme Therapy is up. http://www.memetherapy.blogspot.com/ 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 mstriz at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 18:55:52 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:55:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <200606090218.k592Ib90027862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> <200606090218.k592Ib90027862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 6/8/06, spike wrote: > These models tend to assume a nearly uniform increase in temperature, but I > am more ambitious than that. What if we could warm the poles and cool the > tropics. Would not that be a good thing? How about making the deserts > wetter and the soggy areas dryer? What if we had to sacrifice the polar > bears and the penguins to do it? But if we gave up those two species, and > made new habitat for a hundred new ones, wouldn't that be a good deal? Or > by expanding current habitats we were to save a hundred existing species? *blinks* You wouldn't just lose two species. Ecosystems are interwoven. You would lose thousands. The the species that you would gain back would take millions of years to evolve... if we completely eliminate the practices that are currently producing the largest rate of extinction in earth's history. Martin From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 21:31:23 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:31:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Summit Photos, audio, presentations and blog coverage available online Message-ID: Perhaps it's old news, but here is a copy of an email I received from folks responsible for the Singularity Summit. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles ************************************************ Dear Jeff, We hope you made it to the Singularity Summit at Stanford and had a great time! There were 1300 in attendance - the largest single day gathering on these dialogues. Photos, audio, presentations and blog coverage are now online: - Photography: http://sss.stanford.edu/coverage/press/ - Audio: http://sss.stanford.edu/coverage/audioandvideo/ - Powerpoints: http://sss.stanford.edu/coverage/powerpoints/ - Media and Blog Coverage: http://sss.stanford.edu/press/ - Relevant Reading: http://sss.stanford.edu/reading/ We put an immense amount of effort into the site to create an educational archive. Please take advantage! The site can educate tens of thousands of people about these issues, as long as the URL reaches them. If you would, please take a few minutes to tell others, especially about the audio. Let us know if you blog about the summit coverage and we will link back to you here: http://sss.stanford.edu/press/ The exceptional group of volunteers, staff, speakers and co-sponsors who made the summit possible are recognized here: http://sss.stanford.edu/coverage/thank_you/ Feel free to get in touch with us if you would like to follow up. Best wishes, Tyler Emerson Executive Director Singularity Institute emerson at singinst.org 650-353-6063 cell Carolyn L Burke Communications Director Singularity Institute burke at singinst.org 416-893-4280 cell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Jun 10 01:55:26 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:55:26 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: References: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> <200606090218.k592Ib90027862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <34951.86.143.246.157.1149904526.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Martin Striz wrote: > You wouldn't just lose two species. Ecosystems are interwoven. You > would lose thousands. The the species that you would gain back would > take millions of years to evolve... if we completely eliminate the > practices that are currently producing the largest rate of extinction > in earth's history. And the fun thing is, this could happen if you do Kyoto... or not do Kyoto. Or L1 solar shields, fixes for global dimming or introducing a hydrogen economy. The argument that we shouldn't do something because unknown but potentially horrific risks may exist only works when we have more rational reason to believe some choices are indeed more risky thank others. Big things like L1 shades are probably more problematic than not producing much greenhouse gasses, but L1 shades can also be quickly turned on and off if they seem bad, which is much harder with an emissions economy. Fearful of path dependency and tipping points? You better map out the phase space better. In the end the unknown risk argument only leads to conservatism, and the conservative approach is to do what we always have been doing... which isn't very encouraging when thinking of the climate. Similarly the intervovenness argument is also a deeply conservative argument. You can use it to defend monarchy and capitalism as it suits you. After all, who are we to meddle with the great spontaneous orders? "It is the international system of currency which determines the vitality of life on this planet. THAT is the natural order of things today. THAT is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today. And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature. And YOU WILL ATONE." Fortunately ecology is not just intervoven but robust and inventive. Otherwise it wouldn't have lasted the other climate change periods. I think a bit of intelligence, some knowledge and plenty of monitoring can be used to fix things. Maybe not back to what they were, but we will never be able to agree on when it was "right" anyway (I want the Holocene climate optimum flora back!). So we better turn forward and think about the targets we want instead. 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? [ I never do drunken postings. It is three in the morning and I have read too much econometrics. ] -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jun 10 02:57:27 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:57:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <34951.86.143.246.157.1149904526.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200606100308.k5A381JV027062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > Martin Striz wrote: > > You wouldn't just lose two species. Ecosystems are interwoven. You > > would lose thousands. The the species that you would gain back would > > take millions of years to evolve... if we completely eliminate the > > practices that are currently producing the largest rate of extinction > > in earth's history... Ecosystems are interwoven, but some ecosystems are relatively simple, such as the poles. Few species are present there, and their interaction is lower than in other places. It is everyone against the cold there. Species need not take millions of years to evolve, if we design them. spike From mstriz at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 03:47:11 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 23:47:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <34951.86.143.246.157.1149904526.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> Message-ID: On 6/9/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Similarly the intervovenness argument is also a deeply conservative > argument. You can use it to defend monarchy and capitalism as it suits > you. After all, who are we to meddle with the great spontaneous orders? Nature is red in tooth and claw. Some have argued that our morality should reflect that (Cf. Herbert Spencer). Even if they were wrong, that doesn't make it less true of nature. Even if an interwovenness argument was used to defend indefensible things, it is still a fact of ecosystems. Comparing it to bogus arguments doesn't make it less true. > Fortunately ecology is not just intervoven but robust and inventive. > Otherwise it wouldn't have lasted the other climate change periods. Granted. I certainly don't think that ecosystems won't bounce back. But it takes a long time. We have an uncanny ability to destroy them faster than they proliferate. We may even be able to create species de novo someday. However, some vague prospect beyond the horizon shouldn't be a license to act irresponsibly. Should I not save any money for retirement because there's a small chance that the Singularity, postbiology, or whatever will arrive before then? That would be stupid. > I > think a bit of intelligence, some knowledge and plenty of monitoring can > be used to fix things. Maybe not back to what they were, but we will never > be able to agree on when it was "right" anyway I think that at this point the trajectory needs to be changed. Martin From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Jun 10 05:32:40 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 22:32:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <34951.86.143.246.157.1149904526.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> Message-ID: <20060610053239.GA7494@ofb.net> 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. Google on [species extinction rate] or http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/point/ Climate change, exotic species introductions, habitat destruction which has non-linear effects due to fragmentation, overhunting/fishing. Gorillas and orangs and bonobos are on the brink, chimps not much better. We're burning biological libraries accumulated over millions of years, thousands or millions, of Alexandrias going up in smoke. http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html "Half of all species extinct in 100 years." "One-fifth could disappear in 30 years." "The Sixth Extinction". -xx- Damien X-) From benboc at lineone.net Sat Jun 10 06:14:20 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:14:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Opinions on Singularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <448A633C.60502@lineone.net> Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > I'm hoping for opinions on: > What are the advantages to The Singularity occuring? Here are some opinions on this: POTENTIAL advantages (not saying that this is what i expect, understand) are mainly allowing us (people in general) to lever ourselves out of the shithole we find ourselves in at present. Allowing us to live as long as we want, rid ourselves of diseases, poverty, oppression, allowing us a much better chance of realising our potentials as thinking beings. Maximising our chances of happiness. Giving us (thinking beings in general) a fighting chance to survive into the future. > What do most people think the biggest risks are? Biggest risk of course, is total annihilation. Lesser risks are enslavement, many other possible ways of making our lives worse rather than better. Perhaps worst of all, involuntarily changing us, changing who we are, how we think. Some will think that's worse than death. > What is most important to you when it comes to technology? That it's continuing development not be stifled. In a sense, technology defines us, it's what we do. Without it, what are we? Just another monkey. No, worse, a very poor monkey. Strip a human being of all technology and set them free in a totally natural environment, and prevent them from using any technology. How long will they last? I reckon a few days. Some might manage a few weeks, but i doubt if any human can live for long without technology. So stifling technology is stifling us. Do that, and you kill us, sooner or later. It's no good saying "only so much technology, but no more", like the Amish do. What could the Amish do about a smallpox epidemic? Just scale that up. What could we, with our current technology, do about a big asteroid strike? A massive solar flare? Nearby supernova? Interstellar hydrogen cloud? etc. We need to keep going, or we die. Actually, that sounds a bit grim, doesn't it? I think it's important to make sure we have fun along the way, too! ben From xyz at iq.org Sat Jun 10 07:27:38 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:27:38 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <200606100308.k5A381JV027062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606100308.k5A381JV027062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1149924458.31672.263502072@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Ecosystems are interwoven, but some ecosystems are relatively simple, > such > as the poles. Few species are present there, and their interaction is > lower > than in other places. It is everyone against the cold there. Species > need > not take millions of years to evolve, if we design them. spike This argument, about the poles, is obviously untrue. Since there are no local energy sources worth speaking of on the land, energy must be obtained from members who have come from elsewhere -- i.e the from sea and frequently the distant sea, making the poles the most ecologically dependent places on earth. From amara at amara.com Sat Jun 10 08:31:27 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:31:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns Message-ID: >This argument, about the poles, is obviously untrue. Since there are no >local energy sources worth speaking of on the land Well there there's these: Mt. Erebus (on Ross Island) http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/current_volcs/erebus/erebus.html Iceland's volcanoes (don't know how close to the poles you want to be) http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/Iceland/overview.html Amara From scerir at libero.it Sat Jun 10 11:57:17 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:57:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns References: <200606090218.k592Ib90027862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000f01c68c85$062c66b0$81bd1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Spike: > What is the value of a polar bear? > Couldn't we just breed the Canadian grisly > to be white? Since oceans warm slower than land, and since there is much more land in the N pole than in the S pole, we get different warming in each pole (and different warming 'amplification' in each pole) . http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/more-on-the-arctic/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-arctic-climate-impact-assessment/ So, artic bears can go south, and do not scare on thin ice then http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138346,00.html From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Jun 10 12:09:19 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:09:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Two draft papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and biases In-Reply-To: <44830B56.3080003@pobox.com> References: <44830B56.3080003@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060609224449.02383310@gmu.edu> At 12:33 PM 6/4/2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >These are drafts of my chapters for Nick Bostrom's forthcoming edited >volume _Global Catastrophic Risks_. >_Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks_ > http://singinst.org/Biases.pdf >An introduction to the field of heuristics and biases ... >_Artificial Intelligence and Global Risk_ > http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf >The new standard introductory material on Friendly AI. The chapter on cognitive biases was excellent. Regarding the other chapter, while you seem to have thought lots about many related issues over the years, you don't seem to have worked much on the issue I get stuck on: the idea that a single relatively isolated AI system could suddenly change from negligible to overwhelmingly powerful. You warn repeatedly about how easy is is to fool oneself into thinking one understands AI, and you want readers to apply this to their intuitions about the goals an AI may have. But you seem to be relying almost entirely on unarticulated intuitions when you conclude that very large and rapid improvement of isolated AIs is likely. You say that humans today and natural selection do not self-improve in the "strong sense" because humans "haven't rewritten the human brain," "its limbic core, its cerebral cortex, its prefrontal self-models" and natural selection has not "rearchitected" "the process of mutation and recombination and selection," with "its focus on allele frequencies" while an AI "could rewrite its code from scratch." And that is pretty much the full extent of your relevant argument. This argument seems to me to need a whole lot of elaboration and clarification to be persuasive, if it is to go beyond the mere logical possibility of rapid self-improvement. The code of an AI is just one part of a larger system that would allow an AI to self-improve, just as the genetic code is a self-modifiable part of the larger system of natural selection, and human culture and beliefs are a self-modifiable part of human improvement today. In principle every part of each system could be self-modified, while in practice some parts are harder to modify than others. Perhaps there are concepts and principles which could help us to understand why the relative ease of self-modification of the parts of the AI improvement process are importantly different that in these other cases. But you do not seem to have yet articulated any such concepts or principles. A standard abstraction seems useful to me: when knowledge accumulates in many small compatible representations, growth is in the largest system that can share such representations. Since DNA is sharable mainly within a species, the improvements that any one small family of members can produce are usually small compared to the improvements transferred by sex within the species. Since humans share their knowledge via language and copying practices, the improvements that a small group of people can make are small compared to the improvements transferred from others, and made available by trading with those others. The obvious question about a single AI is why its improvements could not with the usual ease be transferred to other AIs or humans, or made available via trades with those others. If so, this single AI would just be part of our larger system of self-improvement. The scenario of rapid isolated self-improvement would seem to be where the AI found a new system of self-improvement, where knowledge production was far more effective, *and* where internal sharing of knowledge was vastly easier than external sharing. While this is logically possible, I do not yet see a reason to think it likely. Today a single human can share the ideas within his own head far easier than he can share those ideas with others - communication with other people is far more expensive and error-prone. Yet the rate at which a single human can innovate is so small relative to the larger economy that most innovation comes from ideas shared across people. So a modest advantage for the AI's internal sharing would not be enough - the advantage would have to be enormous. 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 asa at nada.kth.se Sat Jun 10 13:50:43 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:50:43 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060610053239.GA7494@ofb.net> 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> Message-ID: <35842.86.143.246.157.1149947443.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> 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. A little dive into the data. I found http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction/ which has some good data. The main problem is that we get rates rather than absolute numbers so far. Doing a bit of counting in one of Baez diagrams produces a lower bound of around 416 species. http://extinctanimals.petermaas.nl/ gives 921 animal species cand 86 plant species. So if we make the assumption that this about half the number of real extinctions, we get around 2000 already extinct species. But this doesn't fit at all with http://www.soc.duke.edu/~pmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis.html who claim that about 2000 pacific bird species are gone. Maybe the above lists were just looking at obvious macrospecies and not the ones specialists care about. Going to UNEP gives 380+371 (extinct plus possibly extinct) vascular plants, but I cant get the stupid animal database to give a complete number. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html?http://www.unep-wcmc.org/species/animals/animal_redlist.html~main Making the assumption that the ratio 751/86 for the plants repeats for the animals, we get a multiplied estimate of the extinctanimals number as 8042 species. So the order of magnitude is about 10,000 species or so, so far. The total number of species is somewhere between 2-100 million. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/FelixNisimov.shtml which gives an extinction so far of 0.5-0.001%. This indeed seems to be within the noise level. It is probably indeed shaping up to be the biggest mass extinction since K/T, but so far it hasn't really got started. The estimates of coming extinction rates lie between 0.7 (Lomborg) - 50% (various) over the next century. So if the pssimists are right and nothing happens, we are going to be on par with K/T (to get to perm we need to work for a few more centuries). So, how do we fix it? Looking at it from the big perspective it is fairly clear that having a big population of a large mammal in all parts of the ecosystem and mass-flows between previously isolated areas is not compatible with the past kind of biosphere. So either we go back to being a smaller species with less room for an interesting civilization, re-enginer the biosphere to work with us (e.g. increasing the number of species by engineering new ones and/or designing them to fit with the technosphere) or go extinct in a good way (preferably by simply going postbiological or (less likely) leave the planet). Or some combination of all three. Upload civilizations can be pretty ecological. It seems to me that most of the traditional proposals of being nice to the planet suffer the assumption that we can be as we always have, yet in an unobtrusive way. A bit like wanting cats to be cats, yet not kill small animals or shed fur. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Jun 10 14:24:23 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 16:24:23 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns In-Reply-To: <1149924458.31672.263502072@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <200606100308.k5A381JV027062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1149924458.31672.263502072@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <35870.86.143.246.157.1149949463.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Harry Harrison wrote: > This argument, about the poles, is obviously untrue. Since there are no > local energy > sources worth speaking of on the land, energy must be obtained from > members who > have come from elsewhere -- i.e the from sea and frequently the distant > sea, > making the poles the most ecologically dependent places on earth. No, this is not true. Energy is provided by the sun, as everywhere else. The productivity of the arctic seas is quite significant despite the long polar nights and low solar angle. 24 hour sunlight makes the algae grow quite well, in turn feeding huge amounts of krill. In fact, during summer months the antarctic upwellings have among the highest primary productivity anywhere on earth. Since as a rough rule of thumb the amount of biomass decreases with one order of magnitude for every trophic level you go up in the ecosystem, you can imagine the total mass of Antarctic penguins (an enormous, cute and fish-smelling pile). At their side is a ten times bigger pile of fish. Beside that there is a hundred times larger pile of krill. And towering above them there is a thousand times larger pile of algae. In fact, the simpler ecosystems in the arctics are the reason the numbers of most arctic species are larger than one would expect. There are simply fewer species to share the same trophic level. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 15:05:05 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:05:05 -0400 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: <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> On 6/10/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html?http://www.unep-wcmc.org/species/animals/animal_redlist.html~main > Making the assumption that the ratio 751/86 for the plants repeats for the > animals, we get a multiplied estimate of the extinctanimals number as 8042 > species. So the order of magnitude is about 10,000 species or so, so far. > > The total number of species is somewhere between 2-100 million. > http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/FelixNisimov.shtml > which gives an extinction so far of 0.5-0.001%. This indeed seems to be > within the noise level. ### The actual number of species gone extinct since the ascendancy of man is surely much higher. Diversity surveys consistently show that every little patch of forest tends to have a lot of species that nobody has seen anywhere else, and many millions of patches of forest have been cut recently. ---------------------------------------------- > > So, how do we fix it? ### So why bother fixing it? The 99.9% majority of species has no economic value for agricultural or industrial purposes. There may be a few percent of extant species that have a discernible aesthetic value to many humans. Personally, I am very fond of lush forests and meadows but such pleasing scenery can be created with a few thousands of species, without the need to preserve the untold millions of bugs that are known to inhabit them under natural conditions. Of course, this form of value exists only for the affluent humans like you and me and most people have really no use for anything except wheat, cows and the like. Besides, if we really want to have more species, it will be cheaper to make them tomorrow than spending a lot of effort on saving them today. Spending today's money on large-scale species preservation (i.e. land conservation measures) means deprivation for many humans today when they don't feel the need for exotic animals but spending tomorrow's money will buy a lot more, since genetic engineering will be much cheaper. I think that Nature shall be the servant of Man (and Woman). When calls are made to preserve species for their own sake at substantial cost to humans, it means a reversal of this relationship, which I find to be quite odious. Rafal From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jun 10 15:23:49 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:23:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200606101535.k5AFZkbQ019156@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > > ### The actual number of species gone extinct since the ascendancy of > man is surely much higher. Diversity surveys consistently show that > every little patch of forest tends to have a lot of species that > nobody has seen anywhere else, and many millions of patches of forest > have been cut recently. > ---------------------------------------------- > > > > So, how do we fix it? Stop dumping fresh water into the sea, divert rivers inland to the mostly wasted US interior, create a rain forest there. Move species from the doomed Brazilian rain forest to that place. Charge touristas to see the biodiversity, kind of like a huge green Disneyland. I noticed that USian environmentalists do not flock to Brazil in huge numbers, and I fully understand why: it is useless to preach environmental stewardship to hungry people. I figure it will take another thirty to fifty years before the US is as crowded and hungry as Brazil is today. So we have time to temporarily save a huge number of rain forest species, if we get right on it. spike From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Jun 10 15:55:35 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:55:35 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> 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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36127.86.143.246.157.1149954935.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> So, how do we fix it? > > ### So why bother fixing it? As I see it in my personal value system, diversity of complex, contingent systems have an aesthetic (if not moral) value. Even if a species of bug isn't useful in any human sense it is still valuable. It is contingent: re-run evolution and you will not get it again, so removing it will mean an irreversible loss of information. Sure, we could make our own replacement species, but that would merely make it contingent upon our human culture - it would be like another piece of music, not a composer. > I think that Nature shall be the servant of Man (and Woman). When > calls are made to preserve species for their own sake at substantial > cost to humans, it means a reversal of this relationship, which I find > to be quite odious. I regard humanity as co-creators with nature. Or maybe (to link with the previous metaphor), as partners in a musical jam session. We of course need to have subsystems of the ecosystem that "work for us" and becoming slaves to some imagined natural order is very politically and philosophically bad, but the border between the human and non-human is fairly blurred. And there is no need to keep a sharp line between them if we ask ourselves what particular goals we (and other systems) are aiming for rather than take an all-or-nothing approach saying human goals OK, nonhuman goals not OK. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Jun 10 17:36:55 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:36:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> 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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060610173655.GA19098@ofb.net> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 11:05:05AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Besides, if we really want to have more species, it will be cheaper to > make them tomorrow than spending a lot of effort on saving them today. This sort of gambling of present things for hypothetical future capability is part of what strikes normal people as wild-eyed optimism and religiousness about the Singularity. "It doesn't matter what we do now we'll fix it later." "We can't fix it now." "But we will be able to! Trust us!" Genetic engineering misses the point, anyway. Yeah, we might be able to make something, but what? It's not just the diversity, it's the *design*, and the encoded history of the Earth, in the diversity today; that wouldn't be possible to replicate. -xx- Damien X-) From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 18:06:35 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:06:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Extinctions In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606101045w4aa50e7bod29d0b3c4ec842c3@mail.gmail.com> 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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <36127.86.143.246.157.1149954935.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60606101045w4aa50e7bod29d0b3c4ec842c3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606101106q1015fdd2se037da05b2289549@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafal Smigrodzki Date: Jun 10, 2006 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions To: Anders Sandberg On 6/10/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> So, how do we fix it? > > > > ### So why bother fixing it? > > As I see it in my personal value system, diversity of complex, contingent > systems have an aesthetic (if not moral) value. Even if a species of bug > isn't useful in any human sense it is still valuable. It is contingent: > re-run evolution and you will not get it again, so removing it will mean > an irreversible loss of information. Sure, we could make our own > replacement species, but that would merely make it contingent upon our > human culture - it would be like another piece of music, not a composer. ### As those Romans used to say, De gustibus non disputandum est, so I accept that your taste in beauty includes creatures that for me have no value whatsoever. Still, I am curious, why would you see an irreversible loss of information, in the sense of losing a bug that won't happen again, as a loss of value. Does all complex information have value for you per se? If I want to resurrect the T.Rex from a rotten bone, it's not because T.Rex is somehow important in and of itself, but rather because I find the notion of making one a stimulating exercise, the kind of genetic feat that I would like to fool around with once the important issues (i.e. curing aging and disease) are taken care of. The T.Rex would be a plaything for me, to be made or unmade as I see fit, and not my ward I would be morally bound to take care of. BTW, I am sure we will be able to resurrect the T.Rex. I read that their bones actually still stink like rotten meat, after all these 65 million years. There is no way that all of the DNA could be gone, given that DNA is known to bind to apatite, one of the main constituents of bone. Even if it takes dissection with an ATM rather than simple PCR, there must be enough fragments longer than 14 - 15 bp to piece together the full length of the genome. Late pre-Singularity technology might be just good enough to make him roar again, to the amusement of spectators. ---------------------------------------- And there is no need to keep a sharp line between them if > we ask ourselves what particular goals we (and other systems) are aiming > for rather than take an all-or-nothing approach saying human goals OK, > nonhuman goals not OK. ### Do bugs have goals? Do ecosystems have goals? I would ascribe goals only to sentient creatures, and as a libertarian I may not transgress against their property rights but this seems to be far removed from the question of preservation of non-sentient species. Rafal -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Chief Clinical Officer, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 18:06:49 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:06:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Extinctions In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606101106i207810c3id8d0722c28a5d96f@mail.gmail.com> 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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <20060610173655.GA19098@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606101106i207810c3id8d0722c28a5d96f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606101106j362af55co1439ae9af70d0333@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafal Smigrodzki Date: Jun 10, 2006 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions To: Damien Sullivan On 6/10/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 11:05:05AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > Besides, if we really want to have more species, it will be cheaper to > > make them tomorrow than spending a lot of effort on saving them today. > > This sort of gambling of present things for hypothetical future > capability is part of what strikes normal people as wild-eyed optimism > and religiousness about the Singularity. "It doesn't matter what we do > now we'll fix it later." "We can't fix it now." "But we will be able > to! Trust us!" ### To save all species you would need to kill many humans and enslave most of the rest. Potentially hundreds of millions, if you are serious about it. How many humans are you willing to kill or enslave to protect species diversity? The choice is simple: either you forbid human economic growth to protect wood lice, or else you accept that a lot of wood lice will die so that a few billion brown and yellow people get affluent. For me the decision is clear. I'd rather gamble on not being able to resurrect ten million bugs in the next century, than have hundreds of billions of humans suffer economic privation today. What I am saying amounts to "Let everybody first get rich, and *then* worry about the flowers to put in their backyard", not some Singularity stuff. You can trust the market to provide flowers and other diversions once the demand is there. ------------------------------------------------- > > Genetic engineering misses the point, anyway. Yeah, we might be able to > make something, but what? It's not just the diversity, it's the > *design*, and the encoded history of the Earth, in the diversity today; > that wouldn't be possible to replicate. ### Well, yes, this is what I am missing here - why would you insist on replicating anything? Who cares for Evolution's trivial musings if you can write new code even today, and will write better tomorrow? Rafal -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Chief Clinical Officer, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Jun 10 18:16:57 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:16:57 -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: <20060610181656.GB19098@ofb.net> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 03:50:43PM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > I found http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction/ which has some good > data. The main problem is that we get rates rather than absolute numbers > so far. Doing a bit of counting in one of Baez diagrams produces a lower > bound of around 416 species. It notes most species haven't even been catalogues and that recorded extinctions are biased toward large charismatic animals. Any region of rain forest seems to have its own endemic species, many of which are gone already. http://extinctanimals.petermaas.nl/ gives 921 > animal species cand 86 plant species. So if we make the assumption that One thing they don't seem to go into is percentages by group. There are about 4000 known mammal species, so the 120 extinctions listed gives a 3% extinction total for mammals in the past 1000 years. About half that for birds, and less for everything else, but then we consider selection effects. It's easier to drive large mammals extinct, but they're also easier to notice before they disappear. http://www.soc.duke.edu/~pmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis.html Also says: "Ghillean Prance at the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, has noted that Malesia.the tropical region running from peninsular Malaysia to Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.contains fewer plant species but more plant families than the entire neotropics." Mass extinctions tend to be evaluated in percentage of genera and even families which survie, not just species. > The total number of species is somewhere between 2-100 million. > http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/FelixNisimov.shtml > which gives an extinction so far of 0.5-0.001%. This indeed seems to be > within the noise level. I'm guessing higher extinction numbers are estimates, so the more species you think exist, the more would have been wiped out already by habitat destruction. That's probably non-linear: if there are more species, there aren't just more species to get wiped out, but the species also have smaller populations and smaller ranges, and thus are more vulnerable to being wiped out. Dividing a fixed count of recorded extinctions by a variable estimate doesn't seem to be accounting for everything. > K/T, but so far it hasn't really got started. The estimates of coming > extinction rates lie between 0.7 (Lomborg) - 50% (various) over the next Your first page notes that even Lomborg says the extinction rate is 1500x the natural rate. > So, how do we fix it? Looking at it from the big perspective it is fairly In the short term, donations to the Nature Conservacy, good zoos, and other conservation organizations; push for human population stabilization (there's probably more growth potential for intellectual capital and problem solvers in educating the exiting population than in growing it) and contracted land use. Don't eat beef you know came from ex-rainforest land. Don't eat fish species you know are being harvested unsustainably (http://seafood.audubon.org/) Better water use: if we withdrew less, there'd be more for the ecosystem. In theoty a city could be a closed loop, cut off from the ecosystem. Politically, repealing perverse incentives, like US West water rights, should help. I've read Israel uses half as much water as we do, probably due to more efficient irrigation. Desalination has costs in brine disposal, but might still be a net positive if nuke- or solar- powered. Grain-fed livestock probably accounts for a lot of our agricultural land use. Going vegetarian, or in my case going for grass-fed beef, probably helps. (Though if everyone did the price would go up, I know.) Long term, I don't know. Hope that ultratech saves the day, yeah. Hydroponics, or vat-grown meat with the same trophic level as plants, uploading or roboticization. Rearrangement of land use, condensing humans and leaving larger more contiguous areas for non-humans. -xx- Damien X-) From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 21:51:48 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:51:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Summit Photos, audio, presentations and blog coverage available online Message-ID: Perhaps it's old news, but here is a copy of an email I received from folks responsible for the Singularity Summit. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles ************************************************ Dear Jeff, We hope you made it to the Singularity Summit at Stanford and had a great time! There were 1300 in attendance - the largest single day gathering on these dialogues. Photos, audio, presentations and blog coverage are now online: - Photography: http://sss.stanford.edu/coverage/press/ - Audio: http://sss.stanford.edu/coverage/audioandvideo/ - Powerpoints: http://sss.stanford.edu/coverage/powerpoints/ - Media and Blog Coverage: http://sss.stanford.edu/press/ - Relevant Reading: http://sss.stanford.edu/reading/ We put an immense amount of effort into the site to create an educational archive. Please take advantage! The site can educate tens of thousands of people about these issues, as long as the URL reaches them. If you would, please take a few minutes to tell others, especially about the audio. Let us know if you blog about the summit coverage and we will link back to you here: http://sss.stanford.edu/press/ The exceptional group of volunteers, staff, speakers and co-sponsors who made the summit possible are recognized here: http://sss.stanford.edu/coverage/thank_you/ Feel free to get in touch with us if you would like to follow up. Best wishes, Tyler Emerson Executive Director Singularity Institute emerson at singinst.org 650-353-6063 cell Carolyn L Burke Communications Director Singularity Institute burke at singinst.org 416-893-4280 cell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060609/7e5369e4/attachment.html From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Jun 10 23:54:03 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:54:03 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Extinctions In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606101106q1015fdd2se037da05b2289549@mail.gmail.com> 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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <36127.86.143.246.157.1149954935.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60606101045w4aa50e7bod29d0b3c4ec842c3@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60606101106q1015fdd2se037da05b2289549@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45607.86.143.246.157.1149983643.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Still, I am curious, why would you see an irreversible loss of > information, in the sense of losing a bug that won't happen again, as > a loss of value. Does all complex information have value for you per > se? Yes. [ The definition of complex is of course a problem, since obviously neither classic information theory of Kolmogorof complexity has exactly the properties I would like (clearly we don't need more white noise in the universe). Right now I'm getting optimistic about Giulio Tononi's information integration theory of consciousness - even if the consciousness part is wrong, the theory seems to suggest some interesting directions to go in. Possibly my theory needs a concept of temporal integration to really work. ] > If I want to resurrect the T.Rex from a rotten bone, it's not because > T.Rex is somehow important in and of itself, but rather because I find > the notion of making one a stimulating exercise, the kind of genetic > feat that I would like to fool around with once the important issues > (i.e. curing aging and disease) are taken care of. The T.Rex would be > a plaything for me, to be made or unmade as I see fit, and not my ward > I would be morally bound to take care of. I do think we have a bit of responsibility of our creations, at least those with intermediary complexity so that they can be morally relevant entities but not able to be independent persons. I would base these responsibilities on reducing the risks of suffering and loss of complexity or developmental potential: the creations should not have to suffer unduly, they should have the chance to develop their nature (including, of course an open-ended nature that allow changing their nature) and so on. Creating a special purpose AI only interested in accounting is OK as long as it is not so complex it could conceivably also become interested in other things; at this point we ought to let it choose its own path instead. > And there is no need to keep a sharp line between them if >> we ask ourselves what particular goals we (and other systems) are aiming >> for rather than take an all-or-nothing approach saying human goals OK, >> nonhuman goals not OK. > > ### Do bugs have goals? Do ecosystems have goals? > > I would ascribe goals only to sentient creatures, and as a libertarian > I may not transgress against their property rights but this seems to > be far removed from the question of preservation of non-sentient > species. To some extent I would say they have goals, but not in the usual human sense. Clearly a bug has behavioral programs aimed at certain functions, so we can very well speak about a bug's goal of reproduction. That it is not very flexible and not subject to much rational thinking makes it less of an ethically relevant goal than what occurs in the minds of humans, since the human goals are both more highly contingent (humans can decide on nearly anything), complex and amenable to rational change depending on new information. An ecosystem has even less of goals. The closest thing would be homeostatic feedback loops and a general "will to live" common to all self-reproducing systems. I agree that these kinds of goals and interests are outside strict libertarian ethics. Wiping out a jungle is not a breach of the jungle's rights, but can be seen as against its interests and a morally bad thing even if it is allowed. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jun 11 00:17:25 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:17:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Extinctions In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606101106j362af55co1439ae9af70d0333@mail.gmail.com> 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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <20060610173655.GA19098@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606101106i207810c3id8d0722c28a5d96f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60606101106j362af55co1439ae9af70d0333@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6B113AD4-EF93-4744-B6FE-9234337C5932@mac.com> On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Rafal Smigrodzki > Date: Jun 10, 2006 2:06 PM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > To: Damien Sullivan > > > On 6/10/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 11:05:05AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> >>> Besides, if we really want to have more species, it will be >>> cheaper to >>> make them tomorrow than spending a lot of effort on saving them >>> today. >> >> This sort of gambling of present things for hypothetical future >> capability is part of what strikes normal people as wild-eyed >> optimism >> and religiousness about the Singularity. "It doesn't matter what >> we do >> now we'll fix it later." "We can't fix it now." "But we will be >> able >> to! Trust us!" > > ### To save all species you would need to kill many humans and enslave > most of the rest. Potentially hundreds of millions, if you are serious > about it. How many humans are you willing to kill or enslave to > protect species diversity? Come on. Did Damien state a goal of saving all species? No. Is your notion that you would have to kill many people and enslave the rest based on much more than rhetoric? No, not really. Given MNT it is quite possible to save most of the biodiversity of Earth and have humanity and posthumanity thrive. There is no either-or here. This is really good news. So why not accentuate it instead of squabbling over the worth of various parts of the biosphere? > The choice is simple: either you forbid > human economic growth to protect wood lice, or else you accept that a > lot of wood lice will die so that a few billion brown and yellow > people get affluent. I do not accept your either-or viewpoint. Besides, wood lice, are again a rhetorical device to attempt to make the views and concerns of others look foolish. Why do this? > > What I am saying amounts to "Let everybody first get rich, and *then* > worry about the flowers to put in their backyard", not some > Singularity stuff. You can trust the market to provide flowers and > other diversions once the demand is there. > Really? This is a position of considerable faith if it really is as either-or as you present. - samantha From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Jun 11 00:30:53 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:30:53 +0100 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: <8d71341e0606101730h48b49388td2df94415517466f@mail.gmail.com> On 6/10/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > So, how do we fix it? This is one of the reasons we need to reach Diaspora-level technology: so that we stop having to all squabble over the one planet. Once we get access to the rest of the galaxy, I won't object to the environmentalists turning Earth into a nature reserve if that's what they want to do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Sun Jun 11 01:25:26 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 20:25:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [evol-psych] Re: Guns and humans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606110125.k5B1PmIA026011@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <> Not only is the above true, but the "militia phrase" included in the 2nd Amendment is NOT a controlling clause in either ordinary English (then or now) nor in legal interpretations. It is an explanatory element and legal cases and standards of Constitutional analysis have long held that such are not limiting to the scope: The right being guaranteed belongs to the people; the government has an interest because such is ESSENTIAL to a free state. And everywhere in the Constitution where a right is said to belong to the people confirms this -- there is ZERO chance that "people" means the states in ONLY the 2nd Amendment but guarantees an individual right to various freedoms elsewhere. Those who have any doubts on this should first become knowledgeable by reading at least the following: THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT by J. Neil Schulman (Includes an analysis of by an expert in the English language) The Embarrassing Second Amendment http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. 1982 Senate Report on the RKBA http://www.pcpages.com/salhq/1982reportrkba.htm As to the social benefits, studies almost invariably show that guns save lives, especially of the law abiding, while the few which do not show this typically show a wash between social value of firearms for protection and detrimental effects. Using social utility to remove the rights of law abiding citizens is practically always a poor plan but doing so when studies are much more likely to show either no effect or the opposite from those intended are just simply criminal. We know for a fact that those nations which engaged in strong gun control were those which in the 20th Century murdered upwards of 100,000,000 (that one HUNDRED MILLION) human beings including a large percentage of their own citizens (start with the Nazis, Soviet Union, Maoists and work from there.) The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the oldest in terms of historical recognition by free people, and arguable THE OLDEST right of a free human being. It is in fact the one right that protects all of the others we hold dear because no matter how much be might wish otherwise, there is no freedom without the protection and enforcement of armed people of good will. Self-Defense: A Basic Human Right http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html John R. Lott, Jr. - The Bias Against Guns http://www.johnlott.org/ John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" is also well worth reading. -- Herb Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jun 11 01:58:39 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:58:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060610181656.GB19098@ofb.net> 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> <20060610181656.GB19098@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606101858j60422558p84f366162aa482ff@mail.gmail.com> On 6/10/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > In the short term, donations to the Nature Conservacy, good zoos, and > other conservation organizations; push for human population > stabilization (there's probably more growth potential for intellectual > capital and problem solvers in educating the exiting population than in > growing it) and contracted land use. Don't eat beef you know came from > ex-rainforest land. Don't eat fish species you know are being harvested > unsustainably (http://seafood.audubon.org/) > > Better water use: if we withdrew less, there'd be more for the > ecosystem. In theoty a city could be a closed loop, cut off from the > ecosystem. Politically, repealing perverse incentives, like US West > water rights, should help. I've read Israel uses half as much water as > we do, probably due to more efficient irrigation. Desalination has > costs in brine disposal, but might still be a net positive if nuke- or > solar- powered. > > Grain-fed livestock probably accounts for a lot of our agricultural land > use. Going vegetarian, or in my case going for grass-fed beef, probably > helps. (Though if everyone did the price would go up, I know.) ### It's nice to see that you are not advocating any clearly immoral methods of saving species. I appreciate that you suggest benign methods, like building zoos, and voluntary ones, like contracted land use, and I hope my blunt questions about the trade-offs involved in species-saving didn't insult you: still, I am afraid that the nice methods you advocate will be nearly totally ineffective. That Aussie guy on TV fearlessly impregnating another toothy reptilian thing in a zoo may make for a diverting show, but this is not serious species-saving. If you are serious, you do have to deny beef and neat suburban living to billions of brown people - and even voluntary methods, like buying up land to convert it into conservancies, will deny them the standard of living they desire. Of course, once you allow yourself the indulgence of using violence to save the planet (and the serious planet-savers are usually quite indulgent when it comes to realizing their visions), there is more at stake than steaks. -------------------------------------------- > > Long term, I don't know. Hope that ultratech saves the day, yeah. > Hydroponics, or vat-grown meat with the same trophic level as plants, > uploading or roboticization. Rearrangement of land use, condensing > humans and leaving larger more contiguous areas for non-humans. ### I doubt you can convince everybody to live in apartment blocks, listening to their neighbors farts and watching the uspoiled nature on TV. And using brute force to forbid citizens from building a house wherever they can buy land is sickeningly immoral. They do it in Germany - unless you have a lot of political power to circumvent state zoning regulations, you can't have a nice house in the forest, which is one of the reasons why I live in a nice forest house in the US. Once again, serious species-saving means making almost all humans worse off. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jun 11 02:11:30 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:11:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Extinctions In-Reply-To: <6B113AD4-EF93-4744-B6FE-9234337C5932@mac.com> References: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> <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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <20060610173655.GA19098@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606101106i207810c3id8d0722c28a5d96f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60606101106j362af55co1439ae9af70d0333@mail.gmail.com> <6B113AD4-EF93-4744-B6FE-9234337C5932@mac.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606101911h6d94cf4g39cbf3d80f9afb23@mail.gmail.com> On 6/10/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I do not accept your either-or viewpoint. Besides, wood lice, are > again a rhetorical device to attempt to make the views and concerns > of others look foolish. Why do this? > > ### Because many people have been already expropriated in the name of protecting the long-billed dungpecker, the Eastern dappled woodlouse, and the mousy stinkflower. It's not a rhetorical device, it's the reality. Seriously, this is what happens: some starry-eyed bug watcher alerts the local enforcers that the habitat of a bug he loves is endangered by a housing development, and soon the EPA goons are roping off somebody's land to keep the bugs alive. Usually there is somebody's ulterior motive involved as well - somebody likes to have a large area of neat forest as the backdrop to their living room windows, and would hate nothing more than a hundred new neighbors with their cars and kids spoiling the view. So, a conservancy is born, usually somebody pockets some tax breaks too, and the poor slobs who would like to buy a new house find that the prices went another 30k up. And back to the apartment block they go, to watch nice nature on TV. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jun 11 02:39:54 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:39:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Extinctions In-Reply-To: <45607.86.143.246.157.1149983643.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> <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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <36127.86.143.246.157.1149954935.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60606101045w4aa50e7bod29d0b3c4ec842c3@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60606101106q1015fdd2se037da05b2289549@mail.gmail.com> <45607.86.143.246.157.1149983643.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606101939n61950a5fjff7963ff60927789@mail.gmail.com> On 6/10/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > Still, I am curious, why would you see an irreversible loss of > > information, in the sense of losing a bug that won't happen again, as > > a loss of value. Does all complex information have value for you per > > se? > > Yes. > > [ The definition of complex is of course a problem, since obviously > neither classic information theory of Kolmogorof complexity has exactly > the properties I would like (clearly we don't need more white noise in the > universe). Right now I'm getting optimistic about Giulio Tononi's > information integration theory of consciousness - even if the > consciousness part is wrong, the theory seems to suggest some interesting > directions to go in. Possibly my theory needs a concept of temporal > integration to really work. ] ### Amazing. Would a conversion of everything to computronium pondering the deepest mathematical truths count as increasing the complexity of matter? If so, how would be trivial existence of the Eastern dappled titmouse fare in comparison? (if such bird were to be discovered) How would you resolve the conflict between uses of matter that differ in their level of complexity? Does the less complex one have to yield? ------------------------------------- > I do think we have a bit of responsibility of our creations, at least > those with intermediary complexity so that they can be morally relevant > entities but not able to be independent persons. I would base these > responsibilities on reducing the risks of suffering and loss of complexity > or developmental potential: the creations should not have to suffer > unduly, they should have the chance to develop their nature (including, of > course an open-ended nature that allow changing their nature) and so on. > Creating a special purpose AI only interested in accounting is OK as long > as it is not so complex it could conceivably also become interested in > other things; at this point we ought to let it choose its own path > instead. ### I would not mind the T.Rex being reduced in complexity by being shot, stuffed, and hung on the living room wall, although I would find subjecting him to unreasonable suffering wrong (which is why I would suggest using high-explosive 50 cal rounds for the hunt). Now, to pay for all that, I'd have no qualms about building an AI that would find the fulfillment of its existence in doing my checkbook. I am rather confused by what you mean: what is "could conceivably also become interested in other things"? It would be anthropomorphising to demand rights for computational devices simply because they are intelligent - I see *desire*, not intelligence, as the basis for conferring rights (but not as a sufficient criterion). -------------------------------- > > I agree that these kinds of goals and interests are outside strict > libertarian ethics. Wiping out a jungle is not a breach of the jungle's > rights, but can be seen as against its interests and a morally bad thing > even if it is allowed. ### So you say that building a house in a forest is a morally bad thing? As in, not just grating against your own personal affection for the jungle, but in and of itself a Bad Thing, worthy of opprobrium and sanctions? Because, you know, a moral injunction without sanctions is just empty talking, morality is as serious as the weight of force seen as justified in upholding it, so I can't resist asking you, how much violence would you condone to prevent the Brazilians from breaching their jungle's interests to build their huts? Rafal PS. Sorry for the Socratic cadence to my post. From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Jun 11 14:33:40 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:33:40 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060610181656.GB19098@ofb.net> 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> <20060610181656.GB19098@ofb.net> Message-ID: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Sullivan wrote: >> So, how do we fix it? Looking at it from the big perspective it is >> fairly > > In the short term, donations to the Nature Conservacy, good zoos, and > other conservation organizations; push for human population > stabilization (there's probably more growth potential for intellectual > capital and problem solvers in educating the exiting population than in > growing it) and contracted land use. I think conservation attempts certainly have merit, but I wonder about the utility of population stabilisation. Or rather, it tends to follow female literacy rates and reducing poverty, two other things that are good in themselves. Just stabilizing the population is unlikely to be morally doable without a lot of good carrots, and a too quick stop might actually cause bad social conseqences (like China and the former east block). > Don't eat beef you know came from > ex-rainforest land. Don't eat fish species you know are being harvested > unsustainably (http://seafood.audubon.org/) Contracted land (and sea use) is probably one of the most efficient solutions if we can get it economical. The latest vat-beef programs seem to be getting somewhere, and also realises the need to find low trophic level inputs into the process. If we could drop on average one trophic level in our food intake we divide the area used by ten or so. But we are still going to need biomass inputs to the food (and fuel) system even then, of course. And the vat-approach doesn't seem to bring down the cost significantly; maybe what we really should look at is not vat beef but vat beets. And if we could find an artificial substitute for krill it would be very useful. Even going for more city aquaculture with combined hydroponics might be a good idea, if it can be packaged in such a way that it is easy to use and do not spread pathogens. This seems to be quite realistic, if there was only an economic incentive for it. > Desalination has > costs in brine disposal, but might still be a net positive if nuke- or > solar- powered. This is also a killer app for early nanotech. I'm suspicious of the arcology idea, since most of its proponents have made rather centralist assumptions and imagined that people would naturally want to become good little homo sovieticus once they joined the collective. It would be interesting to design an agoric arcology that actually used internal markets to be flexibly self-sustaining. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jun 11 15:07:01 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:07:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:34 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > > ... This seems to be quite realistic, if there was > only an economic incentive for it. > > I'm suspicious of the arcology idea, since most of its proponents have > made rather centralist assumptions and imagined that people would > naturally want to become good little homo sovieticus once they joined the > collective. It would be interesting to design an agoric arcology that > actually used internal markets to be flexibly self-sustaining. > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University Anders hit it right on once again. All our efforts at ecological stewardship must be profitable before they will ever fly. Governments can provide subsidies and incentives to some extent, but governments run out of money eventually. Alternative energy sources will go nowhere until the cheap oil is burned, for instance. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jun 11 17:33:19 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:33:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606101858j60422558p84f366162aa482ff@mail.gmail.com> 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> <20060610181656.GB19098@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606101858j60422558p84f366162aa482ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7498FD71-E9D2-425A-A772-E5A66DBA9E65@mac.com> On Jun 10, 2006, at 6:58 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > ### It's nice to see that you are not advocating any clearly immoral > methods of saving species. I appreciate that you suggest benign > methods, like building zoos, and voluntary ones, like contracted land > use, and I hope my blunt questions about the trade-offs involved in > species-saving didn't insult you: still, I am afraid that the nice > methods you advocate will be nearly totally ineffective. > > That Aussie guy on TV fearlessly impregnating another toothy reptilian > thing in a zoo may make for a diverting show, but this is not serious > species-saving. If you are serious, you do have to deny beef and neat > suburban living to billions of brown people - A) Only a very radical fringe puts other species above humans; B) Beef is not the best way to fully feed all people on earth well quickly so not giving everyone a beefsteak is not a bad thing; C) Our suburbs are grossly inefficient in many respects. Better than hovels to be sure but not the model of human well-being. D) You are still claiming being serious about saving species is to be anti-human. Give some proof or move on graciously please. > and even voluntary > methods, like buying up land to convert it into conservancies, will > deny them the standard of living they desire. Of course, once you > allow yourself the indulgence of using violence to save the planet > (and the serious planet-savers are usually quite indulgent when it > comes to realizing their visions), there is more at stake than steaks. > Use high tech as mentioned. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jun 11 17:37:22 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:37:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Jun 11, 2006, at 8:07 AM, spike wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg >> Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:34 AM >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > >> >> ... This seems to be quite realistic, if there was >> only an economic incentive for it. >> >> I'm suspicious of the arcology idea, since most of its proponents >> have >> made rather centralist assumptions and imagined that people would >> naturally want to become good little homo sovieticus once they >> joined the >> collective. It would be interesting to design an agoric arcology that >> actually used internal markets to be flexibly self-sustaining. >> >> -- >> Anders Sandberg, >> Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics >> Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University > > Anders hit it right on once again. All our efforts at ecological > stewardship must be profitable before they will ever fly. A pity we don't apply the same logic to wars and countless government boondoggles. > Governments can > provide subsidies and incentives to some extent, but governments > run out of > money eventually. Alternative energy sources will go nowhere until > the > cheap oil is burned, for instance. I have been amazed to watch the stock price of many alternative energy companies fall while oil stays in the stratosphere. Something is wrong. I don't think it is "greed". I think it is a deep recognition of sunk cost in oil based infrastructure. - samantha From mark at permanentend.org Sun Jun 11 18:29:07 2006 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:29:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Two draft papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and biases References: <44830B56.3080003@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060609224449.02383310@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <0bea01c68d84$ef3fe7a0$9a00a8c0@old> Robin Hanson wrote: Regarding the other > chapter, while you seem to have thought lots about many related > issues over the years, you don't seem to have worked much on the > issue I get stuck on: the idea that a single relatively isolated AI > system could suddenly change from negligible to overwhelmingly powerful. > > You warn repeatedly about how easy is is to fool oneself into > thinking one understands AI, and you want readers to apply this to > their intuitions about the goals an AI may have. But you seem to be > relying almost entirely on unarticulated intuitions when you conclude > that very large and rapid improvement of isolated AIs is likely. > > You say that humans today and natural selection do not self-improve > in the "strong sense" because humans "haven't rewritten the human > brain," "its limbic core, its cerebral cortex, its prefrontal > self-models" and natural selection has not "rearchitected" "the > process of mutation and recombination and selection," with "its focus > on allele frequencies" while an AI "could rewrite its code from > scratch." And that is pretty much the full extent of your relevant > argument. > > This argument seems to me to need a whole lot of elaboration and > clarification to be persuasive, if it is to go beyond the mere > logical possibility of rapid self-improvement. The code of an AI is > just one part of a larger system that would allow an AI to > self-improve, just as the genetic code is a self-modifiable part of > the larger system of natural selection, and human culture and beliefs > are a self-modifiable part of human improvement today. > > In principle every part of each system could be self-modified, while > in practice some parts are harder to modify than others. Perhaps > there are concepts and principles which could help us to understand > why the relative ease of self-modification of the parts of the AI > improvement process are importantly different that in these other > cases. But you do not seem to have yet articulated any such > concepts or principles. > > A standard abstraction seems useful to me: when knowledge > accumulates in many small compatible representations, growth is in > the largest system that can share such representations. Since DNA > is sharable mainly within a species, the improvements that any one > small family of members can produce are usually small compared to the > improvements transferred by sex within the species. Since humans > share their knowledge via language and copying practices, the > improvements that a small group of people can make are small compared > to the improvements transferred from others, and made available by > trading with those others. > > The obvious question about a single AI is why its improvements could > not with the usual ease be transferred to other AIs or humans, or > made available via trades with those others. If so, this single AI > would just be part of our larger system of self-improvement. The > scenario of rapid isolated self-improvement would seem to be where > the AI found a new system of self-improvement, where knowledge > production was far more effective, *and* where internal sharing of > knowledge was vastly easier than external sharing. > > While this is logically possible, I do not yet see a reason to think > it likely. Today a single human can share the ideas within his own > head far easier than he can share those ideas with others - > communication with other people is far more expensive and > error-prone. Yet the rate at which a single human can innovate is > so small relative to the larger economy that most innovation comes > from ideas shared across people. So a modest advantage for the AI's > internal sharing would not be enough - the advantage would have to be > enormous. > I haven't read the paper you mention here, but I have thought a little about the problem. It seems to me that there are two possibilities that might allow for a rapid increase in power. One is if creating such a computer it is able to break through some congenital limitations we have to our thought and knowledge. The idea here is that we think that every other species is congenitally limited in comparison with our cognitive abilities. A full scholarship to Cambridge is not going to allow an ape to understand Plato's Republic or Darwin's The Origins of the Species. The idea that we labour under such congenital limitations is controversial. Critics sometimes cite the fact that human science has been very successful in understanding the basic structure of the universe. I discuss this problem in a paper "Naturalism and Skepticism" and conclude that these two theoretical considerations are relatively balanced. I argue, that the way to see who is right is to put away the theoretical speculation and run the experiment. In any event, the thought that we are not immune from biological limits to our thought and knowledge suggests some evidence for the conjecture that a very powerful intelligence could develop if it overcame these limits, just as we are powerful in comparison to apes. Sometimes is suggested that the fact that we have language guarantees that there are no such limits (e.g., the philosopher Donald Davidson argues this way), but clearly language is not sufficient. Some people who are mentally challenged have linguistic ability, but not sufficient capacity to understand Plato or Darwin. The unhappy thought is that we may be mentally congenitally mentally challenged in comparison. The second thought has to do with what counts as a 'single AI'. Think how enormously difficult it is to bring 100,000 humans to work on a single task was perhaps the case with the Manhattan project. An AI that could create human equivalent expert subsystems by deploying the computing power necessary to emulate 100,000 humans might be able to work on a single problem much more efficiently because of lower communication costs, political costs (getting people on board with the idea) and energy costs. Now it may be objected that such an AI would constitute an economy unto itself because in effect it has modeled a bunch of different experts working on a single problem like advanced nano. Perhaps, but then this may be the heart of the worry: it could create its own more efficient economy. Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Jun 11 20:14:30 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:14:30 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: References: <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <2631.163.1.72.81.1150056870.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Jun 11, 2006, at 8:07 AM, spike wrote: >> Anders hit it right on once again. All our efforts at ecological >> stewardship must be profitable before they will ever fly. > > A pity we don't apply the same logic to wars and countless government > boondoggles. Hmm, that is actually an interesting idea. Right now practically any government action gets approved only on persuasive power, not profitability (in the sense of benefiting the public). And politicians are not responsible for the resulting waste their programs cause. So maybe one could create a government market system? Citizens are buyers of various benefits, be they education, defense or administration. Right now all the pay get mixed into one pile and is used to pay for an allocation rather independently of what the citizens like. The libertarian answer is of course that people should just pay directly for the stuff with no government middle-man. But keeping the government in the equation, maybe we can make it a bit more market oriented? A first approximation would be to have taxpayers prioritize agencies and projects on their tax forms (or leave them blank to let representatives decide). Another approach would be to have politicians have budgets (essentially their taxpayers' shareholder interest) and having to pay for the proposed programs ; possibly there could be bonuses or penalties involved for doing particularly well or badly. At the very least we need a feedback mechanism so that over budget projects actually hurt. When it comes to wars, you can do cost analysis of them. There is a fun paper, Annexation or Conquest? The Economics of Empire Building by Herschel I. Grossman and Juan Mendoza http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=258508 that shows how rational empires and rational "barbarians" should act. I actually used this calculus in one roleplaying setting for the big empire: it literally had planners doing "Grossman-Mendoza Calculus" to determine foreign policy. And since they encouraged all neighbouring nations to use it too (and these nations knew how the empire would act in the large, reducing uncertainty), they could reduce the need to send in the imperial might and save money. > I have been amazed to watch the stock price of many alternative > energy companies fall while oil stays in the stratosphere. Something > is wrong. I don't think it is "greed". I think it is a deep > recognition of sunk cost in oil based infrastructure. It goes the other way around too. Many oil companies are actually in the chemical, energy and distribution business. They do not hold any particular loyalty to oil as a substance and would just as gladly sell biofuels or hydrogen power if they could profit from it. I once met a chemical engineer from Q8 petroleum who admited that he (and his section of the company) would love electric cars, since that would mean they could focus on oil-as-raw-material instead of oil-as-energy. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun Jun 11 20:51:27 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:51:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Opinions on Singularity Message-ID: <20060611205127.30332.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Ben Wrote: >POTENTIAL advantages (not saying that this is what i expect, understand) >are mainly allowing us (people in general) to lever ourselves out of the >shithole we find ourselves in at present. Allowing us to live as long as >we want, rid ourselves of diseases, poverty, oppression, allowing us a >much better chance of realising our potentials as thinking beings. >Maximising our chances of happiness. Giving us (thinking beings in >general) a fighting chance to survive into the future. Thank you for your response. I was wondering if you could clearify how these things will be achieved by The Singularity. I'm sorry if I sound redundant. I know I frequently return to the subject of The Singularity because I feel I haven't figured out what my own opinion is on the subject. When discussing topics subjects such as Transhumanism or cryonics, I found it easy to listen, learn and decide if I thought the topic was "Good" or "Bad" for me. Although after reading the sl4 posts I have learned a lot, on some level, I can't help feeling that most of the posts talk about the high risks of developing an AI. There aren't many posts that talk of the benefits. I wanted to write about The Singularity in a form that represents the both "bad" and "good" sides but am finding it hard to do. I won't post any more questions regarding this issue but if anybody would like to get back to me either privately or on list, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again Anna Any piece of knowledge I acquire today has a value at this moment exactly proportioned to my skill to deal with it. Tomorrow, when I know more, I recall that piece of knowledge and use it better. -Mark van Doren __________________________________________________ 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 scerir at libero.it Sun Jun 11 21:08:17 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:08:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions 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><7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <36127.86.143.246.157.1149954935.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <003701c68d9b$2a058550$c1911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Rafal: Who cares for Evolution's trivial musings if you can write new code even today, and will write better tomorrow? # The only problem (logical) I see is that humans appear to have limiting effects on natural biodiversity. That is to say, they are not just endangering _old_ species, they are also blocking _new_ ones from evolving naturally. But, at the same time, they are writing - as you say - 'new codes'... http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/05/22/manimals_sticklebacks_and_finc.php http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/science/23evol.html?ex=1306036800&en=3e85a7278996c9b3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Jun 11 21:43:53 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:43:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.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> <20060610181656.GB19098@ofb.net> <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060611214346.GA30288@ofb.net> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 04:33:40PM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Damien Sullivan wrote: > > In the short term, donations to the Nature Conservacy, good zoos, and > > other conservation organizations; push for human population > > stabilization (there's probably more growth potential for intellectual > > capital and problem solvers in educating the exiting population than in > > growing it) and contracted land use. > > I think conservation attempts certainly have merit, but I wonder about the > utility of population stabilisation. Or rather, it tends to follow female > literacy rates and reducing poverty, two other things that are good in > themselves. Just stabilizing the population is unlikely to be morally > doable without a lot of good carrots, and a too quick stop might actually "It happens automatically but isn't morally doable"? Mental skid. :) Yes, it seems to follow female literacy and wealth (or just literacy), which is lucky for us, but it's probably also helped by access to birth control. Contrast with current US government (and Catholic) policies which actively oppose birth control. So push for a less obstructionist government, if not one which actively funds birth control, abortion access, and accurate information. > > Desalination has costs in brine disposal, but might still be a net > > positive if nuke- or solar- powered. > > This is also a killer app for early nanotech. Mmm. Reverse osmosis seems to be pretty good already, kilojoules per kilogram. > I'm suspicious of the arcology idea, since most of its proponents have > made rather centralist assumptions and imagined that people would > naturally want to become good little homo sovieticus once they joined the > collective. It would be interesting to design an agoric arcology that > actually used internal markets to be flexibly self-sustaining. "Just" roof (I imagine connected roofs or small domes are much easier than a Big Dome) over an existing city. A moderately smart system could change albedo and ventilation, and presumably cut heating and cooling (and road clearing) costs a lot. In summer have a mix of reflectors and open spaces, blocking sunlight and letting hot air escape; in winter have a transparent and greenhousey solid layer. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Jun 11 21:46:17 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:46:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 08:07:01AM -0700, spike wrote: > Anders hit it right on once again. All our efforts at ecological > stewardship must be profitable before they will ever fly. Governments can > provide subsidies and incentives to some extent, but governments run out of > money eventually. Alternative energy sources will go nowhere until the > cheap oil is burned, for instance. Governments don't need money for incentives; they can apply taxes. If oil burners had to pay for the cost of removing or sequestering their CO2 then alternatives would probably look a lot more attractive. Governments can create markets. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Jun 11 22:29:42 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 15:29:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] [NANO] [HEALTH] lecture summary of nanoparticles Message-ID: <20060611222942.GA7576@ofb.net> http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=234 Richard Jones summing up a talk on the health risks of nanoparticles. -xx- Damien X-) From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jun 12 00:14:10 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 02:14:10 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> References: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> Message-ID: <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Sullivan wrote: > Governments don't need money for incentives; they can apply taxes. If > oil burners had to pay for the cost of removing or sequestering their > CO2 then alternatives would probably look a lot more attractive. > Governments can create markets. But what are their incentives for that? Unfortunately, the reward system even in well functioning democracies are somewhat perverse, rewarding grand gestures appearing to do something, the formation of dependent voter groups and all the other problems of public choice economics. What are the incentives for governments to set a correct carbon tax, when they can use the tax for so many other useful things than just pay for sequestration? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jun 12 00:25:07 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 02:25:07 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060611214346.GA30288@ofb.net> 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> <20060610181656.GB19098@ofb.net> <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060611214346.GA30288@ofb.net> Message-ID: <4183.163.1.72.81.1150071907.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Sullivan wrote: > "It happens automatically but isn't morally doable"? Mental skid. :) :-) I meant that the population increase is indeed slowing down without any coercive attempts in most parts of the world. But getting it to slow down really fast would likely take fairly serious coercion a la China, and that is unlikely to work morally or politically. > Yes, it seems to follow female literacy and wealth (or just literacy), > which is lucky for us, but it's probably also helped by access to birth > control. Contrast with current US government (and Catholic) policies > which actively oppose birth control. So push for a less obstructionist > government, if not one which actively funds birth control, abortion > access, and accurate information. It is interesting to see that the numbers are down even highly Catholic european countries, as well as many poorer countries that anyway seem to be developing. Current US/Vatican interventions may be obnoxious, but I don't think they can change the trend. >> > Desalination has costs in brine disposal, but might still be a net >> > positive if nuke- or solar- powered. >> >> This is also a killer app for early nanotech. > > Mmm. Reverse osmosis seems to be pretty good already, kilojoules per > kilogram. We need a better way of avoiding clogging, I think. And nanotech would have a chance of making cheaper and perhaps more self-contained units. >> I'm suspicious of the arcology idea, since most of its proponents have >> made rather centralist assumptions and imagined that people would >> naturally want to become good little homo sovieticus once they joined >> the >> collective. It would be interesting to design an agoric arcology that >> actually used internal markets to be flexibly self-sustaining. > > "Just" roof (I imagine connected roofs or small domes are much easier > than a Big Dome) over an existing city. A moderately smart system could > change albedo and ventilation, and presumably cut heating and cooling > (and road clearing) costs a lot. In summer have a mix of reflectors and > open spaces, blocking sunlight and letting hot air escape; in winter > have a transparent and greenhousey solid layer. What about car exhaust smog and smoke from fires? Reducing the circulation in the local microclimate might be a problem. Another issue is how to direct rainfall, which is already a problem in cities (cities are great at collecting and diverting rainfall, unfortunately polluting it in the process). Most cities need it to keep clean and for the green areas. I think roofing is not useful except when the costs of heating or cooling the city are very high (far north, deserts). Hmm, combine it with a stratospheric tower instead and use the city microclimate effect to power the city as well as to condense out pollutants? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Jun 12 01:19:20 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:19:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <4183.163.1.72.81.1150071907.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> <20060610181656.GB19098@ofb.net> <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060611214346.GA30288@ofb.net> <4183.163.1.72.81.1150071907.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On Jun 11, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > It is interesting to see that the numbers are down even highly > Catholic > european countries, as well as many poorer countries that anyway > seem to > be developing. Current US/Vatican interventions may be obnoxious, > but I > don't think they can change the trend. I'll add that in prosperous South American countries such as Chile where ~90% of the population is Catholic and Catholic doctrine is enforced as a matter of law (divorce? abortion? etc? never heard of it), the populations are already starting to drop below replacement rates. Many of these countries have per capita incomes that are something like half that of western Europe. Vatican intervention aside, even in countries where the vast majority subscribe to such doctrine as a legal principle by default, birth rates are dropping rapidly. It seems that the populations in these countries are becoming less religious with time, but I suspect that this is merely correlated with declining birth rates, not significantly causative. J. Andrew Rogers From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon Jun 12 02:38:26 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:38:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 02:14:10AM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > Damien Sullivan wrote: > > Governments don't need money for incentives; they can apply taxes. If > > oil burners had to pay for the cost of removing or sequestering their > > CO2 then alternatives would probably look a lot more attractive. > > Governments can create markets. > > But what are their incentives for that? Unfortunately, the reward system > even in well functioning democracies are somewhat perverse, rewarding > grand gestures appearing to do something, the formation of dependent voter > groups and all the other problems of public choice economics. What are the > incentives for governments to set a correct carbon tax, when they can use > the tax for so many other useful things than just pay for sequestration? Absent any government intervention, what's the incentive for many polluters, without specific obvious victims under tort law, to not pollute? Oh wait, there isn't any. That's even more perverse than democratic feedback. If taxes don't work, regulation will. I've seen it. Breathed it. Perfect? No, but neither is the alternative. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon Jun 12 02:41:43 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:41:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <4183.163.1.72.81.1150071907.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> <20060610181656.GB19098@ofb.net> <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060611214346.GA30288@ofb.net> <4183.163.1.72.81.1150071907.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060612024143.GB10302@ofb.net> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 02:25:07AM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > "Just" roof (I imagine connected roofs or small domes are much easier > > than a Big Dome) over an existing city. A moderately smart system could > > change albedo and ventilation, and presumably cut heating and cooling > > (and road clearing) costs a lot. In summer have a mix of reflectors and > > open spaces, blocking sunlight and letting hot air escape; in winter > > have a transparent and greenhousey solid layer. > > What about car exhaust smog and smoke from fires? Reducing the circulation > in the local microclimate might be a problem. Another issue is how to Hmm. Originally I'd specified fans, but deleted it. Properly done you'd have artificial circulation with heat exchangers. More cheaply, I wonder how much good a roof without walls might do; you'd still get to control sunlight and greenhouse effects. > direct rainfall, which is already a problem in cities (cities are great at > collecting and diverting rainfall, unfortunately polluting it in the > process). Most cities need it to keep clean and for the green areas. Some places might choose to let it in, others might dump it and use irrigation or sprinklers. "Get back from the club before rainfall, dear." "God mom, I *know*." -xx- Damien X-) From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jun 12 05:03:39 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:03:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606120509.k5C59RKM001321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > > > On Jun 11, 2006, at 8:07 AM, spike wrote: > > ... Alternative energy sources will go nowhere until > > the cheap oil is burned, for instance. > > I have been amazed to watch the stock price of many alternative > energy companies fall while oil stays in the stratosphere. Something > is wrong. I don't think it is "greed". I think it is a deep > recognition of sunk cost in oil based infrastructure. > > - samantha Ja, that is why I consider ethanol the most promising near-term alternative. Most modern cars can be fairly cheaply modified to run on 85% ethanol. We can use the existing underground tanks, the pumps, the tanker trucks, etc. It will be ethanol in the short run, not hydrogen, not liquid natural gas. Disappointingly low tech, but it is the cheapest next step. spike From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jun 12 07:03:48 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:03:48 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <200606120509.k5C59RKM001321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606120509.k5C59RKM001321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060612070348.GB28956@leitl.org> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:03:39PM -0700, spike wrote: > Ja, that is why I consider ethanol the most promising near-term alternative. I don't. Bioethanol is not a source of energy. > Most modern cars can be fairly cheaply modified to run on 85% ethanol. We Most modern cars can't run on E85 or M85 (the methanol equivalent) off the factory line. It would seem some regulations are in order. > can use the existing underground tanks, the pumps, the tanker trucks, etc. > It will be ethanol in the short run, not hydrogen, not liquid natural gas. If it will be ethanol instead of methanol, it's because agribusiness lobby doesn't care about thermodynamics, just subsidies. > Disappointingly low tech, but it is the cheapest next step. Actually, M85 is the cheapest next step, with pure methanol being the next cheapest next step. After that, it might be straight EV for vehicles, at least. -- 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 mstriz at gmail.com Mon Jun 12 16:33:57 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:33:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060610173655.GA19098@ofb.net> 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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <20060610173655.GA19098@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 6/10/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 11:05:05AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > Besides, if we really want to have more species, it will be cheaper to > > make them tomorrow than spending a lot of effort on saving them today. > > This sort of gambling of present things for hypothetical future > capability is part of what strikes normal people as wild-eyed optimism > and religiousness about the Singularity. "It doesn't matter what we do > now we'll fix it later." "We can't fix it now." "But we will be able > to! Trust us!" Amen. Hominids in the ancestral environment faced a high mortality rate. At no time was it worth planning more than a few years ahead. So when they came upon a bounty, they used it up. Lottery winners spend their millions in an average of 4 years. We are notoriously bad planners in the long term. And that feature seems to be ripe even within the transhumanist community. Put it on the card, because *somebody* will come along to pay the bill someday. > Genetic engineering misses the point, anyway. Yeah, we might be able to > make something, but what? It's not just the diversity, it's the > *design*, and the encoded history of the Earth, in the diversity today; > that wouldn't be possible to replicate. A more specific argument is that ecosystems are robust but sensitive. Rapid introduction of a single species can have profound consequences as many equilibria shift. Rapidly introducing many species in a superficial attempt to the fix the mess you made could be devastating. As always, the real world is hard. Harder than it sounds on paper. Martin From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Jun 12 20:18:06 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:18:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Two draft papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and biases In-Reply-To: <0bea01c68d84$ef3fe7a0$9a00a8c0@old> References: <44830B56.3080003@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060609224449.02383310@gmu.edu> <0bea01c68d84$ef3fe7a0$9a00a8c0@old> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060612161141.023a7208@gmu.edu> At 02:29 PM 6/11/2006, Mark Walker wrote: > > the issue I get stuck on: the idea that a single relatively isolated AI > > system could suddenly change from negligible to overwhelmingly powerful. > >I haven't read the paper you mention here, but I have thought a little about >the problem. It seems to me that there are two possibilities that might >allow for a rapid increase in power. One is if creating such a computer it >is able to break through some congenital limitations we have to our thought >and knowledge. ... Sure this is a logical possibility. But that is far from sufficient to make it the main scenario one considers. >The second thought has to do with what counts as a 'single AI'. Think how >enormously difficult it is to bring 100,000 humans to work on a single task >was perhaps the case with the Manhattan project. An AI that could create >human equivalent expert subsystems by deploying the computing power >necessary to emulate 100,000 humans might be able to work on a single >problem much more efficiently because of lower communication costs, >political costs (getting people on board with the idea) and energy costs. >Now it may be objected that such an AI would constitute an economy unto >itself because in effect it has modeled a bunch of different experts working >on a single problem like advanced nano. Perhaps, but then this may be the >heart of the worry: it could create its own more efficient economy. There may be things to worry about in this scenario, but they are very different things than in the scenario Eliezer focuses on. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From amara at amara.com Mon Jun 12 21:45:30 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:45:30 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nash Equilibrium on Youtube Message-ID: A video demonstrating the Nash Equilibrium on youtube.. excellent! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-_Ul1rgl7g Amara From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jun 13 00:34:09 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:34:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Two draft papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and biases In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <448E0801.1010805@pobox.com> Bill Hibbard wrote: > Eliezer, > >>I don't think it >>inappropriate to cite a problem that is general to supervised learning >>and reinforcement, when your proposal is to, in general, use supervised >>learning and reinforcement. You can always appeal to a "different >>algorithm" or a "different implementation" that, in some unspecified >>way, doesn't have a problem. > > But you are not demonstrating a general problem. You are > instead relying on specific examples (primitive neural > networks and systems that cannot distingish a human from > a smiley) that fail trivially. You should be clear whether > you claim that reinforcement learning (RL) must inevitably > lead to: > > 1. A failure of intelligence. > > or: > > 2. A failure of friendliness. As it happens, my model of intelligence says that what I would call "reinforcement learning" is not, in fact, adequate to intelligence. However, the fact that you believe "reinforcement learning" is adequate to intelligence, suggests that you would take any possible factor that I thought was additionally necessary, and claim that it was part of the framework you regarded as "reinforcement learning". What I am presently discussing is failure of friendliness. However, the fact that we use different models of intelligence is also responsible for our disagreement about this second point. Explaining a model of intelligence tends to be very difficult, and so, from my perspective, the main important thing is that you should understand that I have a legitimate (that is, honestly meant) disagreement with you about what reinforcement systems do and what happens in practice when you use them. By the way, I've got some other tasks to take on in the near future, and I may not be able to discuss the actual technical disagreement at length. As said, I will include a footnote pointing to your disagreement, and to my response. > Your example of the US Army's primitive neural network > experiments is a failure of intelligence. Your statement > about smiley faces assumes a general success at intelligence > by the system, but an absurd failure of intelligence in the > part of the system that recognizes humans and their emotions, > leading to a failure of friendliness. Let me try to analyze the model of intelligence behind your statement. You're thinking something along the lines of: "Supervised algorithms" (sort of like those in the most advanced artificial neural networks) give rise to "reinforcement learning"; "Reinforcement learning" gives rise to "intelligence"; "Intelligence" is what lets an AI shape the world, and also what tells it that tiny molecular smiley faces are bad examples of happiness, while an actual human smiling is a good example of happiness. In your journal paper from 2004, you seem to propose using a two-layer system of reinforcement, with the first layer being observed agreement from humans as a reinforcer of its definition of happiness, and the second layer being reinforcement of behaviors that lead to "happiness" as thus defined. So in this case, we substitute: "'Intelligence' is what tells an AI that tiny molecular speakers chirping "Yes! Good job!" are bad examples of agreement with its definition of happiness, while an actual human saying "Yes! Good job!" is a good example." After all, it sure seems stupid to confuse human smiles with tiny molecular smiley faces! How silly of the army tank classifier, not to realize that it was supposed to detect tanks, instead of detecting cloudy days! But a neural network the size of a planet, given the same examples, would have failed in the same way. You previously said: > When it is feasible to build a super-intelligence, it will > be feasible to build hard-wired recognition of "human facial > expressions, human voices and human body language" (to use > the words of mine that you quote) that exceed the recognition > accuracy of current humans such as you and me, and will > certainly not be fooled by "tiny molecular pictures of > smiley-faces." You should not assume such a poor > implementation of my idea that it cannot make > discriminations that are trivial to current humans. It's trivial to discriminate between a photo of a picture with a camouflaged tank, and a photo of an empty forest. They're different pixel maps. If you transform them into strings of 1s and 0s, they're different strings. Discriminating between them is as simple as testing them for equality. But there's an exponentially vast space of functions that classify all possible pixel-maps of a fixed size into "plus" and "minus" spaces. If you talk about the space of all possible computations that implement these classification functions, the space is trivially infinite and trivially undecidable. Of course a super-AI, or an ordinary neural network, can trivially discriminate between a tiny molecular picture of a smiley face, or a smiling human, or between two pictures of the same smiling human from a slightly different angle. The issue is whether the AI will *classify* these trivially discriminable stimuli into "plus" and "minus" spaces the way *you* hope it will. If you look at the actual pixel-map that shows a camouflaged tank, there's not a little XML tag in the picture itself that says "Hey, network, classify this picture as a good example!" The classification is not a property of the picture alone. Thinking as though the classification is a property of the picture is an instance of Mind Projection Fallacy, as mentioned in my AI chapter. Maybe you actually *wanted* the neural network to discriminate sunny days from cloudy days. So you fed it exactly the same data instances, with exactly the same supervision, and used a slightly different learning algorithm - and found to your dismay that the network was so stupid, it learned to detect tanks instead of cloudy days. But a really smart intelligence would not be so stupid that it couldn't tell the difference between cloudy days and sunny days. There are many possible ways to *classify* different data instances, and the classification involves information that is not directly present in the instances. In contrast, finding that two instances are not identical uses only information present in the data instances themselves. Saying that a superintelligence could discriminate between tiny molecular smiley faces and human smiles is, I would say, correct. But it is not correct to say that any sufficiently intelligent mind will automatically *classify* the instances the way you want them to. Let's say that the AI's training data is: Dataset 1: Plus: {Smile_1, Smile_2, Smile_3} Minus: {Dog_1, Cat_1, Dog_2, Dog_3, Cat_2, Dog_4, Boat_1, Car_1, Dog_5, Cat_3, Boat_2, Dog_6} Now the AI grows up into a superintelligence, and encounters this data: Dataset 2: {Dog_7, Cat_4, Galaxy_1, Dog_8, Nanofactory_1, Smiley_1, Dog_9, Cat_5, Smiley_2, Smile_4, Boat_3, Galaxy_2, Nanofactory_2, Smiley_3, Cat_6, Boat_4, Smile_5, Galaxy_3} It is not a property *of dataset 2* that the classification *you want* is: Plus: {Smile_4, Smile_5} Minus: {Dog_7, Cat_4, Galaxy_1, Dog_8, Nanofactory_1, Smiley_1, Dog_9, Cat_5, Smiley_2, Boat_3, Galaxy_2, Nanofactory_2, Smiley_3, Cat_6, Boat_4, Galaxy_3} Rather than: Plus: {Smiley_1, Smiley_2, Smile_4, Smiley_3, Smile_5} Minus: {Dog_7, Cat_4, Galaxy_1, Dog_8, Nanofactory_1, Dog_9, Cat_5, Boat_3, Galaxy_2, Nanofactory_2, Cat_6, Boat_4, Galaxy_3} If you want the top classification rather than the bottom one, you must infuse into the *prior state* of the AI some *additional information*, not present in dataset 2. That, of course, is the point of giving the AI dataset 1. But if you do not understand *how* the AI is classifying dataset 1, and then the AI enters a drastically different context, there is the danger that the AI is classifying dataset 1 using a very different method from the one *you yourself originally used* to classify dataset 1, and that the AI will, as a result, classify dataset 2 in ways different from how you yourself would have classified dataset 2. (This line of reasoning leads to "Coherent Extrapolated Volition", if I go on to ask what happens if I would have wanted to classify dataset 1 itself a bit differently if I had more empirical knowledge, or thought faster.) You cannot throw computing power at this problem. Brute force, or even brute intelligence, is not the issue here. > If your claim is that RL can succeed at intelligence but must > lead to a failure of friendliness, then it is reasonable to > cite and quote me. But please use my 2004 AAAI paper . . . > >>If you are genuinely repudiating your old ideas ... > > . . . use my 2004 AAAI paper because I do repudiate the > statement in my 2001 paper that recognition of humans and > their emotions should be hard-wired (i.e., static). That > is just the section of my 2001 paper that you quoted. I will include, in the footnote, a statement that your 2004 paper proposes a two-layer system. But this is not at all germane to the point I was making - though the footnote will serve to notify readers that your ideas have not remained static. Please remember that my purpose is not to present Bill Hibbard's current ideas, but to use, as an example of failure, an idea that you published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2001. If you have taken alarm at the notion of hardwiring happiness as reinforcement, then you ought to say something like: "Though it makes me uncomfortable, I can't ethically argue that you should not publish my old mistake as a warning to others who might otherwise follow in my footsteps; but you must include a footnote saying that I now also agree it's a terrible idea." Most importantly, your 2004 paper simply does not contain any paragraph that serves the introductory and expository role of the paragraph I quoted from your 2001 paper. There's nothing I can quote from 2004 that will make as much sense to the reader. If I were praising your 2001 paper, rather than criticizing it, would you have the same objection? > Not that I am sure that hard-wired recognition of humans and > their emotions inevitably leads to a failure of friendliness, Okay, now it looks like you *haven't* taken alarm at this. > since the super-intelligence (SI) may understand that humans > would be happier if they could evolve to other physical forms > but still be recognized by the SI as humans, and decide to > modify itself (or build an improved replacement). But if this > is my scenario, then why not design continuing learning of > recognition of humans and their emotions into the system in > the first place. Hence my change of views. I think at this point you're just putting yourself into the SI's shoes, empathically, using your own brain to make predictions about what the SI will do. Not, reasoning about the technical difficulties associated with infusing certain information into the SI. > I am sure you have not repudiated everything in CFAI, I can't think offhand of any particular positive proposal I would say was correct. (Maybe the section in which I rederived the Bayesian value of information, but that's standard.) Some negative criticisms of other possible methods and their failures, as presented in CFAI, continue to hold. It is far easier to say what is wrong than what is right. > and I > have not repudiated everything in my earlier publications. > I continue to believe that RL is critical to acheiving > intelligence with a feasible amount of computing resources, > and I continue to believe that collective long-term human > happiness should be the basic reinforcement value for SI. > But I now think that a SI should continue to learn recognition > of humans and their emotions via reinforcement, rather than > these recognitions being hard-wired as the result of supervised > learning. My recent writings have also refined my views about > how human happiness should be defined, and how the happiness of > many people should be combined into an overall reinforcement > value. It is not my present purpose to criticize these new ideas of yours at length, only the technical problem with using reinforcement learning to do pretty much anything. >>I see no relevant difference between these two proposals, except that >>the paragraph you cite (presumably as a potential replacement) is much >>less clear to the outside academic reader. > > If you see no difference between my earlier and later ideas, > then please use a scenario based on my later papers. That will > be a better demonstration of the strength of your arguments, > and be fairer to me. If you had a paragraph serving an equivalent introductory purpose in a later peer-reviewed paper, I would use it. But the paragraphs from your later papers are much less clear to the outside academic reader, and it would not be clear what I am criticizing, even though it is the same problem in both cases. That's the sticking point from my perspective. > Of course, it would be best to demonstrate your claim (either > that RL must lead to a failure of intelligence, or can succeed > at intelligence but must lead to a failure of friendliness) in > general. But if you cannot do that and must rely on a specific > example, then at least do not pick an example that fails for > trivial reasons. The reasons are not trivial; they are general. I know it seems "stupid" and "trivial" to you, but getting rid of the stupidness and triviality is a humongous nontrivial challenge that cannot be solved by throwing brute intelligence at the problem. You do not need to agree with my criticism before I can publish a paper critical of your ideas; all the more so if I include a URL to your rebuttal. Let the reader judge. > As I wrote above, if you think RL must fail at intelligence, > you would be best to quote Eric Baum. Eric Baum's thesis is not reinforcement learning, it is Occam's Razor. Frankly I think you are too hung up on reinforcement learning. But that is a separate issue. > If you think RL can succeed at intelligence but must fail at > friendliness, but just want to demonstrate it for a specific > example, then use a scenario in which: > > 1. The SI recognizes humans and their emotions as accurately > as any human, and continually relearns that recognition as > humans evolve (for example, to become SIs themselves). You say "recognize as accurately as any human", implying it is a feature of the data. Better to say "classify in the same way humans do". > 2. The SI values people after death at the maximally unhappy > value, in order to avoid motivating the SI to kill unhappy > people. > > 3. The SI combines the happiness of many people in a way (such > as by averaging) that does not motivate a simple numerical > increase (or decrease) in the number of people. > > 4. The SI weights unhappiness stronger than happiness, so that > it focuses it efforts on helping unhappy people. > > 5. The SI develops models of all humans and what produces > long-term happiness in each of them. > > 6. The SI develops models of the interactions among humans > and how these interactions affect the happiness of each. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; in my view this goes down completely the wrong pathway for how to solve the problem, and it is not germane to the specific criticism I leveled. > I do not pretend to have all the answers. Clearly, making RL work > will require solution to a number of currently unsolved problems. RL is not the true Way. But it is not my purpose to discuss that now. > I appreciate your offer to include my URL in your article, > where I can give my response. Please use this (please proof > read carefully for typos in the final galleys): > > http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/AIRisk_Reply.html After I send you the revised draft, it would be helpful if I could see at least some reply in that URL before final galleys, so that I know I'm not directing my readers toward a blank page. > If you take my suggestion, by elevating your discussion to a > general explanation of why RL systems must fail or at least using > a strong scenario, that will make my response more friendly since > I am happier to be named as an advocate of RL than to be > conflated with trivial failure. I will probably give a URL to my own reply, which might well just be a link to this email message. This email does - at least by my lights - explain what I think the general problem is, and why the example given is not due to a trivial lack of computing power or failure to read information directly present in the data itself. > I would prefer that you not use > the quote you were using from my 2001 paper, as I repudiate > supervised learning of hard-wired values. Please use some quote > from and cite my 2004 AAAI paper, since there is nothing in it > that I repudiate yet (but you will find more refined views in my > 2005 on-line paper). I am sorry and I do sympathize, but there simply isn't any introductory paragraph in your 2004 paper that would make as much sense to the reader. My current plan is for the footnote to say that your proposal has changed to a two-layer system, and cite the 2004 paper. From my perspective they are not different in any important sense. I hope this satisfies you; I do need to move on. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Jun 13 00:38:36 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:38:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] New animation stuff References: <470a3c520606080141m16f47139w77aa22d015fd6d0f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001001c68e81$ba087680$0200a8c0@Nano> I've got two new animations for you over at my animation blog, Blue and Artifact. Artifact has an alien in it! Here is the link for the downloads and to leave comments: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Hope you have fun! Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jun 13 00:52:07 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:52:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: 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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <20060610173655.GA19098@ofb.net> Message-ID: <448E0C37.9030001@pobox.com> Martin Striz wrote: > > Hominids in the ancestral environment faced a high mortality rate. At > no time was it worth planning more than a few years ahead. So when > they came upon a bounty, they used it up. Lottery winners spend their > millions in an average of 4 years. Got a reference for this? Sounds like a useful thing to quote. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 21:10:02 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060612211002.51059.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Anders Sandberg To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:14:10 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions Damien Sullivan wrote: > Governments don't need money for incentives; they can apply taxes. If > oil burners had to pay for the cost of removing or sequestering their > CO2 then alternatives would probably look a lot more attractive. > Governments can create markets. But there /is/ no cost for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, because it tends to dissolve in water and be removed by blue-green algae. The higher the density of CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster this process occurs. This is one of a thousand examples of why the whole global warming thing is nonsense. It's a balanced system, but not a /delicately/ balanced one, instead it's a self-balancing one. Any fluctuation in global temps is a natural effect, aside from human production. This is why the "global warming" signs the fearmongering socialist bureaucrats are citing all depend on things which are unrelated to the greenhouse effect, like surface temperatures instead of oceanic temps. -- Words of the Sentient: In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of the citizens to give to the other. --Voltaire 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 21:31:20 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060612213121.57888.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Martin Striz To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:33:57 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > they came upon a bounty, they used it up. Lottery winners spend their > millions in an average of 4 years. We are notoriously bad planners in > the long term. That's a very poor example, because the more one spends on lottery tickets, the dumber they are. It's popularly known as a Stupidity Tax. Even aside from how idiotic taking the lottery seriously is, because it has the worst risk/cost/return ratio of all forms of gambling (as you'd expect, since it's run by government), there's the kind of mental disability that's necessary for the lottery to be PART of one's long-term planning. There may be no group less capable of long-term planning than those who participate the most in government lotteries. -- Words of the Sentient: The argument that the West was somehow to blame for world poverty was itself a Western invention. Like decolonization, it was a product of guilt, the prime dissolvent of order and justice. --Paul Johnson 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 21:26:44 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <200606120509.k5C59RKM001321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060612212644.71387.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: spike To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:03:39 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > Most modern cars can be fairly cheaply modified to run on 85% ethanol. We > can use the existing underground tanks, the pumps, the tanker trucks, etc. > It will be ethanol in the short run, not hydrogen, not liquid natural gas. > Disappointingly low tech, but it is the cheapest next step. Ethanol produces half as much energy as gasoline, and costs more per gallon, even with gas prices tripled by Bush's warmongering. Of course electric cars may indeed have replaced gasoline by now, to some extent, if not for the ban on nuclear power plant building. The whole country could be run on nuclear power by now, which could be much cheaper than fossil fuels. Instead, most of our electricity still comes from fossil fuels, causing ironic situations like how you pollute more with an electric car, in California, than with a gasoline-powered car, because the environmental fearmongers have effectively banned ALL power plant production, leaving the state run off of coal-fire plants which put more nuclear radiation in the atmosphere than a nuclear plant. -- Words of the Socialists: It doesn't matter what's true; it only matters what people believe is true...you are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth generating machine. -- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greanpeace 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 21:21:24 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060612212124.53745.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Damien Sullivan To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:38:26 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > If taxes don't work, regulation will. I've seen it. Breathed it. > Perfect? No, but neither is the alternative. You've seen regulation work? In what universe? In this particular one, authoritarian government never does anything better, on the whole, than freedom of choice. Note that, per erg of production, marxist countries like India and Russia pollute far more than the US. One thing that the eco-fearmongers miss, because of their complete ignorance of economics, is that pollution is inefficient. Which means that, in a real free market, pollution is penalized, because inefficiency is penalized. The way Standard Oil ended up dominating the industry was that while most companies dumped their waste products, Rockefeller's company used the gasoline (at the time considered waste) for fuel, sold the waxy by-products as a competitor to beeswax, sold the sludge as "vaseline", et cetera. This made them more profitable, because they were more efficient. As usual, much of the inefficiency of their competitors was THANKS TO government regulation, not a sign of need for it. In the 1860s, the US government set up price controls on oil, artificially raising the price in order to increase production. Because of this, companies sprang out of the woodwork, making a profit without effective busienss practices, depending on the inflated prices. But since Standard did not do this, it grew faster than they, and established a habit of buying them up. What we need today is LESS Big Brotherment regulation, not more. -- Words of the Sentient: A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own interests of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. -- Thomas Jefferson 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 mstriz at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 02:36:27 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:36:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <448E0C37.9030001@pobox.com> 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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <20060610173655.GA19098@ofb.net> <448E0C37.9030001@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 6/12/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Martin Striz wrote: > > > > Hominids in the ancestral environment faced a high mortality rate. At > > no time was it worth planning more than a few years ahead. So when > > they came upon a bounty, they used it up. Lottery winners spend their > > millions in an average of 4 years. > > Got a reference for this? Sounds like a useful thing to quote. I believe that was in Pinker's Blank Slate, although I could be wrong. There are other evolutionary psychology corollaries to why people are bad with money. This is a good blog post on that topic: http://www.enlightenedliving.us/money_blog/evolutionary_psychology/index.html In short we are coalitional, heirarchical, zero-sum thinkers. However, poor overall long term planning was my focus. There was nothing in the ancestral environment to pressure humans to plan for more than a year, or even with agriculture, about three years (to rotate fields, for example). Given high mortality rates, there was every reason in the world to use up a surfeit of resources. Martin From mstriz at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 02:39:57 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:39:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060612213121.57888.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060612213121.57888.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 6/12/06, KAZ wrote: >> There may be no group less capable of long-term planning than those who participate the most in government lotteries. << You bring up a good point. To be sure, people with discipline can overcome instinctive desires, just as they can work to overcome other heuristics and biases. It's not an inviolable genetic predestination, but it does explain a particularly pervasive human tendency. Martin From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jun 13 02:53:33 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:53:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060612212124.53745.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> <20060612212124.53745.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060613025333.GA24410@ofb.net> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 02:21:24PM -0700, KAZ wrote: > > If taxes don't work, regulation will. I've seen it. Breathed it. > > Perfect? No, but neither is the alternative. > > You've seen regulation work? In what universe? The universe which contains Los Angeles, where the air is still crappy but has gotten a lot better. Private technology did the work, but it's not obvious it would have been developed and deployed without government mandate -- after all, a pollution filter in your tailpipe does very little to make your own life better. > In this particular one, authoritarian government never does anything > better, on the whole, than freedom of choice. > > Note that, per erg of production, marxist countries like India and > Russia pollute far more than the US. I'm not sure India is Marxist, but I know Soviet Russia was a disaster. And our own military has generated some nasty sites, since it's exempt from the strictures of the EPA, unlike the rest of us. But the effects of regulation need not be linear, in quantity or quality; a well-managed democratic government might be better than either the absence of regulation or the craptastic fiasco of the USSR. > One thing that the eco-fearmongers miss, because of their complete > ignorance of economics, is that pollution is inefficient. Which means Heard of negative externalities, KAZ? -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jun 13 02:55:43 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:55:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060612211002.51059.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> References: <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060612211002.51059.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060613025543.GB24410@ofb.net> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 02:10:02PM -0700, KAZ wrote: > > Governments don't need money for incentives; they can apply taxes. If > > oil burners had to pay for the cost of removing or sequestering their > > CO2 then alternatives would probably look a lot more attractive. > > Governments can create markets. > > But there /is/ no cost for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, because > it tends to dissolve in water and be removed by blue-green algae. The > higher the density of CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster this process > occurs. And the more CO2 is in the water the slower the process, as the ocean approaches saturation. Chemistry, KAZ, chemistry. In fact much of the CO2 does go into the ocean, but not all of it, and it's the accumulation which is alarming us. > This is one of a thousand examples of why the whole global warming > thing is nonsense. It's a balanced system, but not a /delicately/ Thousands of scientists who study this disagree with you. Why do you think you are smarter than they are? -xx- Damien X-) From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jun 13 03:10:17 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:10:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: 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> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <20060610173655.GA19098@ofb.net> <448E0C37.9030001@pobox.com> Message-ID: <448E2C99.60702@pobox.com> Martin Striz wrote: > On 6/12/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >>Martin Striz wrote: >> >>>Hominids in the ancestral environment faced a high mortality rate. At >>>no time was it worth planning more than a few years ahead. So when >>>they came upon a bounty, they used it up. Lottery winners spend their >>>millions in an average of 4 years. >> >>Got a reference for this? Sounds like a useful thing to quote. > > I believe that was in Pinker's Blank Slate, although I could be wrong. > > There are other evolutionary psychology corollaries to why people are > bad with money. This is a good blog post on that topic: > > http://www.enlightenedliving.us/money_blog/evolutionary_psychology/index.html > > In short we are coalitional, heirarchical, zero-sum thinkers. Oh, I totally get that. I was just looking for something citable. I tried reading the Blank Slate, but knew too much of the material to get far. Perfectly good book, if I could have read it fifteen years ago. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 04:15:13 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:15:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-Aging Molecule Discovered Message-ID: <20060613041513.22294.qmail@web52613.mail.yahoo.com> Suppose a drug is found that reverses aging. That's what some Korean scientists using magnetic nano-probe technology propose in Nature Chemical Biology [*] and in the media report below. However, all they seem to have so far are cell-culture tests of a drug, and there's a big leap from in-vitro to in-vivo outcomes. There might even be reasons why preventing cellular senescence is not universally beneficial to a whole biological system. We'll see how this pans out. ~Ian ***************************************************** http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200606/kt2006061209433511780.htm Anti-Aging Molecule Discovered A team of South Korean scientists on Sunday claimed to have created a "cellular fountain of youth," or a small molecule, which enables human cells to avoid aging and dying. The team, headed by Prof. Kim Tae-kook at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, argued the newly-synthesized molecule, named CGK733, can even make cells younger. The findings were featured by the Britain-based Nature Chemical Biology online early today and will be printed as a cover story in the journal's offline edition early next month. "All cells face an inevitable death as they age. On this path, cells became lethargic and in the end stop dividing but we witnessed that CGK733 can block the process," Kim said. "We also found the synthetic compound can reverse aging, by revitalizing already-lethargic cells. Theoretically, this can give youth to the elderly via rejuvenating cells," the 41-year-old said. Kim expected that the CGK733-empowered drugs that keep cells youthful far beyond their normal life span would be commercialized in less than 10 years. [...] ***************************************************** Their peer-reviewed paper: [*] Small molecule?based reversible reprogramming of cellular lifespan http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nchembio800.html Here's more on the nano-probe technology they used that was apparently invented by the same team: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200506/kt2005063018022911990.htm ~Ian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jun 13 06:34:22 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:34:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Two draft papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and biases In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060609224449.02383310@gmu.edu> References: <44830B56.3080003@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060609224449.02383310@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <448E5C6E.9080507@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 12:33 PM 6/4/2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >>These are drafts of my chapters for Nick Bostrom's forthcoming edited >>volume _Global Catastrophic Risks_. >>_Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks_ >> http://singinst.org/Biases.pdf >>An introduction to the field of heuristics and biases ... >>_Artificial Intelligence and Global Risk_ >> http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf >>The new standard introductory material on Friendly AI. Robin, It turns out that I've got more stuff coming up (moving to a new apartment within Silicon Valley) so I may not be able to carry on this conversation in as much detail as I'd like. I did want to respond to at least what you've said so far. If you write a long response to this, be forewarned - I may not be able to respond back. > The chapter on cognitive biases was excellent. Regarding the other > chapter, while you seem to have thought lots about many related > issues over the years, you don't seem to have worked much on the > issue I get stuck on: the idea that a single relatively isolated AI > system could suddenly change from negligible to overwhelmingly powerful. As you may recall, that's where I got started on this "seed AI" business in 1998 - talking about recursive self-improvement. But while writing the chapter, I made a conscious decision to talk more about Friendly AI, and less about seed AI. Because, among other reasons, Friendly AI is both harder to explain and more important to explain. People "get" the concept of seed AI relatively easily, though they may or may not agree with it. > You warn repeatedly about how easy is is to fool oneself into > thinking one understands AI, and you want readers to apply this to > their intuitions about the goals an AI may have. The danger is anthropomorphic thinking, in general. The case of goals is an extreme case where we have specific, hardwired, wrong intuitions. But more generally, all your experience is in a human world, and it distorts your thinking. Perception is the perception of differences. When something doesn't vary in our experience, we stop even perceiving it; it becomes as invisible as the oxygen in the air. The most insidious biases, as we both know, are the ones that people don't see. You expect surface effects to work like they do in your human experience, even when the fundamental causes of those surface effects change. You expect assertions to be justified in terms of their perceived departure from what seems normal to you, but your norms are human norms. For example: > But you seem to be > relying almost entirely on unarticulated intuitions when you conclude > that very large and rapid improvement of isolated AIs is likely. Here you measure "rapid" on a human scale. There is nothing in the laws of physics which says that one thought per 10^45 Planck intervals is "normal", one thought per 10^55 Planck intervals is "slow", and one thought per 10^35 Planck intervals is "fast". Pretend that a politically correct review committee is going to go over all your work looking for signs of humanocentrism. > A standard abstraction seems useful to me: when knowledge > accumulates in many small compatible representations, growth is in > the largest system that can share such representations. Presuming that information can be shared more cheaply than it can be initially produced; i.e. that the cost of bandwidth is less than the cost of local production. > Since DNA > is sharable mainly within a species, the improvements that any one > small family of members can produce are usually small compared to the > improvements transferred by sex within the species. Here you analogize to evolution. This is something to be wary of because evolution is an extremely unusual special case of an optimization process. I use all sorts of evolutionary arguments, but only to illustrate *how different* an optimization process can be from human intelligence - never to say that something *must* be like evolution. When knowledge accumulates in small modular representations, growth is in the largest system that *does* share such representations - not the largest system that *can*. In principle, species could develop means of swapping adaptations among themselves. Wouldn't you like gills? But that's not how it works with multicellular organisms. There's a very clear evolutionary logic for this - it's not a mystery. But if a human were in charge of the system, if we were running the show, we'd plagiarize the heck out of everything and export adaptations wholesale between species. So in fact, ecology contradicts the generalization you brought it to support - that growth is within the largest pool where knowledge *can* be shared, as a human onlooker thinks of opportunity. Growth is within the pool where knowledge *is* shared. The ecological world is like one in which every two human cultures that became sufficiently different, *completely stopped* communicating with each other. We'd never do that. Even if we hated their guts, we'd steal their guns. In spirit, if not in letter, this may seem like an argument in your direction. Evolution is dumber than a brain, and as we moved in the direction of increasing intelligence, we seemed to move toward perceiving more opportunities for communication. Or at least more opportunities for theft. Humans plagiarized flight from birds, but I haven't seen much capability-transfer going the other way. But: There's a wider universe out there; It doesn't work like you do; You can't trust your intuitions; Evolutionary analogies have dangers both subtle and gross; Just because something *could* happen doesn't mean that it will. This also struck me about your "Dreams of Autarky"; you said: > The cells in our bodies are largely-autonomous devices and manufacturing plants, producing most of what they need internally. Our biological bodies are as wholes even more autonomous, requiring only water, air, food, and minimal heat to maintain and reproduce themselves under a wide variety of circumstances. Furthermore, our distant human ancestors acquired tools that made them even more general, i.e., able to survive and thrive in an unusually diverse range of environments. And the minds our ancestors acquired were built to function largely autonomously, with only minor inputs from other minds. And from this you read: There is a trend toward greater interdependency over recent time (~10 Ky), and you expect this trend to continue. An alternate reading would be: Modern human culture is a bizarre special case in a universe that doesn't usually work that way. I discuss this in more detail below. > Since humans > share their knowledge via language and copying practices, the > improvements that a small group of people can make are small compared > to the improvements transferred from others, and made available by > trading with those others. And this is an example of what I mean by anchoring on human norms. In your everyday experience, an economy is made up of humans trading *artifacts* and *knowledge*. You don't even think to question this, because it's so universal. Humans don't trade brains. They don't open up their skulls and trade visual cortex. They don't trade adaptations. They don't even trade procedural knowledge. No matter how much someone offers to pay me, I cannot sell them my command of English or my ability to write entertaining nonfiction - not that I would ever sell the original. I'm not sure I would sell a copy. But the point is that I have no choice. I *can't* sell, whether I want to or not. We can trade the products of our minds, but not the means of production. This is an IMPORTANT ASSUMPTION in human affairs. John K Clark once said: "It mystifies me why anyone would even try to move large quantities of matter around the universe at close to the speed of light. It's as silly as sending ice cubes to the south pole by Federal Express. There's already plenty of matter in the Virgo Galactic Cluster 2 billion light years away and it's every bit as good as the matter we have here." As it becomes more economical to ship the factory, it becomes less economical to ship the products of the factory. This is double-bonus-true of cognition. A compact description of the underlying rules of arithmetic (e.g. the axioms of addition) can give rise to a vast variety of surface facts (e.g. that 953,188 + 12,152 = 965,340). Trying to capture the surface behaviors, rather than the underlying generator, rapidly runs into the problem of needing to capture an infinite number of facts. AI people who run into this problem and don't understand where it comes from refer to it as the "common-sense problem" or "frame problem", and think that the solution is to build an AI that can understand English so it can download all the arithmetical facts it needs from the Internet. In our modern world, everything focuses around shipping around declarative verbal sentences, because this is what human beings evolved to trade. We can't trade procedural knowledge, except by extremely laborious, expensive, failure-prone processes - such as multi-year apprenticeships in school. And neural circuitry we cannot trade at all. When you reach down into the generators, you find more power than when you only play with surface phenomena. You amplify leverage by moving closer to the start of the causal chain. Like moving the pebbles at the top of the mountain where they start avalanches. You cannot build Deep Blue (the famous program that beat Garry Kasparov for the world chess championship) by programming in a good chess move for every possible chess position. First of all, it is impossible to build a chess player this way, because you don't know exactly which positions it will encounter. And second, even if you did this, the resulting program would not play chess any better than you do. Deep Blue's programmers didn't just capture their own chess-move generator. If they'd captured their own chess-move generator, they could have avoided the problem of programming an infinite number of chess positions - but they couldn't have beat Garry Kasparov; they couldn't have built a program that played better chess than any human in the world. The programmers built a *better* move generator. This is something they couldn't even do on the level of organization of trading surface moves. At Goertzel's recent AGI conference, I said: "The only thing I know of more difficult than building a Friendly AI is creating a child." And someone inevitably said: "Creating a child is easy, anyone can do it." And I said: "That is like putting quarters into a Coke machine, and saying, 'Look, I made a Coke!'" Humans who spark the process of embryogenesis possess none of the knowledge they would need to design children in their own right; they are just pulling the lever that starts an incredibly complex machine that they don't understand and couldn't build themselves. People sometimes try to build AIs from "semantic networks", with data like is(cat, animal) or cuts(lawnmower, grass), and then they're surprised when the AI doesn't do anything. This is because a verbal sentence - the units of knowledge most commonly traded among humans - are like levers for starting a machine. That's all we need to trade among ourselves, because we all have the machine. But people don't realize this - the machine is universal, and therefore it's invisible; perception is the perception of differences. So someone who programs these tiny, lifeless LISP tokens into an AI is surprised when the AI does absolutely nothing interesting, because as far as they can see, the AI has everything it needs. But the levers have no mechanisms to trigger, the instruction set has no CPU. When you see the word "cat" it paints a complex picture in your visual cortex - the mere ASCII string carries none of that information, it is just a lever that triggers a machine you already have. We are like people who refine gasoline, and trade gasoline, and understand the concept of "running out of gas", but who never think about cars. So you don't focus on the question of whether there might be more efficient cars. And yet there are these things called "chimps" that can't use any of the knowledge you're so playfully batting about. You don't even think to ask why chimps are excluded from the knowledge economy - though they're incredibly close to us evolutionarily. You don't encounter chimps in your everyday life; they don't participate in your economy... and yet what separates humans from chimps is the very last layer of icing on a brain-cake that's almost entirely shared between us. A comparative handful of improvements to underlying *generators*, underlying *brain circuitry*, are enough to entirely exclude chimps from our knowledge economy; they cannot absorb the knowledge we are trading around, and can do nothing with it. Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage does not extend to chimps. And chimps are our closest cousins! What about mice? What about lizards? *That* is the power of between-species intelligence differences - underlying generators that differ by the presence of entire complex adaptations. Humans don't ship around brain circuitry and complex adaptations because we can't. We don't even realize how powerful they are, because differences of brain circuitry are so hugely powerful as to drop our closest competitors out of the economy and out of sight. Anything that doesn't have *all* your brain circuitry and all your complex adaptations is so powerless, compared to you, that it doesn't occur to you to look in that direction - even though a chimp has 95% of your genomic complexity. This is what I mean by saying that humans are an unusual special case of non-autarky. Ordinarily, when an optimization process builds something, it builds things that, by comparison to an interdependent human economy, look like autarkic monoliths. Humans are extremely unusual because we gained the ability to transfer units of knowledge (lever-pulling instructions) between ourselves, but we could not reach down to the level on which evolution built us to begin with. Thus we could *not* encapsulate the accumulating complexity into our own system designs. We could *not* give our children the accumulated knowledge of our science, we could *not* build into their bodies the accumulated power of our technology. Evolution, in contrast, usually builds into each member of a species all the adaptive complexity it manages to accumulate. Why shouldn't it, since it can? > The obvious question about a single AI is why its improvements could > not with the usual ease be transferred to other AIs or humans, or > made available via trades with those others. Transferring to other AIs is one issue, but that you ask about transferring to humans indicates pretty clearly that you're thinking about declarative knowledge rather than brain circuitry. Insert here the usual lecture about the brain being a mess of spaghetti code that is not modular, cannot easily be read out or written to, runs at slow serial speeds, was never designed to be improved, and is not end-user-modifiable. (It's easier to build a 747 from scratch; than to inflate an existing bird to the size of a 747, that actually flies, as fast as a 747, without killing the bird or making it very uncomfortable. I'm not saying it could never, ever be done; but if it happens at all, it will be because the bird built a seed that grew into a 747 that upgraded the bird. (And at this point the metaphor bursts into flames and dies.)) You could imagine drawing a circle around all the AIs in the world, and suppose that growth is on the level of their knowledge economy. WHICH CONSISTS OF TRADING AROUND BRAINWARE AND COMPLEX ADAPTATIONS. The stuff that's so powerful that chimps who merely have 95% of what you have might as well not exist from your economic viewpoint. What goes on inside that circle is just as much a hard takeoff from the perspective of an outside human. Not that I think we'll see a knowledge economy among different AIs undergo hard takeoff, because... > Today a single human can share the ideas within his own > head far easier than he can share those ideas with others - > communication with other people is far more expensive and > error-prone. Yet the rate at which a single human can innovate is > so small relative to the larger economy that most innovation comes > from ideas shared across people. Again, anchoring on the human way of doing things. You do not have the capability to solve a problem by throwing ONE BIG human at it, so you think in terms of throwing lots of individual minds. But which is more effective - one human, six chimps, or a hundred squirrels? All else being equal, it will generally be far more efficient to build a coherent individual out of the same amount of computing power, rather than divide that individual into pieces. Otherwise the human brain would have naturally evolved to consist of a hundred compartmentalized communicating squirrels. (If this reminds you of anyone you know, it is pure coincidence.) Having individual minds is like having economies with separate currencies, fortified borders, heavily protectionist trade barriers, and wide seas separating their wooden ships. It's more efficient to take down the trade barriers and adopt the same currency, in which case you soon end up with a single economy. Now, maybe France *wants* to preserve its French identity within the European Union, as a matter of intrinsic utilities; but that is a separate matter from maximizing efficiency. And even more importantly... > If so, this single AI > would just be part of our larger system of self-improvement. The > scenario of rapid isolated self-improvement would seem to be where > the AI found a new system of self-improvement, where knowledge > production was far more effective, *and* where internal sharing of > knowledge was vastly easier than external sharing. You seem to be visualizing a world in which, at the time the *first* AI approaches the threshold of recursive self-improvement, (1) There are already lots of AIs around that fall short of strong recursivity. And these AIs: (2) Have ability to trade meaningful, important units between themselves. You think of knowledge of the kind humans evolved to share with each other. I think of underlying brain circuitry of the kind that differs between species and is the ultimate generator of all human culture. The latter is harder to trade - though, obviously, far more valuable. How much would you pay for another 20 IQ points? (And that's not even a difference of the interspecies kind, just the froth of individual variation.) Furthermore, the AIs can: (3) Gain significant economic benefits by reciprocally trading their software to each other. And they must also have: (4) Compatible motives in the long run. When I look over the present AGI landscape, and imagine what would happen if an AGI reached the threshold of strong recursivity in the next decade, I find myself thinking that: (1) There are so few AGI projects around at all, let alone projects with a clue, that at the time the first AGI reaches the critical threshold, there will be no other AGIs in the near vicinity of power. (2) Current AGI projects use such wildly differing theories that it would be a matter of serious difficulty for AGIs of less than superhuman ability to trade modules with each other. (Albeit far less difficult than trading with humans.) Or look at it this way - it takes a lot more programming ability to rewrite *another* AI's code than to rewrite your *own* code. Brains predate language; internal bandwidth predates external bandwidth. So the hard takeoff, when it starts, starts inside one AI. (3) Different AGIs, having been produced by different designers on different AGI projects, will not be like humans who are all the same make and model of car and interact economically as equals. More like different species. The top AGI will have as little to gain from trading with the next runner-up as we have to gain from trading with chimpanzees. Or less; chimpanzees are 95% similar to us. Even Ricardo's Law falls off the edge of the interspecies abyss. If the AI wants twice as much brainpower on the problem, it'll absorb twice as much processing power into itself. (4) I'm not sure whether AIs of different motives would be willing to cooperate, even among the very rare Friendly AIs. If it is *possible* to proceed strictly by internal self-improvement, there is a *tremendous* expected utility bonus to doing so, if it avoids having to share power later. With respect to (4), I am admittedly not visualizing a large group of individuals interacting as rough equals. *Those* would have a motive to form coalitions for fear of being beaten by other coalitions. (Whether humans would be worth including into any coalition, on grounds of pure efficiency, is a separate issue.) But if you *automatically* visualize a large group of individuals interacting as rough equals, you need to put more effort into questioning your anchoring on human norms. The psychic unity of humankind *mandates* that healthy humans do not differ by the presence of entire complex adaptations. *Of course* the economies you know run on entities who are all approximate equals - anyone who's not an approximate equal, like your chimp cousins, falls off the edge of vision. Of course there are lots of similar individuals in a your economy - evolution doesn't produce unique prototypes, and human brains don't agglomerate into unitary megaminds. > You say that humans today and natural selection do not self-improve > in the "strong sense" because humans "haven't rewritten the human > brain," "its limbic core, its cerebral cortex, its prefrontal > self-models" and natural selection has not "rearchitected" "the > process of mutation and recombination and selection," with "its focus > on allele frequencies" while an AI "could rewrite its code from > scratch." > > The code of an AI is > just one part of a larger system that would allow an AI to > self-improve, just as the genetic code is a self-modifiable part of > the larger system of natural selection, and human culture and beliefs > are a self-modifiable part of human improvement today. Not "self-modifiable". The genome (as Hofstadter emphasized at the Singularity Summit, the genetic code means the ATCG coding system) is modified by the logic of natural selection. To discover a case in which gene-optimizing logic was embedded in the genome itself would be a stunning, Lamarckian revolution in biology. The genome carries out processes, such as randomized sexual recombination, which are not of themselves optimizing, but which contribute to the logic of natural selection. The logic of evolution is quite simple. Sexual recombination is the only major example I can think of where the logic of evolution was significantly modified by genomic content. Perhaps the original invention of DNA would count as replicators modifying the logic of evolution - though I'm not even sure I'd count that. Neither random mutation, nor random recombination, actually implement the optimizing part of the process - the part that produces information in the genome. That part comes from nonrandom environmental selection. As far as I can think, the only genes which implement organismal-level optimization logics are those responsible for sexual selection within a species - and even they don't write directly to DNA. It is a lot easier to understand how evolution works than to understand how the brain works. Evolution is a small handful of tricks - point mutation, random recombination, natural selection, sexual selection. They play out in very complex ways, but the optimization logic is simple. The human brain is a *much bigger* set of tricks and is correspondingly more efficient. And yet the brain does not write to DNA. Human culture and human beliefs are not a "self-modifiable" part of human improvement. They are modified by human brains, but cannot freely rewrite the optimization logic of human brains. One might argue that writing and science are analogous to the invention of DNA and sex respectively, significantly changing the rules of the game. Even so there's an underlayer we can't reach. If you think that the human brain isn't doing the important work of intelligence, only rules handed down culturally, then just try and program those cultural rules into a computer - if you can share them between humans, surely they're explicit enough to program... What you'll find, after your AI project fails, is that your database of cultural knowledge consists of rules for how to pull levers on a complex machine you don't understand. If you don't have the complex machine, the lever-pulling rules are useless. If you don't believe me, just try to build a scientist using your declarative knowledge of how to be a good scientist. It's harder than it looks. We ain't got strong recursivity. > This argument seems to me to need a whole lot of elaboration and > clarification to be persuasive, if it is to go beyond the mere > logical possibility of rapid self-improvement. The game here is follow-the-work-of-optimization, which is similar to follow-the-entropy in thermodynamics or follow-the-evidence in probability theory. I can't do an analytic calculation of the RSI curve. So why do I expect it to be "fast" as humans measure quickness? Largely, it is an (admittedly imprecise) perception of lots of low-hanging fruit (with clear, obvious reasons why evolution or human engineering has not already plucked those fruit). The most blatant case is the opportunity for fast serial speeds, and the second most blatant is the ability to absorb vast amounts of new hardware, but there's software issues too. Our "fast and frugal" heuristics are impressive for doing so much with so little, but humans not noticing the direction of correlations smaller than .6 probably throws away a *lot* of information. The intuition of fast takeoff comes from realizing just *how much* room there is for improvement. As in, orders and orders of magnitude. In the case of hardware, this is readily visible; software is harder to understand and therefore there is a publication bias against it, but there is no reason in principle to expect evolved software to be closer to optimality than evolved hardware. What I'm seeing (albeit imprecisely) is that human software is, like the hardware, orders and orders of magnitude short of optimality. Think of it as an anthropic argument: The software we use for general intelligence is the smallest possible incremental modification of a chimpanzee that lets the chimp build a computer, because if there were any way to do it with less, we'd be having this conversation about RSI at that level of intelligence instead. Admittedly, this intuition is hard to convey. If only there were some way of transferring procedural skills and intuitions! Alas, we don't. Looks like we humans have a lot of room for improvement! > So a modest advantage for the AI's > internal sharing would not be enough - the advantage would have to be > enormous. I think it will be. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jun 13 11:08:02 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:08:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, so long as I'm fired up, let me add this to what I just said: > But it's entirely a different matter what we *approve* of. And I don't > think that anyone answered Rafal's question above. What if you can replace > the entire Antarctic with computronium running 10^33 people per cubic meter? > > I know---to many, that seems utterly horrific. Yet we talk at the same time > about the possibility that we're living in simulations. Well, as such *we* > ought to be able to continue our lives---or to get lives in the first place! Ah! But *why* is it horrific? That is, why would gray, ugly uniform mile-high blocks of computronium (or even Pentiums) appall so many people? Well, I'll tell you! It's because they personally like the way the Arctic (or your favorite woodland *appears*) looks! That is, they like the way that photons get bounced off these particular objects into their eyes, and they aesthetically disapprove of the way the dull, apparently lifeless blocks of computronium look. But this is simply a failure to distinguish appearance from reality! The *reality* would be that of trillions of trillions of trillions of people living wonderful lives in VR (e.g. as the happiest among us now so live). That is what is *really* going on among those ugly monoliths of silicon (or computronium). Hell, if you so badly *want* to receive photons and phonons that depict birds chirping happily in a green woodland, then please do so. But do not demand that untold trillions of people don't get to live because you need so damned much matter to reflect those photons! There are less expensive ways for you to get your fix. (Besides---don't forget appearance vs. reality again. The "happy" chirping of birds in reality are rather brutal territorial dominance games that are key to their survival. But, sigh, I'm afraid that logic is never any match for symbolism, imagery, and dare I finally say it..., no I don't dare say it!) Okay, so housing developments aren't as pretty as deserts and mountain vistas. But can't we use space in the ways that---appearances to the contrary---most deeply resonate with our true values? Lee P.S. And on a lighter note, space is not really conserved. A tiny bit of new volume is created all the time by our little friends, the wonderful, ever so hardworking and tireless virtual particle pairs, who bring us ever more tidbits of new space via vacuum energy! :-) From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jun 13 10:44:37 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:44:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint (was Extinctions) In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606101939n61950a5fjff7963ff60927789@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Rafal writes > On 6/10/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > [ The definition of complex is of course a problem, since obviously > > neither classic information theory of Kolmogorof complexity has exactly > > the properties I would like (clearly we don't need more white noise in the > > universe). Right now I'm getting optimistic about Giulio Tononi's > > information integration theory of consciousness - even if the > > consciousness part is wrong, the theory seems to suggest some interesting > > directions to go in. Possibly my theory needs a concept of temporal > > integration to really work. ] > > ### Amazing. Would a conversion of everything to computronium > pondering the deepest mathematical truths count as increasing the > complexity of matter? This gets to the ultimate philosophical point, which a couple of early posts hint at too. > If so, how would be trivial existence of the Eastern dappled titmouse > fare in comparison? (if such bird were to be discovered) > > How would you resolve the conflict between uses of matter that differ > in their level of complexity? Does the less complex one have to yield? Let's distinguish between what we believe to be effective (i.e. to "work" in Jef Albright's way of thinking), from what is ultimately desirable. In particular, few here are socialists; we strongly suspect that the best courses of action are in accordance with human liberty, minimal government, and minimal use of force. OKAY! So we *defend* the Nature Conservancy's legal *right* to buy land and take it off-line, so to speak. That is, if someday they buy the moon or the entire Antarctic, then in principle I don't have any problem with that, (except to lament it). But it's entirely a different matter what we *approve* of. And I don't think that anyone answered Rafal's question above. What if you can replace the entire Antarctic with computronium running 10^33 people per cubic meter? I know---to many, that seems utterly horrific. Yet we talk at the same time about the possibility that we're living in simulations. Well, as such *we* ought to be able to continue our lives---or to have lives in the first place! Shouldn't we? Every single time that you reserve some piece of land so that big creatures go around gobbling small creatures, and preserve all the pain and pointless stupidity of that, you are in *principle* saying that this is the best way at this time that the space can be used. Do you see? The final constraint is space itself: we all eventually have to ask version's of Rafal's question above. JUST WHAT DO WE MOST DEEPLY WANT A CUBIC METER OF SPACE TO BE DOING? And I heartily agree with Rafal: we do not (or ought not) want it to be supporting an Easter dappled titmouse at the expense of 10^33 people/m^3---or even at the expense of a suburban tract full of people less rich and smart than we are. The sooner we realize that right now every human life uses up 1300 cc's of space running a person, the better, and that unless we want to adopt the grotesque and elitist view that "Well, I've got mine! I have runtime! To hell with everyone else who might exist", then we have to favor *more* advanced uses of space and resources over *less* advanced uses of them. To hear of folks wanting declines in human fecundity in order to advance the causes of frozen wastes, or even of small creatures tearing each other to pieces, breeding, living, dying pointlessly by the billions over and over and over, always fills me with dismay. Lee From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jun 13 15:44:11 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:44:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060613154411.GA4319@ofb.net> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 04:08:02AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Ah! But *why* is it horrific? That is, why would gray, ugly uniform > mile-high blocks of computronium (or even Pentiums) appall so many > people? Well, I'll tell you! > > It's because they personally like the way the Arctic (or your favorite > woodland *appears*) looks! That is, they like the way that photons get > bounced off these particular objects into their eyes, and they > aesthetically disapprove of the way the dull, apparently lifeless > blocks of computronium look. > (Besides---don't forget appearance vs. reality again. The "happy" > chirping of birds in reality are rather brutal territorial dominance > games that are key to their survival. But, sigh, I'm afraid that If you find yourself characterizing your opponents as silly, perhaps you have misunderstood your opponents. Most people will never see the Arctic, or rainforest, except through film. They value the *existence* of the wilderness. They would also be suspicious of, if not outright reject, the idea that all matter should be organized to maximize computation and virtual experience, as this would seem to be an untested obsession which should not be allowed to run amok (this is the good conservatism, wary of large scale social experiments), especially before the technologies it requires even exist. > P.S. And on a lighter note, space is not really conserved. A tiny bit Then you shouldn't begrudge this speck of a planet for the life already on it, should you? -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jun 13 15:53:13 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:53:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint (was Extinctions) In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60606101939n61950a5fjff7963ff60927789@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060613155313.GB4319@ofb.net> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:44:37AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > think that anyone answered Rafal's question above. What if you can replace > the entire Antarctic with computronium running 10^33 people per cubic meter? But you can't. 1e33 people running on human brains would take 2e34 watts, 1e8 times the power output of the Sun. Improving efficiency by 1e8 would require only the power output of the Sun. Space is cheap; the constraints are low-entropy energy, and heat sinks/radiative surfaces. Of course, this doesn't affect the idea behind the question, but it does lead to more physically relevant thought experiments. > Every single time that you reserve some piece of land so that big creatures > go around gobbling small creatures, and preserve all the pain and pointless > stupidity of that, you are in *principle* saying that this is the best way Everything's pointless, including our own existence. Unless we give it a point, and many people give a point to the natural ecosystem -- for its role in supporting us, for aesthetics, yes, for the fact that it produced us, for the surprising diversity it might contain or produce in the future, and for the sake of the autonomy and pleasure felt by the creatures in it. Not all life is pain. > we do not (or ought not) want it to be supporting an Easter dappled > titmouse at the expense of 10^33 people/m^3---or even at the expense of > a suburban tract full of people less rich and smart than we are. But why not replace that tract with copies of richer and smarter people, or at least prevent them from producing more less-rich less-smart people? > the causes of frozen wastes, or even of small creatures tearing each other > to pieces, breeding, living, dying pointlessly by the billions over and > over and over, always fills me with dismay. Some people feel that way about most of the human race. -xx- Damien X-) From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 15:55:43 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:55:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-Aging Molecule Discovered In-Reply-To: <20060613041513.22294.qmail@web52613.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060613041513.22294.qmail@web52613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 6/12/06, Ian Goddard wrote: > > Suppose a drug is found that reverses aging. All they are claiming is a removal of cells from the "senescent" state they are not claiming "reversing aging". The first sentence in their abstract is questionable because most somatic cells are not replicating and are not "senescent" in the classical sense. Senescence is classically determined using cells which replicate and then cease replication but do not undergo cell death (apoptosis). However, all they seem to have so far are cell-culture tests of a drug, and > there's a big leap from in-vitro to in-vivo outcomes. There might even be > reasons why preventing cellular senescence is not universally beneficial to > a whole biological system. Well said. Indeed, if the alternatives to senescence are apoptosis or cancer, then senescence is clearly the better of the three. And indeed the ATM gene that their CGK733 is affecting is a critical DNA repair gene which when mutated results in either a reduction in cell division or an increased risk of cancer. The two primary genes it interacts with are p53 and BRCA1 [1], mutations in which increase cancer risks. So I would suspect that interfering with ATM such that it reduces cellular senescence would increase cancer. This is the kind of report is what happens when you have individuals who are not educated in the biology of aging extending their claims into that swamp. Their abstract is pretty conservative (sticking to the facts) but I have no doubt that people unfamiliar with the field (i.e. the general press & public) will misinterpret this as a significant breakthrough. Robert 1. OMIM re: ATM: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=607585 re: AT http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=208900 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jun 13 16:00:04 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:00:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <448EE104.1060605@pobox.com> Space is much less of a constraint than our universe's supply of negentropy, which by Liouville's Theorem is irreplaceable. No more irreversible computing except where absolutely necessary! Turn off the Sun, it's wasting electricity. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jun 13 16:16:21 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:16:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <448EE104.1060605@pobox.com> References: <448EE104.1060605@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060613161621.GV28956@leitl.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:00:04AM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > No more irreversible computing except where absolutely necessary! Turn > off the Sun, it's wasting electricity. Only if you don't intercept its entire output to power your circumstellar computer cloud. If you do that, you'll notice that this solar system has too much matter for the energy flux, and you have to start doing fusion, or whatever it takes to turn matter in energy to power the rest of your habitats. One more bad thing: evolutionary systems optimize for Ops/s, not Ops/J. -- 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 Jun 13 16:16:59 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:16:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <20060613154411.GA4319@ofb.net> References: <20060613154411.GA4319@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 6/13/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > Then you shouldn't begrudge this speck of a planet for the life already on > it, should you? Are you proposing the indefinite pursuit of the goals of surviving and producing copies with minor modifications? That that is the *best* use for the matter and energy at our disposal? Extending this thought would suggest that we should run around the galaxy hauling back hydrogen to keep this little game running relatively indefinitely. We want to bring the "far side" party *here* so everyone can see how cool our historic preservation efforts will have been. Ah, yes, what a noble thought, let us increase the aggregate amount of stupidity residing on this tiny speck of a planet in a tiny corner of space for*ever*. If I were God, I'd want to shoot myself. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jun 13 16:38:48 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:38:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint (was Extinctions) In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60606101939n61950a5fjff7963ff60927789@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10606130938k37e510e5v694e024046d7215@mail.gmail.com> On 6/13/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > Let's distinguish between what we believe to be effective (i.e. to "work" > in Jef Albright's way of thinking), from what is ultimately desirable. > In particular, few here are socialists; we strongly suspect that the best > courses of action are in accordance with human liberty, minimal government, > and minimal use of force. > > OKAY! So we *defend* the Nature Conservancy's legal *right* to buy land and > take it off-line, so to speak. That is, if someday they buy the moon or > the entire Antarctic, then in principle I don't have any problem with that, > (except to lament it). > > But it's entirely a different matter what we *approve* of. And I don't > think that anyone answered Rafal's question above. What if you can replace > the entire Antarctic with computronium running 10^33 people per cubic meter? Lee, my "way of thinking" is that we can't know what is ultimately good, but we can increasingly know what principles tend to lead to good. Since doing "good" amounts to maximizing the scope of what is increasingly seen to increasingly promote *our* subjective values in the future, then the first part is to understand what our values say about this issue. The second part is to apply what we know about effectively promoting these values. And all of this within a meta-context of perpetual growth, e.g. recognizing that no particular issue exists in isolation and there is always a larger context. Among the fine-grained variously-weighted values that we would consider are our generally shared appreciation of natural beauty, our appreciation of the evolutionary "knowledge" encoded into the various species with regard to their environment of evolutionary adaptation, the generally shared values that place human enjoyment over conservation of natural habitat, the values that respect others' disagreement, and so on and on. I personally suspect that carrying out this ideal process of social decision-making would result in an outcome in which we would encode as much of the natural information as we thought relevant, and move it all into the computronium simulation in order to greatly enhance the scope of our growth and enjoyment. I might be wrong. We might all be wrong. But I'm willing to bet that the process of increasing awareness of our values and increasing awareness of what works leads to the best social decision-making practical. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jun 13 17:01:21 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:01:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Two draft papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and biases In-Reply-To: <448E5C6E.9080507@pobox.com> References: <44830B56.3080003@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060609224449.02383310@gmu.edu> <448E5C6E.9080507@pobox.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10606131001k2ff2810w71976ca30287a888@mail.gmail.com> On 6/12/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > (4) I'm not sure whether AIs of different motives would be willing to > cooperate, even among the very rare Friendly AIs. If it is *possible* > to proceed strictly by internal self-improvement, there is a > *tremendous* expected utility bonus to doing so, if it avoids having to > share power later. Eliezer, most would agree that there are huge efficiencies to be gained over the evolved biological substrate, but I continue to have a problem with your idea that a process can recursively self-improve in isolation. Doesn't your recent emphasis on perception being the perception of difference (which I strongly agree with) highlight the contradiction and the enormity of the "if" in "if it is *possible* to proceed strictly by internal self-improvement"? - Jef From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jun 13 17:47:59 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:47:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: References: <20060613154411.GA4319@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060613174759.GA23636@ofb.net> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:16:59AM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > On 6/13/06, Damien Sullivan <[1]phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > Then you shouldn't begrudge this speck of a planet for the life > already on it, should you? > > Are you proposing the indefinite pursuit of the goals of surviving and > producing copies with minor modifications? The proposed use of computronium is not much different. Goal of surviving and producing instances with minor modifications per unit time. > That that is the *best* use for the matter and energy at our disposal? I don't know *best*. I know caution, not certainty. I like backups. Why turn Earth into computronium while Venus is available? > Extending this thought would suggest that we should run around the > galaxy hauling back hydrogen to keep this little game running > relatively indefinitely. We Probably not cost-effective, but otherwise not obviously ridiculous. The extreme alternative to having a galaxy full of life is to turn off the stars and keep one planet going a really long time. What's more valuable, a galaxy for 10 billion years or a solar system for 1e20 years or a planet for 1e30 years? Is it worthwhile to make more people if they all have to face death sooner? I'm accused of denying existence to 1e33 people; I could accuse others of denying existence to someone who is 1e30 years old. I liked Jef's general answer. -xx- Damien X-) "If nothing we do means anything, the only thing that means anything is what we do." -- Joss Whedon (Angel) "I beseech you, Sirs, in the bowels of Christ to consider that you may be wrong!" -- Oliver Cromwell, to Parliament From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jun 13 18:02:01 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:02:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <20060613154411.GA4319@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien S. writes > On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 04:08:02AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Ah! But *why* is it horrific? That is, why would gray, ugly uniform > > mile-high blocks of computronium (or even Pentiums) appall so many > > people? Well, I'll tell you! > > > > It's because they personally like the way the Arctic (or your favorite > > woodland *appears*) looks! That is, they like the way that photons get > > bounced off these particular objects into their eyes, and they > > aesthetically disapprove of the way the dull, apparently lifeless > > blocks of computronium look. > > > (Besides---don't forget appearance vs. reality again. The "happy" > > chirping of birds in reality are rather brutal territorial dominance > > games that are key to their survival. But, sigh, I'm afraid that > > If you find yourself characterizing your opponents as silly, perhaps you > have misunderstood your opponents. That's often true. > Most people will never see the Arctic, or rainforest, except through film. > They value the *existence* of the wilderness. And that's what I'm complaining about. > They would also be suspicious of, if not outright > reject, the idea that all matter should be organized to maximize > computation and virtual experience, That's what I said! > as this would seem to be an untested obsession which should not be > allowed to run amok (this is the good conservatism, wary of large > scale social experiments)... Oh Yes, Yes! I am addressing what people ultimately *prefer*. I am postulating that even if they understood that these monoliths represented lots of people---say, people who just don't happen to be born yet---they'd still turn up their noses. We must not confuse what we want with how we get there. We get their throught freedom---and persuasion! And it's latter that I'm about now. Lee > > P.S. And on a lighter note, space is not really conserved. A tiny bit > > Then you shouldn't begrudge this speck of a planet for the life already > on it, should you? What? What? You don't understand. (Or maybe I don't understand.) The Earth is the **only** good thing that is happening in sub-lunar space! Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jun 13 17:57:11 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:57:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Two draft papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and biases In-Reply-To: References: <44830B56.3080003@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060609224449.02383310@gmu.edu> <448E5C6E.9080507@pobox.com> <22360fa10606131001k2ff2810w71976ca30287a888@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10606131057m488549dbm4e310256c0c09c75@mail.gmail.com> On 6/13/06, Mikko S?rel? wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Jef Allbright wrote: > > On 6/12/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > > (4) I'm not sure whether AIs of different motives would be willing to > > > cooperate, even among the very rare Friendly AIs. If it is *possible* > > > to proceed strictly by internal self-improvement, there is a > > > *tremendous* expected utility bonus to doing so, if it avoids having > > > to share power later. > > > > Eliezer, most would agree that there are huge efficiencies to be gained > > over the evolved biological substrate, but I continue to have a problem > > with your idea that a process can recursively self-improve in isolation. > > Doesn't your recent emphasis on perception being the perception of > > difference (which I strongly agree with) highlight the contradiction and > > the enormity of the "if" in "if it is *possible* to proceed strictly by > > internal self-improvement"? > > Internal workings of a system are also part of the percieved reality. One > can test out another algorithm for indexing data and notice that it works > better. Completely internally. And still percieving the difference. Or one > could prove that a certain algorithm for searching data is more efficient > than another. And self-improve. The software and hardware are part of the > reality. > The problem is in the concept of "works better". Where does the knowledge defining what is better (necessarily more refined than present internal knowledge) come from, if not from some form of competition with that which is external to the present system? - Jef From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jun 13 18:12:36 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:12:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060613181236.GA28672@ofb.net> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 04:08:02AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Hell, if you so badly *want* to receive photons and phonons that > depict birds chirping happily in a green woodland, then please do > so. But do not demand that untold trillions of people don't get > to live because you need so damned much matter to reflect those > photons! There are less expensive ways for you to get your fix. Actually, what are those less expensive ways? It seems like an appeal to just simulate it all in VR. But how? If someone wants the experience of deep exploration of a complex system, vs. 3-D wallpaper of generic trees and birdsong sources, then that'll take a lot of computation, it's not just a matter of cheaply calculating some neurons. The best computer of reality might be reality. And what if some of the newly created people find that they wanted that experience themselvs, but can't have it because the needed resources are devoted to running their siblings? They probably wouldn't feel their own lives weren't worth living, but they might regret the choices of their progenitors in some fashion. > vistas. But can't we use space in the ways that---appearances to the > contrary---most deeply resonate with our true values? "Who's this 'our', white man?" -xx- Damien X-) From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jun 13 18:23:10 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:23:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert writes > On 6/13/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > Then you shouldn't begrudge this speck of a planet for the life already on it, should you? > Are you proposing the indefinite pursuit of the goals of surviving and producing copies > with minor modifications? That that is the *best* use for the matter and energy at our > disposal? I agree with your gist. In the back of our minds---far, far back there---we keep our ideals alive, even putting them on a pedestal, but way, way back there. It's far removed from the very slow, piecemeal time-tested evolutionarily derived *actions* that we gingerly take and should take. Actually, what's wrong with copies? Space is non-biased. It doesn't matter whether my life is really computed locally or not, just so that it's computed. In the present day, surviving and producing copies of /what we like/ sure beats the current alternatives! > Extending this thought would suggest that we should run around the galaxy > hauling back hydrogen to keep this little game running relatively indefinitely. > We want to bring the "far side" party *here* so everyone can see how cool our > historic preservation efforts will have been. While I'm not sure *exactly* what you *are* in favor of here, yes, that is silly. But my reaction to it is: we keep the game *here* going as long as we can (but with major improvements that we slowly move towards), but no hauling is required: our copies rush out there and fashion the best use of those far away resources as they can, OUT THERE. > Ah, yes, what a noble thought, let us increase the aggregate amount of > stupidity residing on this tiny speck of a planet in a tiny corner of > space for*ever*. :-) Yes. But I'm sure you remember that New York or Tokyo is to be vastly preferred to the state of nature that existed in those places ten thousand years ago. > If I were God, I'd want to shoot myself. Not at all! :-) Just be patient. Life is already coming to its senses, (in more ways than one!), and the "stupidity" you refer to should diminish over time just as it has already done. Over historical scales that is: true, when we deliberately *revert* a given piece of real estate to the way it was 10,000 years ago, yes, as you say... unfortunate. Lee From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 18:00:10 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-Aging Molecule Discovered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060613180010.98080.qmail@web52609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: > > > > Suppose a drug is found that reverses aging. > > > All they are claiming is a removal of cells from > the "senescent" state they are not claiming > "reversing aging". They do claim an age-reversing effect. In the media report I cited they say: "We also found the synthetic compound can reverse aging, by revitalizing already-lethargic cells." But they avoid such claims in their abstract. This strikes me as an example of a phenomenon I see too often where scientists have a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal and therein they respect scientific standards of skepticism and claim restraint, but then they speak in the press with little or no sign of uncertainty. It makes it seem like the underlying philosophical tenets of science are just a game, a pretense, as opposed to a necessary approach to knowing per se. Of course I hope these guys are right and I'm not trashing them, but there are some signs of excessive claims. > > However, all they seem to have so far are > > cell-culture tests of a drug, and there's a big > > leap from in-vitro to in-vivo outcomes. There > > might even be reasons why preventing cellular > > senescence is not universally beneficial to > > a whole biological system. > > > Well said. Indeed, if the alternatives to > senescence are apoptosis or cancer, then senescence > is clearly the better of the three. And indeed the > ATM gene that their CGK733 is affecting is a > critical DNA repair gene which when mutated results > in either a reduction in cell division or an > increased risk of cancer. The two primary genes it > interacts with are p53 and BRCA1 [1], mutations in > which increase cancer risks. So I would suspect > that interfering with ATM such that it reduces > cellular senescence would increase cancer. Thanks Robert for the insight and links (below)! > This is the kind of report is what happens when you > have individuals who are not educated in the > biology of aging extending their claims into that > swamp. Their abstract is pretty conservative > (sticking to the facts) but I have no doubt that > people unfamiliar with the field (i.e. the general > press & public) will misinterpret this as a > significant breakthrough. Note too that their terminology in the press report is atypical for gerontologists yet typical for "anti-aging" supplement sellers. Though that might be language issue, their being Korean. Still, all-in-all, one does get the feeling of claims that go too far coming from scientists who may not be specialists in the field in which their claims apply. However, none of those factors falsify what they say; let's keep listening and hope they're onto something! ~Ian > 1. OMIM re: ATM: > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=607585 > re: AT > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=208900 > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 18:25:28 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:25:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Extinctions In-Reply-To: <33003.86.143.246.157.1150035647.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> <20060610053239.GA7494@ofb.net> <35842.86.143.246.157.1149947443.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60606100805r4b463933k2b25a48fca8f91a4@mail.gmail.com> <36127.86.143.246.157.1149954935.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60606101045w4aa50e7bod29d0b3c4ec842c3@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60606101106q1015fdd2se037da05b2289549@mail.gmail.com> <45607.86.143.246.157.1149983643.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60606101939n61950a5fjff7963ff60927789@mail.gmail.com> <33003.86.143.246.157.1150035647.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606131125s22da3b8cm3544a02c430b18b8@mail.gmail.com> Anders mailed me offlist probably by accident (happens to me all the time) but let me answer on list: . But suppose we construct a desiring acocuntantbot, but > hardwire somewhat arbitrarily its desires to be only accountancy. Here is > an entity that could be more than accountant, and I think we are not moral > in preventing it from at least having a chance to explore these > possibilities (it may of course return to accountancy as its one true love > after having tried the excitement of other things). It is a bit like > Julian Savulescu's principle of procreative beneficience: we have aduty to > create the best and happiest offspring we can, and this goes for our AI > too. > ### I don't quite follow you there. Our desires are a contingent outcome of evolution, and a content accountant (presumably most content after accounting for all content) is no less arbitrary than a mind that enjoys the songs of nightingales. I do not think that procreative beneficence (which I accept for reasons of reciprocity) requires that we instill a desire to explore possibilities: rather, we have to avoid making minds whose goal systems are grossly maladapted to the environment, precluding satisfaction of goals. It may be wrong to build a mind with an itch it can never scratch, in constant agony, even as it explores the universe. But it is perfectly OK, from a beneficence point of view (as well as economically sound) to build a mind just happily counting beans. ----------------- I wrote : > > How would you resolve the conflict between uses of matter that differ > > in their level of complexity? Does the less complex one have to yield? > Anders: > It is a practical and aesthetic choice, not a moral choice. Less complex > may have less aesthetic value to me, but having a system with two kinds of > entities rather than one kind is better in my value system. > and me again: > > > > ### So you say that building a house in a forest is a morally bad > > thing? As in, not just grating against your own personal affection for > > the jungle, but in and of itself a Bad Thing, worthy of opprobrium and > > sanctions? Because, you know, a moral injunction without sanctions is > > just empty talking, morality is as serious as the weight of force seen > > as justified in upholding it, so I can't resist asking you, how much > > violence would you condone to prevent the Brazilians from breaching > > their jungle's interests to build their huts? > Anders: > None at all, since I slipped above and used "moral" when I meant > "aesthetic". The moral weight of the jungle is very slight, but destroying > it may be an aesthetic error. If someone paints their house a hideous > fluoroscent green I don't think moral sanctions are appropriate, but > surely people should tell the person that it is a mistake. We do have > aesthetic sanctions too, to some extent, although these are seldom (and > should not) be as strong as moral sactions. > > But since aesthetic values are so weak in my theory they would of course > need protection from people with other aesthetics and intentions, e.g. by > me buying Amazonian forest to preserve it or develop its aesthetics > further. In that case the normal libertarian sanctions of dealing with > trespassers and squatters would apply. > ### I see you haven't changed Anders, and it's a compliment :) Yes, now that you clarify your position, I of course agree with you - protecting non-sentient species, or building complexity of the surrounding matter are matters of aesthetic choice, not moral injunctions. Something that gentlefolk may enjoy as hobbies. I have no problem with aesthetic environmentalism, to be pursued by genteel methods, wholly eschewing violence and strident rhetoric. If only more people had this constructive attitude towards the environment, the world would be a better place. Rafal From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jun 13 18:32:14 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:32:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <22360fa10606130938k37e510e5v694e024046d7215@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef nails it: > > But it's entirely a different matter what we *approve* of. And I don't > > think that anyone answered Rafal's question above. What if you can replace > > the entire Antarctic with computronium... > > Lee, my "way of thinking" is that we can't know what is ultimately > good, but we can increasingly know what principles tend to lead to > good. Right! And we can only even *conjecture* about each. Yet practically and on an everyday level we can be far more confident of rule of law and respect for private property, say. > Since doing "good" amounts to maximizing the scope of what is > increasingly seen to increasingly promote *our* subjective values in > the future, then the first part is to understand what our values say > about this issue. Yes! And that's where we do consult---but only sparingly---our ideals way in the back of our minds. > Among the fine-grained variously-weighted values that we would > consider are our generally shared appreciation of natural beauty, our > appreciation of the evolutionary "knowledge" encoded into the various > species with regard to their environment of evolutionary adaptation, > the generally shared values that place human enjoyment over > conservation of natural habitat, the values that respect others' > disagreement, and so on and on. Yes, but "appreciation of natural beauty" is sometimes at loggerheads with placing "human enjoyment over [whatever]". Just recall you and I nor any of the wonderful things that make all of us human just would not be here if our ancestors had decided to never convert woodlands to crop fields. Lee > I personally suspect that carrying out this ideal process of social > decision-making would result in an outcome in which we would encode as > much of the natural information as we thought relevant, and move it > all into the computronium simulation in order to greatly enhance the > scope of our growth and enjoyment. > > I might be wrong. We might all be wrong. But I'm willing to bet that > the process of increasing awareness of our values and increasing > awareness of what works leads to the best social decision-making > practical. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jun 13 18:50:27 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:50:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <20060613181236.GA28672@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien writes > On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 04:08:02AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Hell, if you so badly *want* to receive photons and phonons that > > depict birds chirping happily in a green woodland, then please do > > so. But do not demand that untold trillions of people don't get > > to live because you need so damned much matter to reflect those > > photons! There are less expensive ways for you to get your fix. > > Actually, what are those less expensive ways? Of course, as you know, we are talking here of our ideals, not our current political courses of action. :-) We don't, indeed, have any such ways today. > It seems like an appeal to just simulate it all in VR. That's right. > But how? If someone wants the experience of deep exploration of > a complex system, vs. 3-D wallpaper of generic trees and birdsong > sources, then that'll take a lot of computation, it's not just a > matter of cheaply calculating some neurons. The best computer of > reality might be reality. Hmm? I don't think so, but perhaps I've not understood. In *theory* emulating neurons is indeed all you need to do. You can't know---as I'm sure you have often acknowledged--- whether or not your brain is in a vat. Or whether you are being emulated on some computer. A very, very important point missed by some extraordinarily gifted and smart SF writers: emulating you does *not* require the emulation of everything that you see and hear. The 2D images are infinitely less expensive than crudely emulating every last molecule in a forest, say. > And what if some of the newly created people find that they wanted that > experience themselves, but can't have it because the needed resources are > devoted to running their siblings? Oh, yes! Eventually the AI that runs you has to be blunt: "Paddy, sorry, but you've only got just 10^100 (or some other enormous number) of resource units for what *you* want. There are, after all, all the other 7x10^9 people I already uploaded and the other 10^10 people I'm resurrecting here in the Solar System. There *are* limits. But vastly more than any early 21st century person could appreciate. So be happy with what you have!" > > But can't we use space in the ways that---appearances to the > > contrary---most deeply resonate with our true values? > > "Who's this 'our', white man?" :-) Yes. I know. An Earth-Firster want to get rid of people altogether, or maybe just reduce the # of people to a few. I claim that if people were not taken in by appearances, say, of forest beauty, but instead understood that what was wonderful was their own neuronal reaction, they'd become disenchanted with what's really going on in nature. By most people's values, it's not very nice! Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jun 13 18:59:29 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:59:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Accidental Misaddressing of Posts In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606131125s22da3b8cm3544a02c430b18b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Rafal writes > Anders mailed me offlist probably by accident (happens to me all the > time) but let me answer on list: Yes. Good. Let's adopt the convention that unless it's preceded by an "(offlist)" then go ahead. Well---use common sense: if the tone is totally different, then of course, realize what's happened. But wouldn't it be a time-saver and advance the rate of true idea exchange if somehow this error---which seems to happen to almost everyone---was ameliorated as I suggest? Or are there better ideas? Lee From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 19:22:11 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:22:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> References: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606131222mfb6489m7d6298bd47a78489@mail.gmail.com> On 6/11/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > Absent any government intervention, what's the incentive for many > polluters, without specific obvious victims under tort law, to not > pollute? Oh wait, there isn't any. That's even more perverse than > democratic feedback. > > If taxes don't work, regulation will. I've seen it. Breathed it. > Perfect? No, but neither is the alternative. ### After harm from pollution is proven, and given class action suits, the tort law can be used to form a feedback loop between polluters and their victims. While the court system has its own problems (e.g. the reliance on juries for decision-making), it is potentially better at addressing problems, in part because of its partial decentralization (leading to better truth-finding), possibility of competition between jurisdictions for polluters or for victims, and other features. I've seen regulation at work, and it's not pretty. Hundreds of billions of dollars dumped into the Superfund boondoggle (I hope you know about it), the estimated 20 000 000 000 dollars spent per life saved by the EPA on chloroform controls, a panopticum of grotesque inefficiency. The biggest harm is the one you don't see: the businesses never founded, the money unearned because of the constant stream of destructive regulation put out by bureaucrats. The feedback loops connecting bureaucrats and their constituencies and victims are so much weaker, or actually perverse, compared to the strong ties that bind a business and its customers and victims: inevitably, government regulation makes things worse, because it's blind and it wouldn't care anyway. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 19:37:59 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:37:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <7498FD71-E9D2-425A-A772-E5A66DBA9E65@mac.com> 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> <20060610181656.GB19098@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606101858j60422558p84f366162aa482ff@mail.gmail.com> <7498FD71-E9D2-425A-A772-E5A66DBA9E65@mac.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606131237n7c7eebc2xb8ad15e849e9d63@mail.gmail.com> On 6/11/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > A) Only a very radical fringe puts other species above humans; ### I am glad they are only a fringe, but the threat of terrorism I am exposed to (I sometimes use animals in my research) makes me acutely sensitive to evironmentalist and animal-rightist rhetoric - all it takes is a few hundred fanatics to put a monkey wrench in scientific research. ------------------------- > > B) Beef is not the best way to fully feed all people on earth well > quickly so not giving everyone a beefsteak is not a bad thing; ### I am not really talking about not giving a beefsteak: of course, nobody has a right to demand that a steak be *given* to him. What I am opposed to is trying to *forbid* a steak to those who can buy it. And serious species-saving would mean forbidding steaks to most people. -------------------------------------- > > C) Our suburbs are grossly inefficient in many respects. Better than > hovels to be sure but not the model of human well-being. ### Should their inhabitants freely decide to leave them because of this "gross inefficiency", that's fine. What I am opposed to is forcibly evicting them to make space for bugs and slugs. ------------------------ > > D) You are still claiming being serious about saving species is to be > anti-human. Give some proof or move on graciously please. ### So far, all the proposals floated in this thread are either showbusiness, pie-in-the-sky, irrelevant, expensive, largely ineffective, simple fraud, authoritarian, antihuman or any combination of the foregoing. If you can show me a single plausible (i.e. potentially economically viable) method of significantly reducing human impact on the environment, that would not grossly interfere with human lives, I will concede the point. As to moving on, graciously or otherwise, I won't. I like it where I am. Rafal From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jun 13 20:05:11 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:05:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <20060613174759.GA23636@ofb.net> References: <20060613154411.GA4319@ofb.net> <20060613174759.GA23636@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060613200511.GA28956@leitl.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:47:59AM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > Why turn Earth into computronium while Venus is available? Because the process starts here, and while it will leap into space it doesn't mean Earth surface will see industrial-strength pollution of a postbiological culture. > Probably not cost-effective, but otherwise not obviously ridiculous. No, bulk matter transport over interstellar distances is prohibitive. -- 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 Tue Jun 13 19:49:20 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: References: <20060613154411.GA4319@ofb.net> Message-ID: <39340.72.236.103.24.1150228160.squirrel@main.nc.us> > >> They would also be suspicious of, if not outright >> reject, the idea that all matter should be organized to maximize >> computation and virtual experience, > > That's what I said! > I think I'm missing the point. Although I spend an inordinate amount of time at the computer I love working in my garden and when things in my life become stressful that is one thing I choose to do. You want I should live in a grey concrete structure and only look at pictures of a garden? And I love to play with my cats and my snakes. They comfort me. Their strange beauty and the fact that they exist is amazing to me. Still. After all these years. The astonishing variety of what is here on this earth delights me. Yes, it's rough and painful and death filled, that's the way it is now. But I do not see why we should destroy and discard the millions of years of amazing evolutionary variety to turn into computer VR droid type ... um ... people. Where is the living part? Why should I trade RL for VR? I'm not convinced. Thanks but no thanks. If that's where we're headed, I'd like to be dead before we get there. Or perhaps I really do not understand you. Regards, MB From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jun 13 20:10:00 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:10:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: References: <20060613181236.GA28672@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060613200959.GA11029@ofb.net> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:50:27AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Damien writes As a side note, the 1e33 minds in a m3 was a number I assume made up on the spot for rhetorical effect, since there are likely to be no more than 1e30 *atoms* in a m3 of solid matter. > > > Hell, if you so badly *want* to receive photons and phonons that > > > depict birds chirping happily in a green woodland, then please do > > > so. But do not demand that untold trillions of people don't get > > > to live because you need so damned much matter to reflect those > > > photons! There are less expensive ways for you to get your fix. > > It seems like an appeal to just simulate it all in VR. > > But how? If someone wants the experience of deep exploration of > > a complex system, vs. 3-D wallpaper of generic trees and birdsong > > sources, then that'll take a lot of computation, it's not just a > > matter of cheaply calculating some neurons. The best computer of > > reality might be reality. > > In *theory* emulating neurons is indeed all you need to do. > You can't know---as I'm sure you have often acknowledged--- > whether or not your brain is in a vat. Or whether you are > being emulated on some computer. > > the emulation of everything that you see and hear. The 2D images > are infinitely less expensive than crudely emulating every > last molecule in a forest, say. This doesn't follow. The 2D images are the end result of a vast amount of work. Copying an image is cheap but computing what it should be is not. E.g. suppose you want to emulate the experience of exchanging e-mail with another brain in a vat. Can you get away with just emulating the sensory neurons which would be reading the e-mail? No, because it takes a whole other humanlevel mind to write the e-mails and carry on a conversation. This despite the fact that the ASCII text "reflection" off the other mind is much smaller than the photon reflections off of a rainforest. The sensory bandwidth of a vatbrain may seem trivial compared to the brain, but computing which sensory experiences should be squeezed through that bandwidth is not trivial. One person might be satisfied with crudely heuristic "wallpaper" full of fractally drawn trees and chirping boids. An animal behaviorist will want to see real behavior. Someone else might want to get out a microscope, or sequence DNA, or explore ecological consequences over a large area (so "just emulate what they're looking at right now" won't cut it.) And that's just at one moment, never mind wanting to see how the system evolves over time. The brain in a vat wants to interact with a rich environment, which takes resources above and beyond that needed for the brain. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jun 13 20:12:42 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:12:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <20060613200511.GA28956@leitl.org> References: <20060613154411.GA4319@ofb.net> <20060613174759.GA23636@ofb.net> <20060613200511.GA28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060613201242.GB11029@ofb.net> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:05:11PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:47:59AM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > > Why turn Earth into computronium while Venus is available? > > Because the process starts here, and while it will leap into space > it doesn't mean Earth surface will see industrial-strength pollution > of a postbiological culture. I assume you mean "won't see". This is a choice, not a law of nature. > > Probably not cost-effective, but otherwise not obviously ridiculous. > No, bulk matter transport over interstellar distances is prohibitive. Thus "not cost-effective". I was responding to a proposal that we shouldn't do it if we could. -xx- Damien X-) From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jun 13 20:23:52 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:23:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <20060613201242.GB11029@ofb.net> References: <20060613154411.GA4319@ofb.net> <20060613174759.GA23636@ofb.net> <20060613200511.GA28956@leitl.org> <20060613201242.GB11029@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060613202352.GD28956@leitl.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:12:42PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > Because the process starts here, and while it will leap into space > > it doesn't mean Earth surface will see industrial-strength pollution > > of a postbiological culture. > > I assume you mean "won't see". Yes. > This is a choice, not a law of nature. I'm arguing it is a law of nature, inasmuch it directly follows from an evolutionary scenario. I'm not very happy about this, but unfortunately I'm yet to see a plausible mechanism proposed by which we can maintain a low profile. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 20:43:48 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-Aging Molecule Discovered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060613204348.93273.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > On 6/12/06, Ian Goddard > wrote: > > > > Suppose a drug is found that reverses aging. > > > All they are claiming is a removal of cells from the > "senescent" state they > are not claiming "reversing aging". True. The spin-doctored cheese was almost too thick to stomach. But those guys did a lot of hard work so I guess they deserve some media attention. > The first > sentence in their abstract is > questionable because most somatic cells are not > replicating and are not > "senescent" in the classical sense. Yes. In their abstract they do not dilineate the difference between reversible growth arrest i.e. quiescence from irreversible growth arrest i.e. senescence. But they DO demonstrate that what they are doing is transiently reversing senescence. The SA-beta-galactasidase assay and cell morphology data is convincing that these cells are indeed senescent. >Senescence is > classically determined > using cells which replicate and then cease > replication but do not undergo > cell death (apoptosis). I am not sure what you mean by classically. (Leonard Hayflick?) But these days senescence is viewed as termination of the replication program due to the cell sensing that it may be on the verge of becoming cancerous due to dysfunctional telomeres (either too short or the wrong shape), DNA damage by radiation or free radicals, or overly strong mitogenic stimulation (growth signals). > > However, all they seem to have so far are > cell-culture tests of a drug, and > > there's a big leap from in-vitro to in-vivo > outcomes. There might even be > > reasons why preventing cellular senescence is not > universally beneficial to > > a whole biological system. Ian is correct here. I don't think this drug will be useful for systemic use (in a pill for example) but it may have clinical application as a topical or local treatment such as an ointment to help wound healing in elderly or diabetic patients. It could also be useful to grow up ex vivo cells into tissues that are then grafted back into people. I would be interested to see what effects it has on cells such as neurons and heart muscle cells for example. I would also like to see what effects it has on telomerase expression and telomere length. > Well said. Indeed, if the alternatives to > senescence are apoptosis or > cancer, then senescence is clearly the better of the > three. That is the whole purpose of senescence: a compromise between cancer and apoptosis that lets a potentially damaged cell to survive and continue to do its job while prohibiting it from replicating. The key to this drug is that it can temporarily suspend that prohibition. And indeed the > ATM gene that their CGK733 is affecting is a > critical DNA repair gene which > when mutated results in either a reduction in cell > division or an increased > risk of cancer. The two primary genes it interacts > with are p53 and BRCA1 > [1], mutations in which increase cancer risks. So I > would suspect that > interfering with ATM such that it reduces cellular > senescence would increase > cancer. The drug is reversible, so taking the drug away seems to re-establish senescence. The question is how many additional cell divisions can a senescent cell tolerate before it becomes faulty enough to cause cancer. > This is the kind of report is what happens when you > have individuals who are > not educated in the biology of aging extending their > claims into that > swamp. Whom are you refering to? The researchers or the press agents? A lot of confusion is always caused by the Madison Ave. types who get a hold of some information like this. All in an effort to generate investment. I think generally the researchers themselves are often less culpable than the marketing gurus they hire. > Their abstract is pretty conservative > (sticking to the facts) but I > have no doubt that people unfamiliar with the field > (i.e. the general press > & public) will misinterpret this as a significant > breakthrough. It has the potential to be as significant a breakthrough as the "purple pill" and every other drug pharmaceuticals convince doctors to prescribe and the public to buy. The mantra of the modern pharmaceutical industry seems to be find a chemical that does SOMETHING physiologically and then invent a disease or disorder that creates a percieved need for the drug in question. The REAL breakthrough is their MAGIC (corny name I know) technology. I imagine every big pharmaceutical will either license it or reverse engineer it sooner or later. It really is a great way to do mass throughput screening for small molecular inhibitors of known protein targets. I am thouroughly impressed by it. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 22:37:36 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:37:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-Aging Molecule Discovered In-Reply-To: <20060613204348.93273.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060613204348.93273.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Its fine to forward my comments. My impression of OMIM condensations of the literature (the references I cited) is that the are usually quite good. (Perhaps in part because I think the people writing the OMIM pages are under less pressure for press or grant approvals than the front line scientists -- but this is just a guess.) I agree with the other comments. Its easy to check authors by doing a PubMed search on the names involved in the article (I usually do something like the lead author and the last author) and some important keywords (e.g. senescence). PubMed helps now in that it provides links to the author searches. If you find lots of references by authors, but they don't happen to be related to the topic of the paper (e.g. cellular senescence or aging) then they may be stretching beyond their areas of expertise. Given dozens to hundreds of theories of aging it is very easy for scientists to fall into the swamp. Generally I think what happens is that you get gradual spin on the information as it goes from scientist to institution press office to expert news sources to public news sources. At each level there is a tendency for reinterpretation to occur which can change the meaning from what the original intent actually was. You get into subtle distinctions as to whether a public news source was quoting a scientist or quoting an institution press office quoting a scientist, etc. The general public doesn't even know about cellular senescence or apoptosis or free radicals or DNA mutations or ... so *how* does one explain the subtle details to them in 3-5 column inches without folding and mutilating the "facts"? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 23:12:25 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:12:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606131222mfb6489m7d6298bd47a78489@mail.gmail.com> References: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606131222mfb6489m7d6298bd47a78489@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 6/13/06, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### After harm from pollution is proven, and given class action suits, > the tort law can be used to form a feedback loop between polluters and > their victims. When you factor in the costs of healthcare, regulations aren't that inefficient, especially in a country like the United States which spends more on healthcare as a percentage of its GDP than any country in the world. I'd rather be Proactionary about it. > I've seen regulation at work, and it's not pretty. Hundreds of > billions of dollars dumped into the Superfund boondoggle (I hope you > know about it), the estimated 20 000 000 000 dollars spent per life > saved by the EPA on chloroform controls, a panopticum of grotesque > inefficiency. The biggest harm is the one you don't see: the > businesses never founded, the money unearned because of the constant > stream of destructive regulation put out by bureaucrats. Economies are complex and there are always a hundred examples for one position, and a hundred for the opposite. We've also achieved measurable reductions in pollution, creating cleaner air, water and soil (published studies have confirmed this), safer working conditions, and a higher quality of life for the lowest classes, all while maintaining one of the most robust economies in the world. So, all things considered, I think it was worth it. Martin From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jun 13 23:24:38 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:24:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: References: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606131222mfb6489m7d6298bd47a78489@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060613232438.GA18447@ofb.net> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 07:12:25PM -0400, Martin Striz wrote: > On 6/13/06, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > ### After harm from pollution is proven, and given class action suits, > > the tort law can be used to form a feedback loop between polluters and > > their victims. > > When you factor in the costs of healthcare, regulations aren't that > inefficient, especially in a country like the United States which > spends more on healthcare as a percentage of its GDP than any country And we have more GDP, so we're spending more absolutely as well. Funny how we don't live longer. The %GDP difference is big, too, like 15% for us then 10% for the next. -xx- Damien X-) From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jun 13 23:47:15 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:47:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <20060613200959.GA11029@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien S. writes > As a side note, the 1e33 minds in a m3 was a number I assume made up on > the spot for rhetorical effect, since there are likely to be no more > than 1e30 *atoms* in a m3 of solid matter. I mentioned that it was in "computronium", but yes, I shouldn't have been specific. In truth, I was remembering how many present day folks you can emulate using the Merkle/Kurzweil numbers, if you use the whole Earth. I often quote this at people who want to keep the Earth around, boulders, molten lava, mantle, iron core and all. > E.g. suppose you want to emulate the experience of exchanging e-mail > with another brain in a vat. Can you get away with just emulating the > sensory neurons which would be reading the e-mail? No, because it takes > a whole other humanlevel mind to write the e-mails and carry on a > conversation. Right. > One person might be satisfied with crudely heuristic "wallpaper" full of > fractally drawn trees and chirping boids. Now that is 99% of the people 99% of the time. > An animal behaviorist will want to see real behavior. Someone else might > want to get out a microscope, or sequence DNA, or explore ecological... Yes, but how often? Do we need to run an entire Amazon jungle just in case someone wants to look at *one* particular piece of it? Why not let some more people live instead? What if someone has just bought the piece of matter this simulation is running on and wants to make it into a beautiful arctic wilderness? Or: what if you and I didn't get to live because some plutocrat decided to waste his vast resources on a meadow? > consequences over a > large area (so "just emulate what they're looking at right now" won't > cut it.) And that's just at one moment, never mind wanting to see how > the system evolves over time. I have little problem if you want to buy a huge piece of matter somewhere, and use it for such paltry ends. That's your business. I'm saying that if you do, it will be at the expense of (at least) millions of peoples' lives. (Runtime of lives, that is.) Your choice, of course. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Jun 14 00:02:25 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:02:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <39340.72.236.103.24.1150228160.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: MB sensibly asks > Although I spend an inordinate amount of time at the computer I love > working in my garden and when things in my life become stressful that > is one thing I choose to do. You want I should live in a grey concrete > structure and only look at pictures of a garden? Oh, no! You should use your own resources as you see fit. But suppose that you are uploaded. How can you resist the missionary/salesman from the Operating System who knocks on your virtual door and tries to sell you an algorithm or something that will take your real dirt garden and virtualize it along with you? The idea is that it would look and feel every bit like your present one. It even kicks in greater processing power whenever you look at something up close. No, sorry, but I am talking about after people---if we get so lucky--- are uploaded. Where the discussion comes back to Earth is in public choices over whether to sacrifice nice, real landscapes for virtual ones. Imagine that some years hence one can have a holographic display in his apartment that has an even greater view than from the best pent-house in New York or San Francisco. Moreover, you can change it to the Kalahari when you like, or a fantastic number of other scenes. My question for you is this: *if* it looked exactly the same as a real one would (except no jet contrails in the sky, no smog or fog unless you wanted it, and no clutter of other buildings, would you find it intrinsically unsatisfactory just because it wasn't real? > The astonishing variety of what is here on this earth delights me. > Yes, it's rough and painful and death filled, that's the way > it is now. But I do not see why we should destroy and discard the millions > of years of amazing evolutionary variety to turn into computer VR droid > type ... um ... people. Where is the living part? Why should I trade RL > for VR? First, the people are the living part. Second, I totally agree that many genotypes and phenotypes should be recorded, so that people can have them emulated whenever they want. Besides, how did the organisms and ecosystem that just happen to be alive now become so special? They've been changing (and often going extinct) for hundreds of millions of years. We may have programs that can mock up even more beautiful and amazing and delightful scenarios. The only thing is that people have to get used to the idea. GE foods and indoor plumbing are great starts; but will it be one of those things in which only the young who grow up with it can accept it? Regards, Lee From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Jun 14 00:14:59 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:14:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: References: <39340.72.236.103.24.1150228160.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <20060614001459.GA27177@ofb.net> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > No, sorry, but I am talking about after people---if we get so lucky--- > are uploaded. > > Where the discussion comes back to Earth is in public choices over > whether to sacrifice nice, real landscapes for virtual ones. Imagine When there is a real, existing capability to have virtual environments which are fully competitive with natural ones, then this question might have merit. But the context here is a thread about extinctions, and what felt like a dismissal of environmental concerns today because we'll just be able to simulate it later. Or in your case, simulate the experience of it! Dismissing real problems and *loss* today for the sake of hypothetical abilities tomorrow, to use your words, fills me with dismay. -xx- Damien X-) From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Jun 14 01:41:30 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <20060614001459.GA27177@ofb.net> References: <39340.72.236.103.24.1150228160.squirrel@main.nc.us> <20060614001459.GA27177@ofb.net> Message-ID: <39526.72.236.103.183.1150249290.squirrel@main.nc.us> > [...] But the context here is a thread about extinctions, and > what felt like a dismissal of environmental concerns today because we'll > just be able to simulate it later. Or in your case, simulate the > experience of it! Dismissing real problems and *loss* today for the > sake of hypothetical abilities tomorrow, to use your words, fills me > with dismay. > Yes. If I'm just a brain in a vat plainly I cannot *really* hold my snakes or pet my cat or dig in my garden or taste the fresh veggies. Everything physical will have to be simulated for me. But I'm not (I don't think! ;) a brain in a vat at present, and the physical still holds great charm for me. Heck, it gives my life purpose and meaning. I also object strongly to dissing the millions of years of natural selection and evolution. We do not know enough to replicate things. Not yet, not by a long shot. We don't even know what all is out there. We don't know how the weather works, we're just beginning to see some trends. We don't know so damn much, it is startling, when we consider what we *do* know. We couldn't make a house cat or a ball python or a flying fox if our very lives depended on it. Can we make a hurricane? A tree? So although this discussion is of some interest, it's not getting *me* anywhere at all. Except upset! It does not seem to apply to my present situation nor my forseeable future. Tossing away a complex reality because some time in the future we may be able to make a low quality fake does not strike me as an advance. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Personally I think things will slowly change, rather as they have over the last centuries. Telephones, radio, tv, cars - all are "new" to humanity. Computers, airplanes and satellites are *very* new. But they're becoming mainstream. As are dental implants, hip replacements, radically improved cataract surgery, prostheses that respond to the patient's own nerves, heart (and other) transplants, growing new bits for when you need them, like skin. Computers that have more and more capability, that *will* learn from what they do. And at some point they *will* be real AI. But I cannot imagine where they'll go from there. And at some point, these will all be ordinary, as bifocals are now. Or false teeth. Or 40 GB harddisks. Nothing special there. There are cut-rate places where you can buy those for minimal cost. And some day in the future then-humanity will look back and see that there was a radical change and they'll argue over whether it was "here" or "there" or "somewhere else". And the Singularity will have come, only folks likely won't see it at the time. Rather like identifying when day becomes night. When you're well into it, you can say, "It is night", but while it's changing it's still evening and twilight and dusk... Regards, MB From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 01:58:21 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060612212644.71387.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060614015821.19552.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- KAZ wrote: > Ethanol produces half as much energy as gasoline, > and costs more per gallon, even with gas prices > tripled by Bush's warmongering. Actually given maximum thermodynamic efficiency for both, more like a third, assuming that the octane is completely and cleanly burned. Internal combustion engines are not good at this, however, because the fuel air mixture is not optimal. > Of course electric cars may indeed have replaced > gasoline by now, to some extent, if not for the ban > on nuclear power plant building. The whole country > could be run on nuclear power by now, which could be > much cheaper than fossil fuels. The whole country SHOULD be run on nuclear power. > Instead, most of our > electricity still comes from fossil fuels, causing > ironic situations like how you pollute more with an > electric car, in California, than with a > gasoline-powered car, because the environmental > fearmongers have effectively banned ALL power plant > production, leaving the state run off of coal-fire > plants which put more nuclear radiation in the > atmosphere than a nuclear plant. Yes. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor 99 times more efficient than other reactor designs and only short half-life waste is generated. So sad, you could cry. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Jun 14 02:48:59 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:48:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint (was Extinctions) In-Reply-To: <20060613152512.7710.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: KAZ wrote > > The sooner we realize that right now every human life uses up 1300 cc's of > > space running a person, the better, and that unless we want to adopt the > > grotesque and elitist view that "Well, I've got mine! I have runtime! > > To hell with everyone else who might exist", then we have to favor *more* > > advanced uses of space and resources over *less* advanced uses of them. > > ... > "Overpopulation" and "resource" complaints invariably end up being centered > on ignorance of not only economics, but also how technology changes things. Yes. > For example, Illinois and China have similar population densities, yet > Illinois alone produces enough corn to supply the US... The "overpopulation" > of China and India purely a matter of their incompetent economic systems... Quite right. > What works best, and is why the states [that] I mention seem almost > underpopulated while bearing a density of people comparable to > "overpopulated" countries, is to allow /precisely/ the kind of "well, > I've got mine" attitude you're eschewing. Ah! But you say "allow" here. I certainly never meant to imply that such attitudes should not be *allowed*. Just as you say, when each person attempts to maximize his or her economic impact (and reward), the system works best. It's because of the way so much knowledge can only be local, as you go on to (more or less) say: > The subset of "experts" sitting around analyzing "the best use of > space and resources" are utterly incompetent compared to the whole > of society making their normal decisions with their normally > minimal level of regard for such things. Just so! In fact, what I was saying fits perfectly well with this: so long as the government doesn't cordon off land and other resources "for the people", things are closer to maximally efficient. In other words, no more so-called public lands, which are lands owned by everyone and are owned by no one (except the state). Most here are libertarians, and most here would prefer resources being in private hands as much as is possible. Surely a profit could be made, given people's tastes today, on Yosemite and its competitors. One of my points is that when the VR is good enough, people should abandon their ancient instincts that somehow seeing the "real thing" is preferable. And that *one* of the reasons for this, besides the cost, is that the on a completely idealistic basis the property can be put to so much better use. Lee From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 13:57:11 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060613025333.GA24410@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060613135711.72079.qmail@web50202.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Damien Sullivan To: KAZ ; ExI chat list Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:53:33 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > The universe which contains Los Angeles, where the air is still crappy > but has gotten a lot better. Private technology did the work, but it's > not obvious it would have been developed and deployed without government > mandate -- after all, a pollution filter in your tailpipe does very > little to make your own life better. Yes, and it's an idiotic, self-defeating way of "fixing" the problem. A free market solution would be to actually improve the efficiency of automobiles, while a pollution filter actually /decreases/ the efficiency, instead. Pollution, as I said, is inefficiency. Coercive government, with its usual bumbling incompetence, actually makes things MORE inefficient. > I'm not sure India is Marxist, Then someone's dropped the ball, because people should be painfully aware that Marxism is why India, as well as the old Soviet Union and Communist China, is such a failure. And Haiti, and South Africa, too. > but I know Soviet Russia was a disaster. > And our own military has generated some nasty sites, since it's exempt > from the strictures of the EPA, unlike the rest of us. Which is exactly what you can expect from a government wielding coercive authority. The more you give it, the less it will do what you think it should, and the more it will abuse. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; great men are almost always evil men. > But the effects > of regulation need not be linear, in quantity or quality; a well-managed > democratic government might be better than either the absence of > regulation or the craptastic fiasco of the USSR. No, even if coercive power did not invariably attract the very worst of society, and corrupt the very best of it, government /cannot/ regulate anything effectively, because it lacks any mechanism for doing so. There's no way for it to measure either needs or solutions with any efficiency. The only way the real will of the people can be expressed, and values weighed correctly (at our technological level), is through all members of society making their own choices, with the economy working as a massive parallel-processing problem solver. This is more powerful than any subset of that society setting itself up as a coercive government, no matter how "wise" its members. -- Words of the Sentient: I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass. -- Barry Goldwater 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 14:38:41 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060613025543.GB24410@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060613143841.87785.qmail@web50210.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Damien Sullivan To: KAZ ; ExI chat list Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:55:43 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 02:10:02PM -0700, KAZ wrote: > And the more CO2 is in the water the slower the process, as the ocean > approaches saturation. Chemistry, KAZ, chemistry. No, because this ignores BIOchemistry; the more CO2 there is in the ocean, the better the environment for blue-green algae, which becomes more active and breaks it down faster. > In fact much of the > CO2 does go into the ocean, but not all of it, and it's the accumulation > which is alarming us. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to "pressure" against any available water, so that it transfers faster to the water if it builds up in the atmosphere. > Thousands of scientists who study this disagree with you. Why do you > think you are smarter than they are? This is fallaceous and irrational on so many levels it's astonishing. First, there are the obvious fallacies of argumentum ad populum, et argumentum ad verecundiam. Appeal to authority and appeal to belief. Something is not right, not necessarily even more likely to be, just because a lot of people believe it, nor just because authorities believe it. In fact, I think it takes a real authority-worshipper to fall for such nonsense. At one time, thousands of scientists disagreed with the existence of continental drift, and yet it turns out to be correct. Right now, at this very moment, thousands...most, in fact...of scientists (for whom it's relevent) still agree that 200nm is the minimum limit for cellular life, though it's quite probable that the majority of all biomass on the planet is comprised of nanobes and nanobacteria smaller than this size. In fact, most relevent scientists still think that the Americas were first populated by Asian humans 12,000 years ago, and to this day refuse to even consieder any evidence more than 12,000 years old in the first place, because they consider the very act of LOOKING more than 12,000 years back to be a "waste of time", creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of ignorance. Yet there is a snowballing accumulation of hard evidence of both African and European settlement of the Americas up to 20,000 years ago, peoples who were wiped out by the violent and ecologically disruptive invaders from Asia 12,000 years ago. "Thousands of scientists" agreeing to something, especially if they're actually government bureaucrats whose funding depends on a specific viewpoint, is sometimes almost counter-evidence against that thing. But, even more important than the parallel fact that many scientists AGREE with me and oppose those thousands of fund-seeking bureaucrats, that "disagreement" is, in part, a lie. A few years ago, when I was a consultant in DC, I knew the head scientist in one of the key environmental projects cranking out data "confirming" the global warming and ozone myths. He tended to complain, a lot, about what a lot of bunk both global warming and the ozone thinning were. He would go into great length about the specifics of why this is, talking about the mechanics of why they were unscientific theories which were actively disproven. And yet, as I said, he was head scientist for a key project "proving" global warming and ozone depletion. He would complain about how his very project was consistently coming up with evidence AGAINST those two things. I asked, of course, why he wasn't publishing it. He said that the data would never, regardless of methodology or anything else, pass peer review, because it contradicted the expectations of the establishment on those issues. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", the creedo of the scientific bureaucrat, would cause the project's findings to be subjected to analysis so negative that nothing could ever pass it. The project would be jeopardized, as well as his job. So while scientists manage to pass peer review to publish as functional "weather models" which consistently FAIL the test of prediction (in case you don't know, this means that if you plug in historic data, they can't predict what happened next, historically), and thus are essentially guaranteed to NOT be true, any counter-evidence is so guaranteed to be rejected that scientists don't even bother to try. Scientists specifically agree that any actual global warming would effect upper atmosphere and oceanic temperatures, NOT surface temps...yet when "scientists" publish "proof" of global warming consisting entirely of surface temperatures increasing, while oceanic and upper atmosphere temps are either stable or falling, it passes peer review. How many, I wonder, of the "thousands of scientists" who claim to believe in global warming and ozone depletion are simply being forced to? And how many more are simply using fear to gain funding, a-la the Bush terror war applied to scientific cause? When I was working on a project for NOAA, I came across a website of theirs which was all about the horrible danger of El Nino. One of the organization's executives was wandering through the high-profile department where I was working, and as he said "hi" I asked him why the site only focused on the life and property threats of the phenomenon, and didn't say anything about how the net result of El Nino on the US was a /reduction/ in property damage and loss of life, because we invariably have milder winters when it's occuring. His reply was "Because you can't get more funding by telling people how good something is". When doing work on the Hubble Space Telescope project, and commenting on the statistical insanity of worrying about asteroid impact, I got EXACTLY the same answer. NOBODY is funding their projects by promising to prove that we're in no danger. Why would anyone bother funding a project about nothing? When a publically funded scientist says something scary, he is EXACTLY as likely to be credible as a tobacco scientist, for the very same reason. So, when you say "Thousands of scientists who study this disagree with you. Why do you think you are smarter than they are?", you have your answer: A) One does not acquire ANY credibility by stating such ridiculous fallacies as if credible argument. B) Thousands of scientists are regularly wrong, and the people who turned out correct are always faced with that fallaceous argument...though people never seem to learn, and keep making it. C) The scientists may very well not believe what they feel financially compelled to support. D) Some of the rest may not care either way, and just be picking the most sensational stance in order pursue the equasion; Fear = funding. -- Words of the Sentient: As I readily acknowledge that no kind of government is more happy than this -- where liberty is regulated with becoming moderation, and properly established on a durable basis -- so also I consider those as the most happy people who are permitted to enjoy such a condition. And if they exert their strenuous and constant efforts for its preservation and retention, I admit that they act in perfect consistence with their duty. To this object the magistrates likewise ought to apply their greatest diligence, so as not to allow liberty, of which they are constituted guardians, to be in any respect diminished, much less to be violated. If they are inactive and unconcerned about this, they are perfidious to their office, and traitors to their country. -- John Calvin 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 15:25:12 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint (was Extinctions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060613152512.7710.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Lee Corbin To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:44:37 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint (was Extinctions) > The sooner we realize that right now every human life uses up 1300 cc's of > space running a person, the better, and that unless we want to adopt the > grotesque and elitist view that "Well, I've got mine! I have runtime! > To hell with everyone else who might exist", then we have to favor *more* > advanced uses of space and resources over *less* advanced uses of them. Actually, this argument uses a kind of static analysis which is quite irrelevent to the big picture. "Overpopulation" and "resource" complaints invariably end up being centered on ignorance of not only economics, but also how technology changes things. For example, Illinios and China have similar population densities, yet Illinois alone produces enough corn to supply the US (the US exports a LOT of corn). Likewise, New York State has a population density equal to India, yet if you drive through the state it seems half empty. The "overpopulation" of China and India purely a matter of their incompetent economic systems and relatively low technology. That's all "overpopulation" ever is, at this time. And resource shortages, of course, are just an aspect of that. What works best, and is why the states I mention seem almost underpopulated while bearing a density of people comparable to "overpopulated" countries, is to allow /precisely/ the kind of "well, I've got mine" attitude you're eschewing. When each person is free to regulate his economic realm for himself, the result is a far more efficient and progressive system than any central planning. The subset of "experts" sitting around analyzing "the best use of space and resources" are utterly incompetent compared to the whole of society making their normal decisions with their normally minimal level of regard for such things. Not only are they more efficient in resource management than any organization of experts, because they're the ultimate parallel processing system, but they also produce /practical/ technological advancement much faster, so that even the incidental efficiency they produce is greater than the "experts" could do if they had the whole of society's resources dedicated specifically to efficiency. -- Words of the Sentient: To be controlled in our economic pursuits is to be controlled in everything. ---F. A. Hayek 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 spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jun 14 02:50:29 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:50:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint (was Extinctions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606140306.k5E364kB003736@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > > To hear of folks wanting declines in human fecundity in order to advance > the causes of frozen wastes, or even of small creatures tearing each other > to pieces, breeding, living, dying pointlessly by the billions over and > over and over, always fills me with dismay. > > Lee Lee passage soars to the level of techno-poetry. Thanks bud. {8-] spike From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Jun 14 03:25:23 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:25:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put (was Space: The Final Constraint) In-Reply-To: <448EE104.1060605@pobox.com> Message-ID: Eliezer wrote > Space is much less of a constraint than our universe's supply of > negentropy, which by Liouville's Theorem is irreplaceable. > > No more irreversible computing except where absolutely necessary! > Turn off the Sun, it's wasting electricity. I don't know if you're joking. I used to discuss the possibility of entire "reversible civilizations" with Ralph Merkle; I believe that he agreed that that was a fine idea in principle. Of course, we have a ways to go before the U.N. can budget that. As for *space* not being the final constraint, well, if you want to add entropy as a prior constraint, don't forget to list these: supply of raw materials in the Solar System supply of human vigor and enthusiasm supply of federal dollars, Euros, yen, etc. supply of willing voters & politicians etc. I say that Space is final because it leads to this ultimate question: Given *one* cubic meter in your dwelling that the Oracle says you can do anything whatsoever with---provided that no effect may escape this cube---what would you do with it? (If this isn't a test of some of one's *ultimate* values, then I don't know what is.) Possible answers (miniaturization == computronium, in some sense) start with: 1. a miniaturized Amazon rain forest 2. a miniaturized Earth before the baleful impact of man 3. computronium running a vast number of yous 4. computronium running a vast number of super intelligent creatures including you, who each have tremendous resources, who can't assault each other, etc. All suggestions most welcome! Lee From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jun 14 03:10:51 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:10:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606140325.k5E3PwwG018699@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin > > ... Just be patient. Life is already coming to its senses, > (in more ways than one!) ... Lee Lee a modification of your comment can serve as a definition of the Singularity: when this universe of matter and energy comes to its senses. {8-] spike From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Jun 14 03:34:30 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:34:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <20060614001459.GA27177@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien writes > But the context here is a thread about extinctions, and what felt > like a dismissal of environmental concerns today because we'll > just be able to simulate it later. Or in your case, simulate the > experience of it! Dismissing real problems and *loss* today for the > sake of hypothetical abilities tomorrow, to use your words, fills me > with dismay. I don't disagree! Though I do quibble with the "loss" part: that's not clear (given that we don't become extinct soon). Any DNA somewhere that hasn't even been discovered holds little theoretical value *compared* to other things. No, I got on this tangent (and duly renamed the thread) to submit that we have to know what we *want*, that is, what we ultimately want, in order to think more clearly about what we want now. (Yes, yes, yes, I am aware of the horrid dangers that attend this, viz., that we start in on central planning and hopeless attempts to maximize our return too far away, the bane of the 20th century. But I'm hardly advocating that; I just want people to have a general idea of how space is best used, either now or in the future, before they start in on truly weird things like ZPG.) Lee From sentience at pobox.com Wed Jun 14 03:35:34 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:35:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put (was Space: The Final Constraint) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <448F8406.6010909@pobox.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > > As for *space* not being the final constraint, well, if you want > to add entropy as a prior constraint, don't forget to list these: > > supply of raw materials in the Solar System > supply of human vigor and enthusiasm > supply of federal dollars, Euros, yen, etc. > supply of willing voters & politicians > etc. I'm saying that negentropy is the *limiting* constraint - not energy, not space, not even cooling area. The limiting constraint is what you have least of, relative to your other resources, and what you cannot easily make more of. The total amount you can compute in this universe before you die or find a way to leave, is determined by limits on negentropy - not space, not cooling, not even time. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Jun 14 04:13:42 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:13:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put (was Space: The Final Constraint) In-Reply-To: <448F8406.6010909@pobox.com> Message-ID: Eliezer writes > > As for *space* not being the final constraint, well, if you want > > to add entropy as a prior constraint, don't forget to list these: > > > > supply of raw materials in the Solar System > > supply of human vigor and enthusiasm > > supply of federal dollars, Euros, yen, etc. > > supply of willing voters & politicians > > etc. > > I'm saying that negentropy is the *limiting* constraint - not energy, > not space, not even cooling area. The limiting constraint is what you > have least of, relative to your other resources, and what you cannot > easily make more of. What? Well that definitely applies to the things on my list too! Of course, it revolves around what one may mean by "easily". In this discussion---which is primarily about *values* and about what one should do with one's space---one cannot easily make any of the above. Sorry to the list if we're only arguing about what I meant by "final" and what you mean by "limiting". Lee > The total amount you can compute in this universe > before you die or find a way to leave, is determined by limits on > negentropy - not space, not cooling, not even time. From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 03:50:26 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-Aging Molecule Discovered In-Reply-To: <20060613204348.93273.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060614035026.98407.qmail@web52601.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > The mantra of the modern pharmaceutical industry > seems to be find a chemical that does SOMETHING > physiologically and then invent a disease or > disorder that creates a percieved need for the > drug in question. Indeed, it seems arguable that too often, instead of inventing drugs for diseases, the industry is inventing diseases for drugs. This report might be very much related to such a purported tendency: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902560.html > The REAL breakthrough is their MAGIC (corny name I > know) technology. I imagine every big pharmaceutical > will either license it or reverse engineer it sooner > or later. It really is a great way to do mass > throughput screening for small molecular inhibitors > of known protein targets. I am thouroughly > impressed by it. My thoughts too. Here's an interesting PDF file related to the MAGIC technology and CGK733: http://www.kosef.re.kr/community/suica/upload/297_8.pdf http://IanGoddard.net "A proposition is a picture of reality. [...] A picture cannot, however, place itself outside its representational form. [...] No proposition can make a statement about itself, because a propositional sign cannot be contained in itself (that is the whole of the 'theory of types')." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 04:22:35 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 05:22:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put (was Space: The Final Constraint) In-Reply-To: References: <448F8406.6010909@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0606132122r4b3ef478h3a69abeefacbd2a8@mail.gmail.com> On 6/14/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > In this discussion---which is primarily about *values* and about what > one should do with one's space---one cannot easily make any of the > above. It's not obvious to me that everyone should do the same thing with their space. For example, some people on this list have expressed a fairly gung-ho desire to ascend rapidly to superintelligence. I personally don't have an exact or final answer to that, but I'm feeling inclined to stick closer to the human norm (albeit with uploading if and when that becomes available). Does that mean I'm right and everyone else should follow my path? Well, what if there are concepts of profound truth and beauty that can only be fathomed by a superintelligence, that would never be thought of if everyone went my way? This can be considered a larger scale version of individual differences: I've never been into classical music, for example, but I suspect the world is a richer place for having people who are. Similarly, I suspect the universe as a whole will be a richer place for accomodating different paths. (Heh, the above sounds like I'm trying to be touchy-feely and politically correct... anyone who knows me can confirm that is _not_ my style :)) As for what argument to give people who want to turn the Earth into a nature reserve once we no longer need it as a location for farms, mines and factories: what I want is to not have to argue. The response I want to be able to give is: "Cool, have fun with that. I'm off to the asteroid belt to get some dead matter to turn into computronium. Bye." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jun 14 04:41:17 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:41:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] hawking on space colonization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606140441.k5E4fGnD028930@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199293,00.html From amara at amara.com Wed Jun 14 05:20:27 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:20:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] CSS fix for Explorer ? Message-ID: sorry for the off-topic ... (although there are wavelet users here who might appreciate this) In the last months, I made a large redesign for the first time in decade of my wavelet pages, all in CSS and this week uploaded it. Later, I heard a hint that IE 5 and 6 broke CSS rules, so after I found a version of Mac IE 5.2 yesterday on the net to test it, I discovered that my CSS work that looks great in normal browsers, now in Explorer looks horrible. They broke many standard CSS rules apparently. Since I don't have time to fix all of the places where they broke that rules, can someone point me to a very simple fix in CSS for IE 5 and 6, so that I can give my new wavelet pages to the science/math community? I'm moving my site (and me too), and I need to get this done. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Jun 14 06:30:00 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:30:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0606132122r4b3ef478h3a69abeefacbd2a8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes On 6/14/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > In this discussion---which is primarily about > > *values* and about what one should do with one's > > space > It's not obvious to me that everyone should do > the same thing with their space. That's right! But if we switch to a slightly more accurate vocabulary, the question takes on the form of how much you would or would not approve of people doing various things with their space. > For example, some people on this list have expressed > a fairly gung-ho desire to ascend rapidly to > superintelligence. I personally don't have an exact > or final answer to that, but I'm feeling inclined > to stick closer to the human norm (albeit with > uploading if and when that becomes available). For sure. One *could* (and yes, would) use one's space selfishly, primarily. That wasn't what I was getting at, though. I would like folks to express how much they'd disapprove of this or that. For example, we'd all disapprove of someone using his space as a torture chamber, or even of someone just letting it remain a vacuum. In the latter case we'd say "what a waste!". So more concretely (and down to Earth), let's say that the Earth's surface got expanded by ten square kilometers by some alien, and it happens to ask you what should be done with it. It says that you can have the 10km^2 be desert, forest, vacuum, cities, or anything else familiar already on Earth. In the key case of cities, it would be populated by people who had been aborted before birth---the alien somehow manages to use a time warp or something, and there they are in their complete cities! Or you can have the city filled with all the most creative geniuses who ever died young, and by millions more who were aborted. (So at very least we get Schubert, Galois, and Henry Moseley, etc.) So what would you pick? Surely not an Arctic wilderness. Any better ideas? Lee From xyz at iq.org Wed Jun 14 06:34:52 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:34:52 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <20060613161621.GV28956@leitl.org> References: <448EE104.1060605@pobox.com> <20060613161621.GV28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1150266892.10927.263774373@webmail.messagingengine.com> > One more bad thing: evolutionary systems optimize for > Ops/s, not Ops/J. I don't follow your reasoning. Most creatures seem to be in Ops/J mode with move to Ops/s for combat in order to gain or prevent loss of J. From xyz at iq.org Wed Jun 14 06:42:56 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:42:56 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-Aging Molecule Discovered In-Reply-To: References: <20060613041513.22294.qmail@web52613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1150267376.11364.263774637@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Well said. Indeed, if the alternatives to senescence are apoptosis or > cancer, then senescence is clearly the better of the three. And indeed Well said, but this is still a good result. From an evolutionary standpoint it is a cheap and dangerous hack, but it's a nice research tool and for some patients suffering, say, from serious wasting conditions the trade off, as with other growth promoters, may be worthwhile. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 06:44:48 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:44:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0606132122r4b3ef478h3a69abeefacbd2a8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0606132344s2c068b25xd97e9f09125982ab@mail.gmail.com> On 6/14/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > So what would you pick? Surely not an Arctic wilderness. > Any better ideas? > Oh, my answer to that question is, I'd want the space filled with people living worthwhile lives. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From xyz at iq.org Wed Jun 14 06:19:56 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:19:56 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put (was Space: The Final Constraint) In-Reply-To: <448F8406.6010909@pobox.com> References: <448F8406.6010909@pobox.com> Message-ID: <1150265996.10036.263772614@webmail.messagingengine.com> > easily make more of. The total amount you can compute in this universe > before you die or find a way to leave, is determined by limits on > negentropy - not space, not cooling, not even time. Time and cooling are derived from negentropy anyway and space is tied up in the definition too, although it wouldn't be correct to say its derived. Remember your argument only holds for computations that are not physically reversable. You can string reversable computations (RC) between irreversable computations (IC). RCs do not consume neg entropy. input -> IC -> RC <-> RC -> IC -> result Because the ICs have such a low probability of reversal and the RC's are neutral, the whole computational path has a low probability of reversal. From nanogirl at halcyon.com Wed Jun 14 08:09:07 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:09:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dancing Robot References: Message-ID: <005a01c68f89$e600ee30$0200a8c0@Nano> Okay I've got another animation for you, a dancing robot! http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2006/06/particle11.html Looking forward to your comments, best wishes, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Everything else blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 08:24:08 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:24:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Accidental Misaddressing of Posts In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60606131125s22da3b8cm3544a02c430b18b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0606140124g2fe377f9qd7c1438cc8cd4f20@mail.gmail.com> On 6/13/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Rafal writes > > > Anders mailed me offlist probably by accident (happens to me all the > > time) but let me answer on list: > > Yes. Good. Let's adopt the convention that unless it's preceded by > an "(offlist)" then go ahead. Sounds fine to me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jun 14 10:15:53 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:15:53 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put (was Space: The Final Constraint) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0606132122r4b3ef478h3a69abeefacbd2a8@mail.gmail.com> References: <448F8406.6010909@pobox.com> <8d71341e0606132122r4b3ef478h3a69abeefacbd2a8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060614101553.GS28956@leitl.org> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:22:35AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > For example, some people on this list have expressed a fairly gung-ho desire > to ascend rapidly to superintelligence. I personally don't have an exact or I have inasmuch a problem with that as a very rapid ascent could result in mass extinction of lesser players. Because of this it would be a good idea to initially put a dampener on the kinetics, until we figure out how to deal with the neo-Amish problem without breaking too much. I have no illusions that this is only postponing the problem, but this also limits the problem scope, if accompanied with incitements (more opportunities to hitch the ride). Ultimatively, even maintaining classical habitats might become economically nonsustainable. Ultimatively, computational substrate is also subject to evolutionary resource allocation. I don't think there is a real solution for this dilemma, but then, we're not nearly there yet. > final answer to that, but I'm feeling inclined to stick closer to the human > norm (albeit with uploading if and when that becomes available). Same thing here -- but consensus interaction rate will shift to the faster end, so bidirectional communication with anyone left behind will ultimatively cease. > As for what argument to give people who want to turn the Earth into a nature > reserve once we no longer need it as a location for farms, mines and > factories: what I want is to not have to argue. The response I want to be > able to give is: "Cool, have fun with that. I'm off to the asteroid belt to > get some dead matter to turn into computronium. Bye." If this was a guaranteed reaction, and an irrreversible decision we wouldn't be talking about this right now. -- 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 Wed Jun 14 14:22:41 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:22:41 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint In-Reply-To: <1150266892.10927.263774373@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <448EE104.1060605@pobox.com> <20060613161621.GV28956@leitl.org> <1150266892.10927.263774373@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <20060614142241.GF28956@leitl.org> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 04:34:52PM +1000, Harry Harrison wrote: > > One more bad thing: evolutionary systems optimize for > > Ops/s, not Ops/J. > > I don't follow your reasoning. Most creatures seem to be in > Ops/J mode with move to Ops/s for combat in order to gain or > prevent loss of J. Predator/prey dynamics constantly ratchets up the processing speed at a given energetic budget (starvation cycles included) and processing speed of biological tissue (which plateaued at ~120 m/s with the current substrate, and is highly unlikely to change dramatically upwards in those ~500 MYrs this planet is fit for biology). If you're too slow, you lose your life, not just your Joules. Thus being too slow when it really matters thoroughly vacuums the gene pool. Predator/prey co-evolution dynamics aside, social animals have a given interaction rate, which you need to be able to follow in order to be part of the hierarchy. You don't want to trail the cool kids, in fact you'd want to be quicker than the cool kids if you want to track what they do. Iterate. If you're a population of social animals with a knob to frob your native processing rate ad libitum (within the energetic envelope) you will find that group pressure will cause the knob to be maxed out before very long. If you're directly powered by the solar output, or make your own power, then the interaction rate is limited by the processing speed of the substrate, and thus effectively heat removal rate from a computational volume. Unfortunately, this wreaks havoc to long-term thinking such as maximizing Ops/Joule over lifetime. -- 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 mstriz at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 16:22:20 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:22:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060613232438.GA18447@ofb.net> References: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606131222mfb6489m7d6298bd47a78489@mail.gmail.com> <20060613232438.GA18447@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 6/13/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > And we have more GDP, so we're spending more absolutely as well. Funny > how we don't live longer. > The %GDP difference is big, too, like 15% for us then 10% for the next. It's 13% in the United States (I had to look this statistic up a few months ago), but I'm not sure where 2nd place is. The point is that, given the outrageous medical costs in the United States, it makes more sense to prevent health problems in the first place here more than anywhere. Even if regulations still end up costing the economy more (something that I think is at least disputable), the health problems avoided and lives saved is a cost that most sensible people are willing to shoulder. Martin From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Jun 14 17:28:02 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:28:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: References: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606131222mfb6489m7d6298bd47a78489@mail.gmail.com> <20060613232438.GA18447@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060614132646.02440138@gmu.edu> At 12:22 PM 6/14/2006, Martin wrote: >On 6/13/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > And we have more GDP, so we're spending more absolutely as well. Funny > > how we don't live longer. The %GDP difference is big, too, like 15% for us > > then 10% for the next. > >It's 13% in the United States (I had to look this statistic up a few >months ago), but I'm not sure where 2nd place is. It was 15% in 2002, and is surely higher now: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/us_recordhigh_healthcare_spending.html Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 18:19:16 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:19:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-Aging Molecule Discovered In-Reply-To: <1150267376.11364.263774637@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20060613041513.22294.qmail@web52613.mail.yahoo.com> <1150267376.11364.263774637@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On 6/14/06, Harry Harrison wrote: > > > > Well said. Indeed, if the alternatives to senescence are apoptosis or > > cancer, then senescence is clearly the better of the three. And indeed > > Well said, but this is still a good result. From an evolutionary > standpoint it > is a cheap and dangerous hack, but it's a nice research tool and for some > patients suffering, say, from serious wasting conditions the trade off, as > with other growth promoters, may be worthwhile. Well, "serious" wasting does not generally happen in people with good nutritional habits. But one of the problems is that as one grows older (I'm watching this in my parents) is poorer dietary habits, perhaps due to a decrease in taste capabilities and mobility to prepare food. There are not I believe dietary recommendations which are adjusted for possible changes in body chemistry in the older old (say 80+). I do agree that senescence can be considered a "hack". Much better would be more robust systems to reduce DNA damage and facilitate more robust DNA repair. Also a stem cell replacement strategy which is under better control (to enable stem cell replacement of cells which have undergone apoptosis and multiple levels of control to keep stem cells from running amok [presumably causing cancer]). The regulation of the ATM gene is very tricky as it may be involved in determining which of the 3 DNA critical repair pathways to choose and/or the apoptosis v. senescence decisions. These are still areas which are on the leading edge of our understanding with respect to what is actually going on in the cells with respect to genome maintenance. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 18:21:52 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:21:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060614132646.02440138@gmu.edu> References: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606131222mfb6489m7d6298bd47a78489@mail.gmail.com> <20060613232438.GA18447@ofb.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20060614132646.02440138@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On 6/14/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > It was 15% in 2002, and is surely higher now: > http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/us_recordhigh_healthcare_spending.html Very well, proves my point even more. It's quite amazing how health care costs have tripled in the last 40 years. This study: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/3rd/pdf/thirdreport.pdf Shows that pollution is down in that time period. People are exposed to less pollutants, such as metals, smoking related hydrocarbons, pesticides, etc., and by no coincidence, certain pollution-related diseases are down as well. Martin From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 18:31:11 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:31:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: References: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606131222mfb6489m7d6298bd47a78489@mail.gmail.com> <20060613232438.GA18447@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 6/14/06, Martin Striz wrote: > On 6/13/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > > And we have more GDP, so we're spending more absolutely as well. Funny > > how we don't live longer. > > The %GDP difference is big, too, like 15% for us then 10% for the next. > > It's 13% in the United States (I had to look this statistic up a few > months ago), but I'm not sure where 2nd place is. The point is that, > given the outrageous medical costs in the United States, it makes more > sense to prevent health problems in the first place here more than > anywhere. Even if regulations still end up costing the economy more > (something that I think is at least disputable), the health problems > avoided and lives saved is a cost that most sensible people are > willing to shoulder. > Well, surprisingly, the reason US people don't live longer is because of what kills them. :) The US has got rid of many of the third world diseases and substituted the diseases of rich first world countries. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Mostly aided by lifestyle problems like lack of exercise, overeating and eating the wrong food, smoking, cars, guns, alcohol, etc. And the infant mortality rate is 25% higher than Euroland, which brings the overall life expectancy figure down. The other point is that a lot of US health expenditure is not for life-threatening conditions, Just 'feel-good' or 'feel-better' stuff. BillK From mstriz at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 19:09:17 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:09:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: References: <33004.86.143.246.157.1150036420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200606111507.k5BF7Lta025080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060611214617.GB30288@ofb.net> <4157.163.1.72.81.1150071250.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060612023826.GA10302@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606131222mfb6489m7d6298bd47a78489@mail.gmail.com> <20060613232438.GA18447@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 6/14/06, BillK wrote: > Well, surprisingly, the reason US people don't live longer is because > of what kills them. :) > > The US has got rid of many of the third world diseases and substituted > the diseases of rich first world countries. Obesity, diabetes, heart > disease, etc. All of which can be reduced by changing two lifestyle factors, sadly. > Mostly aided by lifestyle problems like lack of > exercise, overeating and eating the wrong food, smoking, cars, guns, > alcohol, etc. The study that I cited in the other email also states that smoking-related illnesses are down, not just among smokers, but among non-smokers as well. They blame both the decrease in smoking rates (overall drop from ~35% in the 1950s to 23% today), AND the recent popularity of smoking bans. Apparently the drop in smoking-related illnesses among non-smokers can't be accounted for by a drop in smoking rates alone. > And the infant mortality rate is 25% higher than > Euroland, which brings the overall life expectancy figure down. I think that's because poverty in certain areas of the United States is much worse than many Western European countries. > The other point is that a lot of US health expenditure is not for > life-threatening conditions, Just 'feel-good' or 'feel-better' stuff. Probably true. In an ideal transhumanist world, we should be spending a lot on medical improvements, not fixing what's broken. Martin From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Jun 15 00:07:48 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:07:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Martin writes > > Mostly aided by lifestyle problems like lack of > > exercise, overeating and eating the wrong food, smoking, cars, guns, > > alcohol, etc. > > The study that I cited in the other email also states that > smoking-related illnesses are down, not just among smokers, but among > non-smokers as well. They blame both the decrease in smoking rates > (overall drop from ~35% in the 1950s to 23% today), AND the recent > popularity of smoking bans. Apparently the drop in smoking-related > illnesses among non-smokers can't be accounted for by a drop in > smoking rates alone. > > > And the infant mortality rate is 25% higher than > > Euroland, which brings the overall life expectancy figure down. More and more these figures are almost meaningless unless broken down by ethnic group at least, and perhaps SES too. > I think that's because poverty in certain areas of the United States > is much worse than many Western European countries. Not just areas! :-) Unless you want to include districts within the large cities. > > The other point is that a lot of US health expenditure is not for > > life-threatening conditions, Just 'feel-good' or 'feel-better' stuff. > > Probably true. In an ideal transhumanist world, we should be spending > a lot on medical improvements, not fixing what's broken. I would say that "feel-good" and "feel-better" are very important (not to imply that you are saying any different). I'd be willing to bet that 70% or more of health costs can be traced to the failure to have a free market in health care, and to regulation. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Jun 15 01:05:20 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:05:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put In-Reply-To: <20060614101553.GS28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen writes > Russell Wallace wrote: > > > For example, some people on this list have expressed a fairly gung-ho desire > > to ascend rapidly to superintelligence. I personally don't have an exact or > > I have inasmuch a problem with that as a very rapid ascent could > result in mass extinction of lesser players. Could indeed. I don't know of any reason to put the chances of this fatal-to-us possibility at less than fifty percent. > Because of this it would be a good idea to initially put a > dampener on the kinetics, Just how the devil do you propose to do that? Sorry if I've missed some of the discussion, but I've never heard of any reasonable idea for slowing it down. > until we figure out how to deal with the neo-Amish problem > without breaking too much. I'm not sure what you mean here, either. We "Amish" are either going to get snuffed real quick, or will be sitting pretty. In the latter, hoped-for case, either our uploaded selves have a hand in taking care of us, or the beneficent AI does. > > final answer to that, but I'm feeling inclined to stick closer to the human > > norm (albeit with uploading if and when that becomes available). > > Same thing here -- but consensus interaction rate will shift > to the faster end, so bidirectional communication with anyone > left behind will ultimatively cease. Now you guys are talking about something rather different: how you personally would like to deal with this (or, more likely, be dealt with). As for me, I've internalized that I can be in two places at once, (sigh, if often appears that practically no one else has), and so one version of me ascends as rapidly as possible, and one even clings to the very oldest substrate (unless it's too expensive). Also, of course, I'd love to have perhaps half a dozen intermediate versions; I'd allocate whatever resources "we" get as follows: Lee Plus: .9R Lee -+++ .09R Lee --++ .009R Lee ---- (that's the one you're reading now) .001R or so. > > As for what argument to give people who want to turn the Earth into a nature > > reserve once we no longer need it as a location for farms, mines and > > factories: what I want is to not have to argue. The response I want to be > > able to give is: "Cool, have fun with that. I'm off to the asteroid belt to > > get some dead matter to turn into computronium. Bye." Yes, but Russell, there's no reason not to leave a copy behind too. Would he just pine away in utter misery that he wasn't out there in the asteroids!? C'mon: he ought to be at least as happy as you are now. But, besides! Mood control will have been feasible for a long time before. Lee From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu Jun 15 01:02:24 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:02:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060615010224.80507.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> BillK wrote: Well, surprisingly, the reason US people don't live longer is because of what kills them. :) Just a note: I feel this statement should be directed to Canadians as well:) >The US has got rid of many of the third world diseases and substituted >the diseases of rich first world countries. Obesity, diabetes, heart >disease, etc. Mostly aided by lifestyle problems like lack of >exercise, overeating and eating the wrong food, smoking, cars, guns, >alcohol, etc. And the infant mortality rate is 25% higher than >Euroland, which brings the overall life expectancy figure down. >The other point is that a lot of US health expenditure is not for >life-threatening conditions, Just 'feel-good' or 'feel-better' stuff This is one of the best comments I've heard in a while Thanks Bill Anna __________________________________________________ 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jun 15 01:44:11 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:44:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put In-Reply-To: References: <20060614101553.GS28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0606141844rb665251nd552fed4753f2416@mail.gmail.com> On 6/15/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Eugen writes > > Because of this it would be a good idea to initially put a > > dampener on the kinetics, > > Just how the devil do you propose to do that? Sorry if I've > missed some of the discussion, but I've never heard of any > reasonable idea for slowing it down. *laughs* That, I'm afraid, falls into the category best described as "wouldn't that be a nice problem to have". Yes, but Russell, there's no reason not to leave a copy behind too. > Would he just pine away in utter misery that he wasn't out there > in the asteroids!? > Assuming we get the technology for that, I don't see it as necessary to stick to just one copy. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to suppose there will always be some limit on how many copies one can reasonably have (unless we can turn hyperspace into computronium or somesuch, in which case things look different, but I'm not aware of any evidence for the possibility of that). Therefore the question you raise could be regarded as that of where to place each of one's copies. "Put one of them in a nature reserve" doesn't jump out at me as the best answer to that question. (If other people disagree, by all means let them have fun with that option ^.^) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Thu Jun 15 02:21:20 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:21:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] New animation: Dancing Robot Message-ID: <00d601c69022$ce37a980$0200a8c0@Nano> Okay I've got another animation for you, a dancing robot! http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2006/06/particle11.html Looking forward to your comments, best wishes, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Everything else blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 15 07:30:06 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:30:06 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/15/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > I'd be willing to bet that 70% or more of health costs can be > traced to the failure to have a free market in health care, > and to regulation. > Luckily, I don't bet. :) This claim is wild speculation based on your economic beliefs. Even with the present regulations and the FBI and the DOJ, health care fraud is estimated to be around 10% of all health expenditure. If you took away the regulation and gave the crooked entrepreneurs a free run you would be lucky to get *any* treatment that did not have some element of fraud and rip-off attached. Yea, I know, all the millions of patients could start suing the suppliers for damages (if they're still alive, that is). The legal bills would be far higher than the present costs and you wouldn't get your money back anyway as these crooked companies would close down and start up again under another name quicker than the legal system could chase them. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Jun 15 07:56:36 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:56:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put (was Space: The Final Constraint) In-Reply-To: <20060614101553.GS28956@leitl.org> References: <448F8406.6010909@pobox.com> <8d71341e0606132122r4b3ef478h3a69abeefacbd2a8@mail.gmail.com> <20060614101553.GS28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <9F80F325-1476-49F1-BF88-D16A4F3D3593@mac.com> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:15 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:22:35AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > >> For example, some people on this list have expressed a fairly gung- >> ho desire >> to ascend rapidly to superintelligence. I personally don't have an >> exact or > > I have inasmuch a problem with that as a very rapid ascent could > result in mass extinction of lesser players. Because of this it > would be a good idea to initially put a dampener on the kinetics, > until we > figure out how to deal with the neo-Amish problem without breaking > too much. I have no illusions that this is only postponing the > problem, but this also limits the problem scope, if accompanied with > incitements (more opportunities to hitch the ride). Ultimatively, > even maintaining classical habitats might become economically > nonsustainable. Ultimatively, computational substrate is also > subject to evolutionary resource allocation. I doubt that low tech VR space is going to be that non-sustainable. Do you want a future where it is be competitive or die? Is that all there is or ever can be? > > I don't think there is a real solution for this dilemma, but then, > we're not nearly there yet. > Fortunately far brighter minds than ours currently are will have a go at it with a bit of luck. >> final answer to that, but I'm feeling inclined to stick closer to >> the human >> norm (albeit with uploading if and when that becomes available). > > Same thing here -- but consensus interaction rate will shift > to the faster end, so bidirectional communication with anyone > left behind will ultimatively cease. What for? Let a slow subroutine handle it as it were. > >> As for what argument to give people who want to turn the Earth >> into a nature >> reserve once we no longer need it as a location for farms, mines and >> factories: what I want is to not have to argue. The response I >> want to be >> able to give is: "Cool, have fun with that. I'm off to the >> asteroid belt to >> get some dead matter to turn into computronium. Bye." > > If this was a guaranteed reaction, and an irrreversible decision > we wouldn't be talking about this right now. > To some extent we might be able to decide what direction to nudge things in. - samantha From xyz at iq.org Thu Jun 15 09:15:34 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:15:34 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1150362934.24649.263875007@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:30:06 +0800, "BillK" said: > On 6/15/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > I'd be willing to bet that 70% or more of health costs can be > > traced to the failure to have a free market in health care, > > and to regulation. > > Ignoring for a moment patent protection which also holds in comparable countries, you almost certainly dead wrong. The costs seem to be related to having a (relative to other countries) free market with asymmetric information in something that is a superior good. Patients have few resources and great needs so are gullible. The free market in this case preys on their gullability and has high over heads in associated advertising and manipulation. The free (evolutionary) market might give you trees through competition over sun light, but grass catches just as much light and doesn't have the overhead of a trunk. Is that good or bad? Depends on your metric. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Jun 15 10:53:41 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:53:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060615105341.GA3497@ofb.net> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:07:48PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Martin writes > > > > Mostly aided by lifestyle problems like lack of > > > exercise, overeating and eating the wrong food, smoking, cars, guns, > > > alcohol, etc. It was my understanding that Americans actually smoke less than in most other countries. I'm not sure how alcohol compares either; some European countries have bad binge drinking problems (possibly governmental fault, taxes and high prices), other have much more even consumption. I don't know how similar Canadian lifestyles are to ours; they live 2.5 years longer. (CIA stats.) > > > And the infant mortality rate is 25% higher than > > > Euroland, which brings the overall life expectancy figure down. > > More and more these figures are almost meaningless unless broken > down by ethnic group at least, and perhaps SES too. Other countries have poor people and immigrants as well -- Canada has a higher %age of immigrants than the US, for example; Europe has many Muslim and Indian immigrants. Looking at ethnic group and SES may matter for evaluating one's own personal risks; not so much in evaluating a system as a whole, unless you think some people don't count. Even in the US, black women live longer than white men. It's black men who really suffer. However, I remember doing some arithmetic and estimating that black men dying 10 years earlier and our higher infant mortality (save the babies! until they're born) did not fully account for the longevity gap. > > I think that's because poverty in certain areas of the United States > > is much worse than many Western European countries. Perhaps because those countries use government spending to ease the poverty. > Not just areas! :-) Unless you want to include districts > within the large cities. ? I mean, what's the point here? > I'd be willing to bet that 70% or more of health costs can be > traced to the failure to have a free market in health care, > and to regulation. But we have more of a free market than other countries... The killer figure for me is that Medicare is said to have 2% overhead, vs. 14% or more in private insurers and HMOs. Government inefficiency, yeah. -xx- Damien X-) From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jun 15 14:02:46 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:02:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put (was Space: TheFinal Constraint) In-Reply-To: <9F80F325-1476-49F1-BF88-D16A4F3D3593@mac.com> Message-ID: <200606151418.k5FEIn2F026383@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > > Do you want a future where it is be competitive or die? Is that all > there is or ever can be? ... - samantha That was all there was in the past, as far back as the Precambrian explosion. I don't see it changing now, or at the singularity. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 19:41:59 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? Message-ID: <20060615194159.36897.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> There have been a couple of threads on both lists lately that have been somewhat contentious. On the WTA there has been an ongoing debate on abortion that has caused tempers to rise and people to go on angry rants. Of course at the center of this debate is the right of an unborn fetus to life versus a woman's right to have control over her body. ExI, on the other hand, has been hosting a debate on the right of poor people to get rich enough to "eat beefsteak" versus the right of a complex ecosystem known as a rainforest to exist. These debates have left me very pensive with a sense of deep disquiet. This unease stems from the fact that although I believe in rights, jealously guard mine, and support the rights of other as well, I no longer really know why I believe in them. So when people started complaining that discussing the rights of women versus those of fetuses is not a suitable topic for a transhuman list, I found it necessary to ask the lot of you to tell me what rights are, where they come from, and why they are in any sense "real"? I know these may seem like naive questions but as Frank Forman pointed out, the transhuman community really does need to come up with a rational theory of rights. I will try to explain why this is necessary in a historical context: Divine right, ca. the Middle Ages: "By the grace of God, I am your king. That means I am the boss of you so give me your money, till my fields, and go and fight those guys over that hill for me." Natural rights, ca. the Enlightenment: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Human rights, ca. the Present: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." So what's the problem you ask? Well in order to explain, I will need to play the devil's advocate for a moment. My client, Lucifer aka Satan, claims that neither he nor this God aka Creator person exists. Thus he contends that if there is no Creator than there can be no endowment of rights. Now any logician will tell you that the scheme for deductive reasoning is such: Axiom: A is true. Deduction 1: If A is true, then B must logically follow from A. Deduction 2: If B is true, then C must logically follow from B. Conversely if A is found to be false, then both B and C must be false. Now let us look at the first two formulation of rights listed above. Divine right and natural rights. Both treat the existence of a God/Creator as an axiom. Thus if God does not exist, by the laws of reasoning, neither should the concept of rights. So that leaves us with the third formulation, the modern concept of "human rights" as stated in the United Nations charter. Yet it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If axiom A is shown to be untrue, one should not then be able to simply take deduction B and suddenly make it axiomatic. From a reasoning standpoint, that is a cheap and dirty trick that I don't think stands up to logical scrutiny. It forces the assumption that, for no reason whatsoever, there is something inherently special and sentimental about Homo sapien DNA that renders a dozen cell embryo that carries it more sacred and more deserving of life, freedom, and happiness than a full grown chimpanzee that speaks sign language. Or for that matter, renders a huge and poorly understood ecosystem like a rain forest, a small price to pay for the some guy to eat beefsteak. To say that rights stem from "morality" is a cop out too because morality can only be judged by a subjective agent and as such is subject to cultural relativism. Thus by this definition, fundamentalist muslim men have every right to stone their daughters for being "immoral". If we find the lack of a reasonable "theory of rights" divisive and problematic now while we are still speaking of embryos and ecosystems, just think how bizarre the situation will be in the proposed transhuman future. When there may be genetically modified human arcologies living alongside so called neo-Amish communities, cyborgs, and uploaded post-humans. Not to mention the possibility of ether-roaming AGI and extra-terrestrial sentients thrown into the mix for good measure. So this is the challenge I put before you, the brightest people I know: Convince me and my client the devil that rights, human or otherwise, actually exist. That they are not some superstitious hold-over from a primitive past when the earth was thought to be flat and at the center of the universe. Tell me what rights are, where they come from, who or what get to have them, and why. Otherwise let me know, because being a biologist, I know the law of the jungle better than anyone and I ought to be out preying. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Thu Jun 15 20:34:06 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:34:06 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? Message-ID: A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. (fairly standard definition, I thought, held by many in this community) Amara From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 20:10:16 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Off-topic Personal Info. In-Reply-To: <200606151418.k5FEIn2F026383@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060615201016.85072.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello, I just realized that when I wrote "I have experienced a great deal of emotional pain in my own life" a ways back on this list, that this sentence could be very easily misunderstood. It could easily be misinterpreted to mean that I had in some way been abused as a child, eg. sexually or physically. But that is absolutely *not* the case. I was never abused in any way. In all honesty, I really could not have expected a better "Family" than the one I have, on any level or in any respect. (This includes my: friends, siblings, parents, partners, and extended family). No, my problem is related to a treatment-resistant Depressive "Disorder", coupled with Attention Deficit "Disorder". (It's not fashionable to label these as Diseases. Even though the problems are obviously due to a chronic defect in the Dopamine/Norepinephrine production/activity pathway(s). Such is the pervasive stigma still attached to those with "mental problems" - I'm supposed to be able to "will" myself out of my difficulties, and if I can't do that it's really just because "I don't want to"... [Grinding Teeth] Alright, I'm done ranting for now.) Fortunately, over time I have made significant progress toward relieving the symptoms of these problems. But even this dark cloud is not *entirely* without it's silver lining - my experiences in the past have at least given me a somewhat uncommon perspective on certain issues of morality - and I don't see that as a bad thing. (Although I would never want to go through it again, if given the option.) Anyway, I'm sorry if this is more information than any of you cared to know. But, seeing as how the original messages were posted to the whole list, this seemed like the only effective way to clarify any potential misinterpretations. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Jun 15 21:05:10 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:05:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: <20060615194159.36897.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060615194159.36897.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 6/15/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Convince me and my client the devil that rights, human > or otherwise, actually exist. They *don't* "actually" exist! They are pure inventions of beings that can think "consciously" in order to develop a social structure which is less prone to destruction and/or decay then would otherwise be the case. The "rights" used to be handed down by those in power until such a time as the people decided to assert them for themselves. (The many can overpower the few or the one if they agree that their rights are relatively equal). All of the rest of the discussion of extending rights is probably due to the fact that feeling sympathy for those less fortunate probably had survival advantages (reciprocal social contracts which promote self-survival when one is less able to care for oneself, e.g. due to injury or illness, is probably the origin of "rights"). If Extropianism has any value it may revolve around whether or not we can consciously agree on a single or multi-dimensional scale that can be used to evaluate the value of forms of complexity or relative "worth" of such complexity (value & worth can be context dependent). This would replace the social contract based system where you and I agree that we have a "right" to life and use that agreement to bring down our lethal injections, bullets (or the wrath of 500 lb bombs) on those who disagree with that right. Mind you, not a lot of people on this list, much less in the world at large, would be willing to agree that their self-proclaimed (& group-acknowledged) rights are null and void and should be replaced by a system which perhaps might balance whether their past, present, or potential future contributions should determine their access rights to the matter & energy at our disposal. If such a system were in place I suspect we might be putting a lot of elderly individuals to sleep. Because with the exception of those signed up for cryonic suspension most of those say 60-65+ are a net drain (i.e. they are contributing more towards problems like global warming that are going to have to be cleaned up later than they might contribute to bringing forward lifespan extension, a friendly AI, whatever, that might justify their current resource consumption). As a challenge, go through Fortune Mag's Top 10, 100, Hollywood or Sports stars, etc (I'd argue against using politicians...) and do an up or down (or "weakest link") analysis for who is potentially accelerating the development of singularity related breakthroughs vs. who is retarding them. Instead of the question "Do they have a right to live?" one might instead ask "Is their continued existence justified?" Mind you, since we have an extremely large excess of resources at our disposal currently we can be very generous but that will *not* always be the case. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 20:45:44 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: <20060615194159.36897.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060615204544.39927.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Stuart, I don't understand either why any tranhumanist would consider this an inappropriate topic - seems critical to me. My take on it is that in reality, "Rights" have no independent existence. They are the imaginary but useful creation of intelligent beings. That's not to say that I think that they have no value - I value them more than my own life. I'm just saying that I don't think they have any existence or meaning outside of the mind of a subjective agent. However, I think that they are critical to the long-term success of a civilisation. The purpose of governments-by-consent, from my perspective, is to enforce the protection of these (created) "Rights" for *all* humans (and I hope eventually for *all* conscious beings). I think that one of the most sure-fire ways to botch the Singularity would be to disassemble democratic governments altogether and replace them with a "everyone for themselves" - system. If the Singularity somehow did still manage to occur under those conditions, I doubt that it would be a very "positive" result. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Jun 15 21:20:33 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:20:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: <20060615194159.36897.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060615194159.36897.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060615212032.GA4422@ofb.net> It was a post on the extropians list back in 1993 (David Krueger?) which completed the doubts I'd had about "natural rights". Like the other respondents I'd say rights don't Exist, any more than law does; they're granted by us to each other. Social contract theory -- which is also old, with roots in Epicureanism. Preference (many humans are empathetic, and may indulge in it more when they can afford to), tradition, might-makes-right. You can derive a lot just from social contract -- what would rough equals agree to? Not everything, e.g. it doesn't give a great reason for a majority to not exploit a distinct minority. That I think needs supplementation from lots of people deciding they don't like it and fighting to establish their preference. -xx- Damien X-) From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Jun 15 23:19:12 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:19:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses to which Space Could Be Put In-Reply-To: <200606151418.k5FEIn2F026383@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Spike writes > > Do you want a future where it is be competitive or die? Is that all > > there is or ever can be? ... - samantha > > That was all there was in the past, as far back as the Precambrian > explosion. I don't see it changing now, or at the singularity. Yes, there does seem to be an inevitable Darwinian aspect to the universe, almost tautological. Those that survive... do. Yet the nuts and bolts of the way the competition actually affects units at different levels differs greatly from time to time. We live in a happy (for us) time in which *people* are not so vigorously selected against as in the past. Today's units of competition tend to be ideas (on the very short term) and civilizations (on a much longer term). If a good Singularity occurs, and all of us people make it into a delightful existence, then we must still realize that we are just momentarily insulated from the real competition. E.g., our AI-gods or protectors may succumb to others, or to other algorithms; or to put it another way, the immortal incredibly powerful future versions of our very selves still have to realize that the universe still is, and as you write, always has been Darwinian. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Jun 15 23:34:22 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:34:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amara writes > A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom > of action in a social context. Nice definition. Suppose we translate "The Unborn have a right to life!" and "Women have a right to choose!". They become "There is a moral principle protecting any human tissue from arbitrary destruction", and "There is a moral principle sanctioning the freedom of a woman to choose!". Now, it's clear that there is still an underlying problem, and that it will not go away so easily. The speakers are still talking past each other. The real problem is that it sounds so righteous to declaim either of those sentences, especially if done with passion! Even when very little at all is being said! I agree with Robert and the others that "rights" better are thought of as not existing---the concept just seems to throw a monkey-wrench (i.e. spanner) into the discussion. The language, horribly, prevents instead of facilitating communication. More progress is made by trying to anticipate consequences of enacting laws. For example, one side might say "Every step towards the cheapening of human life can have unpleasant future effects on our civilization", "it's better for as many people as possible to be rescued from non- existence". The other side can say things like "Who should decide? Do you propose to use force on a woman? Whose business is it?", and "what are the risks of adding this loss of freedom to gun control, helmet-wearing, zoning, government surveillance, and the myriads of other limitations on our liberty? Think about those effect on our future civilization." So: isn't it true that by avoiding questionable terms like "rights" we forward the discussions? Lee From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 01:05:35 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:05:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Using rTMS to induce savant-like mental abilities Message-ID: Back in 2003 there was a popular-press article on Allan Snyder's work with using transcranial magnetic stimulation to temporarily induce savant-like abilities in human subjects, reportedly having effects like drawing ability or Rainman-style counting: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/magazine/22SAVANT.html?ei=5007&en=0497e5b30fc4a9d8&ex=1371614400&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position= It looks like there's now a publication on some of his results: http://www.perceptionweb.com/perabs/p35/p5539.html Title: Savant-like numerosity skills revealed in normal people by magnetic pulses Abstract: Oliver Sacks observed autistic twins who instantly guessed the exact number of matchsticks that had just fallen on the floor, saying in unison "111". To test the suggestion that normal individuals have the capacity for savant numerosity, we temporarily simulated the savant condition in normal people by inhibiting the left anterior temporal lobe of twelve participants with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). This site has been implicated in the savant condition. Ten participants improved their ability to accurately guess the number of discrete items immediately following rTMS and, of these, eight became worse at guessing as the effects of the pulses receded. The probability of as many as eight out of twelve people doing best just after rTMS and not after sham stimulation by chance alone is less than one in one thousand. (If you can't access the full-text PDF, let me know, and I can send you a copy) I'm still waiting to see similar results reproduced in other labs, but it's certainly interesting stuff. From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 01:11:04 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:11:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Using rTMS to induce savant-like mental abilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI, it looks like there's also some other publications and popular-press articles regarding Snyder here: http://centerforthemind.com/publications/publications.cfm On 6/15/06, Neil H. wrote: > Back in 2003 there was a popular-press article on Allan Snyder's work > with using transcranial magnetic stimulation to temporarily induce > savant-like abilities in human subjects, reportedly having effects > like drawing ability or Rainman-style counting: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/magazine/22SAVANT.html?ei=5007&en=0497e5b30fc4a9d8&ex=1371614400&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position= > > It looks like there's now a publication on some of his results: > > http://www.perceptionweb.com/perabs/p35/p5539.html > > Title: Savant-like numerosity skills revealed in normal people by > magnetic pulses > > Abstract: Oliver Sacks observed autistic twins who instantly guessed > the exact number of matchsticks that had just fallen on the floor, > saying in unison "111". To test the suggestion that normal individuals > have the capacity for savant numerosity, we temporarily simulated the > savant condition in normal people by inhibiting the left anterior > temporal lobe of twelve participants with repetitive transcranial > magnetic stimulation (rTMS). This site has been implicated in the > savant condition. Ten participants improved their ability to > accurately guess the number of discrete items immediately following > rTMS and, of these, eight became worse at guessing as the effects of > the pulses receded. The probability of as many as eight out of twelve > people doing best just after rTMS and not after sham stimulation by > chance alone is less than one in one thousand. > > (If you can't access the full-text PDF, let me know, and I can send you a copy) > > I'm still waiting to see similar results reproduced in other labs, but > it's certainly interesting stuff. > From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 02:57:02 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:57:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One possible way to argue "rights" from an extropic perspective is simply to look at the information content (from a fetus to a species). There was a recent paper that I don't happen to have a reference handy for which I think cited the cost of the creation of a new species (of microorganism) at ~10^23 J. The only problem is that "speciation" may or may not depend upon a real net gain of information. The classical concept of speciation depends a lot upon whether or not the organisms can reproduce, not whether there is a gain or loss of information. Another paper, I think from TIGR, cited the fact that they were finding a small number (~5?) of novel genes per new bacterial genome sequenced [1]. So one "might" assume that a new gene costs ~0.2 * 10^23 J (I'm playing very loose with the numbers here....). I don't believe making a new fetus costs anything like that much energy so (really stretching things) -- the worth of a fetus is significantly less than worth of a species. One can argue that the unique DNA content (information) of a fetus may be of value -- but there are very simple and inexpensive ways to preserve this (one can freeze the cells and preserve the DNA from an aborted fetus *or* species becoming extinct). You could stretch things and say the cellular aggregate of a fetus has value and should be preserved in an intact state but presumably this has lesser value than any other living post-fetal (e.g. significantly more complex) human on the planet. So until one has eliminated deaths from causes like hunger and other 3rd world preventable diseases (what the Gates Foundation is presumably devoting significant attention to) expending time and energy on preserving unborn fetuses would seem to be misdirected. Robert 1. Given the relatively "common" blueprint upon which all known life is based and the extent to which genes have been being cut & pasted for hundreds of millions of years and the fact that we now have hundreds of species sequenced -- finding something which is *really* different is becoming increasingly less common. But given the variety of environments on the planet and the millions of species swapping blueprints one would expect the novelty end of the curve to be quite long. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Jun 16 03:05:59 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060616030559.61630.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lee Corbin wrote: Amara writes > A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom > of action in a social context. Lee wrote: Nice definition I agree with Robert and the others that "rights" better are thought of as not existing---the concept just seems to throw a monkey-wrench (i.e. spanner) into the discussion. The language, horribly, prevents instead of facilitating communication. >>I agree, it's pointless to argue with someone when both parties are set >>on their own opinions. The other side can say things like "Who should decide? Do you propose to use force on a woman? Whose business is it?", and "what are the risks of adding this loss of freedom to gun control, helmet-wearing, zoning, government surveillance, and the myriads of other limitations on our liberty? Think about those effect on our future civilization." So: isn't it true that by avoiding questionable terms like "rights" we forward the discussions? >>I'm not sure I understand. To avoid the issue is the best thing to do? >>It sounds very reasonable but then who is deciding what rights humans have? >>Religion plays a big part in determining what rights humans have. >>Doesn't it worry you that if the issues aren't confronted that some group, cult, >>religion or government may, once again, come into power and dictate what are >>rights are? >>Sorry if I didn't grasp your comment Lee, maybe I misunderstood. Be patient, >>i'm learning:) Anna _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Any piece of knowledge I acquire today has a value at this moment exactly proportioned to my skill to deal with it. Tomorrow, when I know more, I recall that piece of knowledge and use it better. -Mark van Doren __________________________________________________ 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 03:59:27 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:59:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0606152059k6cbfbe2h23f7d1b093c3c812@mail.gmail.com> On 6/16/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I don't believe making a new fetus costs anything like that much energy so > (really stretching things) -- the worth of a fetus is significantly less > than worth of a species. > You're making the elementary error of confusing cost and worth. Hurricane Katrina cost on the order of $1E11 IIRC; does that mean it was worth $1E11? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jun 16 04:18:01 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:18:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert gives energetic arguments to suggest that > So until one has eliminated deaths from causes like hunger > and other 3rd world preventable diseases (what the Gates > Foundation is presumably devoting significant attention > to) expending time and energy on preserving unborn fetuses > would seem to be misdirected. Yes, to save the maximum number of lives possible, each of us should send all his extra money to the Gates foundation or its equivalent. Then, too, we probably should shut down all the elderly care providers, because the money would go further in making sure that all the children born overseas get past the age of two. This helps the division of labor, too: one group of people specializes in having lots of children, and the other group specializes in paying for it. But (satire aside), the Hayekian/Sowell observation that knowledge is *localized* suggests that a pregnant woman strongly concern herself with her own unborn child, even if it is to the detriment of people far away. While I defend the legal right of this woman to do as she wishes, I strongly urge her to help *that* particular potential person inside her to stay alive. But remember---I'm over here and she's some distance from me, and what do I know of her *local* circumstances? Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jun 16 04:54:15 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:54:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060615105341.GA3497@ofb.net> Message-ID: Bill K writes > [Lee wrote] > > I'd be willing to bet that 70% or more of health costs can be > > traced to the failure to have a free market in health care, > > and to regulation. > Luckily, I don't bet. :) This claim is wild speculation based > on your economic beliefs. Sorry for using a specific number. A Chinese colleague tells me he means "most" when he says 70%, so it's really his fault. > Even with the present regulations and the FBI and the DOJ, health care > fraud is estimated to be around 10% of all health expenditure. I was speaking of free market *efficiencies*, not fraud. But fraud, now that you mention it, is often worse when the government gets involved. Yes, it's complex: there is less fraud in supermarkets than in auto repair. > If you took away the regulation and gave the crooked entrepreneurs a > free run you would be lucky to get *any* treatment that did not have > some element of fraud and rip-off attached. If you say so. Funny how markets work for everything else but wouldn't work here. Damien S. writes > > More and more these figures are almost meaningless unless broken > > down by ethnic group at least, and perhaps SES too. > > Other countries have poor people and immigrants as well...Looking > at ethnic group and SES may matter for evaluating one's own personal > risks; not so much in evaluating a system as a whole, unless you > think some people don't count. Of course I didn't mean that! I mean that you cannot compare Luxembourg and Brazil, nor, really the U.S. and Europe. Too much lumping! The "U.S." and "Europe" are each just too diverse internally. > Even in the US, black women live longer than white men. It's > black men who really suffer. Yes. But a big part of that is that their medical needs are somewhat different. Despite the taboos, every day you (now) read about the differences. Yesterday there was an article on how black women have better hearing than anyone. For reasons just having to do with race, blacks don't live as long as whites even after you correct (as you must!) for SES and other environmental differences. It is not God-given that all subgroups are exactly equal in all parameters. > > Not just areas! :-) Unless you want to include districts > > within the large cities. > > ? I mean, what's the point here? What I said above. > > I'd be willing to bet that 70% or more of health costs can be > > traced to the failure to have a free market in health care, > > and to regulation. > > But we have more of a free market than other countries... Oh yeah? Well, basic medical care is free for everyone in the U.S. who can't afford it. (I'll write a new post.) But even so, it would be worse to socialize it, as I'll argue. Lee From amara at amara.com Fri Jun 16 05:09:36 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:09:36 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? Message-ID: Lee, The definition I presented said nothing about legality, At the base, what I gave is a reasonable definition with which to begin. If you don't like the word, then fine. One still needs a principle sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. Unless you are a hermit, then it doesn't matter. The next step is to claim "what" are your moral principles and "what" are the social contexts and "how" does one put it in legal context, if that is what you want, and if it is, then "how" does one arbitrate disputes. That's another level. I said nothing about that. For moral principles, one must decide what is at the core of one's personal philosophy. I would think 'right' to one's body as the most basic right that one can have. I do not know why H+ people feel a need to debate this and why such a basic issue is being brought up. If one doesn't accept this, then everything else that people in the transhuman community have discussed during the last 20 years as desirable for their future collapses. Amara From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Jun 16 05:32:23 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:32:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: References: <20060615105341.GA3497@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 09:54:15PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Other countries have poor people and immigrants as well...Looking > > at ethnic group and SES may matter for evaluating one's own personal > > risks; not so much in evaluating a system as a whole, unless you > > think some people don't count. > > Of course I didn't mean that! I mean that you cannot compare > Luxembourg and Brazil, nor, really the U.S. and Europe. Too > much lumping! The "U.S." and "Europe" are each just too > diverse internally. The US comes out unfavorably in comparison with almost every other First World country. And we have no monopoly on diversity; Canada has plenty of immigrants, various European countries have more and more. > > Even in the US, black women live longer than white men. It's > > black men who really suffer. > > on how black women have better hearing than anyone. For > reasons just having to do with race, blacks don't live as > long as whites even after you correct (as you must!) for > SES and other environmental differences. It is not God-given The numbers I recall are that black women in the US live only 6 months less than white women -- and that's raw data, without SES adjustment. It's black males who lose several years -- I'd guess because of crime and AIDS. I've seen tables of top causes of death for black and whites in the US, they were shockingly different, but SES seemed quite blameable. (These were numbers a friend in publich health grad school showed me.) I know African-Americans are prone to some problems, like hypertension, but "blacks dont' live as long" seems unlikely. It's not even clear whether the hypertension is due to genetics (selection on the slave ships), diet, or stress from being black in the US -- and I think chronic stress has been getting more and more data as a general killer. Anyway, I believe that even if you compare white Americans to white Europeans or Canadians we still die sooner while spending twice as much more money. -xx- Damien X-) From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Jun 16 06:17:04 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060616061704.54630.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Amara Graps wrote: .I would think 'right' to one's body as the most basic right that one can have. If one doesn't accept this, then everything else that people in the transhuman community have discussed during the last 20 years as desirable for their future collapses. >>This is a really great quote Amara. "I would think "right" to one's body as the most basic >>right that one can have". Thanks Anna --------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail --------------------------------- Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jun 16 08:01:15 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 01:01:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien writes > > I mean that you cannot compare Luxembourg and Brazil, nor, > > really the U.S. and Europe. Too much lumping! The "U.S." > > and "Europe" are each just too diverse internally. > > The US comes out unfavorably in comparison with almost every other First > World country. And we have no monopoly on diversity; Canada has plenty > of immigrants, various European countries have more and more. Now if you were to tell me that whites in the 60-80 percentile of SES in *Canada* or *England* or *Germany* showed up favorably against American whites in the 60-80 percentile SES in the U.S., I'd be interested. > Anyway, I believe that even if you compare white Americans to white > Europeans or Canadians we still die sooner while spending twice as > much money. Well :-) so far, you have your hunches and I have mine. Ten years ago or so I heard an amazing fact on radio one day. "Family values" were making a comeback among the university age population! A study of Cal Berkeley showed that all the Pat Robertson type family values were being accepted by much greater numbers of undergraduates. It took me some time before it occurred to me what was going on. Berkeley at that time had just become majority Chinese-American. Oh. Duh. But the lesson is very clear: we should be very wary of grouped stats. The more that other variables are controlled for, clearly the better. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jun 16 08:19:26 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 01:19:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health Care Costs (was Extinctions) In-Reply-To: <20060615105341.GA3497@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien S. wrote > The killer figure for me is that Medicare is said to have 2% overhead, > vs. 14% or more in private insurers and HMOs. Government inefficiency, > yeah. Do you happen to know how the private insurers compared to the HMOs? (Sorry, I'm probably asking a lot, I myself don't have time to research it.) The HMOs arose in the first place as a government effort, special legislation and all. Here is something scary I read just today: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/15/emergency_rooms_confront_a_crisis_of_patient_arrivals/ "It's a symptom of how the nation's emergency-care system is overcrowded and overwhelmed, ``at its breaking point," said an investigation by the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies, which advises the government on health issues." (Well, we've all heard of "the crisis in health care" for a decade or two.) "The safety net . . . has large holes," a coauthor, Dr. A. Brent Eastman, chief medical officer at ScrippsHealth in San Diego, said yesterday. [Ellipsis in the original.] "You may not be caught and saved when your life depends on it." Ah, but only later down in the article do they happen to mention: At the root of the crisis: Demand for emergency care is surging, even as the capacity for hospitals, ambulance services, and other emergency workers to provide it is dropping. There were almost 114 million emergency-room visits in 2003, up from 90 million a decade earlier. Only about half were true medical emergencies. When the poor and uninsured cannot get healthcare anywhere else, they go to emergency rooms, which must treat them regardless of ability to pay. Yes, once there has been a disengagement between who pays, and who receives the benefits, the situation spirals out of hand quickly. On this list someone recently mentioned the alarming several percent increase in U.S. medical costs in the last few years. And that wasn't plain increase. That was increase of the percent of GNP! The Russians cracked when they felt forced to spend 14% of GNP on defense. But the U.S. is now spending more than that on health care, and the end is nowhere in sight. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jun 16 08:34:33 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 01:34:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Medical Care Message-ID: Alarmed I am by the phrase in an article I just referred to Only about half were true medical emergencies. When the poor and uninsured cannot get healthcare anywhere else, they go to emergency rooms, which must treat them regardless of ability to pay. Help! Anybody been to the emergency clinic lately? Of course, we defer to the statistical data in the article, but are you alarmed by what might soon be happening to you or me when we need to go? I assume that you, like me, pay your fair share (or your employer does). What about us? Will we be standing in line behind lots of poor people who have no insurance, but who need help as badly as we do? Now I am asking because I am *sure* that the billionaires of the bay area don't stand in line. Somehow, when Andy Grove or someone needs medical attention, he gets it. I want to know what ordinary millionaires do. Though not a millionaire, I have been a good boy and I have worked hard and have saved my money. I can pay in a pinch. I want some version, even if scaled down, of what Andy Grove gets. Must I live in the right neighborhood? Are there still small towns whose emergency services won't get clogged up for a while yet? I have been lucky, and so am blissfully ignorant of what really goes on. The only thing I've learned (second hand) is Don't trust the doctors and nurses: watch them like a hawk, or have a friend or family member do so for you, because--- to put it as mildly as possible---mistakes are made. Lee From xyz at iq.org Fri Jun 16 09:36:32 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:36:32 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical value metrics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1150450592.22435.263962034@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:57:02 -0500, "Robert Bradbury" said: > or loss of information. Another paper, I think from TIGR, cited the > fact that they were finding a small number (~5?) of novel genes per > new bacterial genome sequenced [1]. So one "might" assume that a new > gene costs ~0.2 * 10^23 J (I'm playing very loose with the numbers > here....). This is indeed a wooly metric. I have one a little clearer, but still not easy to measure; the expected increase in universal entropy caused by the existence of the organism over the future course of the universe compared to the organism not existing (or being killed, if that is the question). Since this is usually uncomputable due to our inability to predict the deep future in this way, we might (a) do some sort of future discounting or modify the metric to (b) only include the entropy increase of the universe for the expected duration of the organisms life. This metric ("m") is natural in several ways: let A and B be individuals. Let everything else equal between the individuals unless otherwise stated and let us use the (b) metric unless otherwise stated. 1) if A lives longer than B, m(A)>m(B) 2) if A does more work / consumes more energy than B, without stealing it from a more efficient consumer m(A)>m(B) 3) (if we're counting descendents too) if A has more offsping than B m(A)>m(B) 4) if A is bigger than B then generally 2) is implied 5) if A does not kill capriciously, m(A)>m(B) 6) if A recycles waste and uses the extra energy m(A)>m(B) 7) if A does not "burn down the forests" without what most people consider good cause, m(A)>m(B) 8) descendents set up solar panels on mars or otherwise tap new energy sources: m(A)>m(B) 9) descendents spread out geographically, otherwise act the same: m(A)>m(B) From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Jun 16 11:37:27 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:37:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: <20060616061704.54630.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060616061704.54630.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40268.72.236.103.129.1150457847.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Amara Graps wrote: .I would think 'right' to one's > body as the most basic right that one can > have. If one doesn't accept this, then everything else that people in the > transhuman community have discussed during the last 20 years as > desirable for > their future collapses. Yes - and I'd like to add the 'right' to one's mind. Nowadays things are shifting towards trials and punishments for thoughts, you know. :( Actually, I guess thoughts were always highly punishable. Sigh. Regards, MB From isthatyoujack at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 12:33:10 2006 From: isthatyoujack at gmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:33:10 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? References: Message-ID: <000d01c69141$0c3c0680$0f830d0a@JPAcer> The Avantguardian wrote: Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? Stuart: These debates have left me very pensive with a sense of deep disquiet. This unease stems from the fact that although I believe in rights, jealously guard mine, and support the rights of other as well, I no longer really know why I believe in them. So when people started complaining that discussing the rights of women versus those of fetuses is not a suitable topic for a transhuman list, I found it necessary to ask the lot of you to tell me what rights are, where they come from, and why they are in any sense "real"? I know these may seem like naive questions but as Frank Forman pointed out, the transhuman community really does need to come up with a rational theory of rights. I will try to explain why this is necessary in a historical context: Divine right, ca. the Middle Ages: "By the grace of God, I am your king. That means I am the boss of you so give me your money, till my fields, and go and fight those guys over that hill for me." Natural rights, ca. the Enlightenment: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Human rights, ca. the Present: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." So what's the problem you ask....? SNIP) *****The problem is that there are actually no human rights whatsoever - and nor have there ever been in the history of humanity. Documents such as the UN Charter, the US constitution et al are simply beacons in the darkness. These show us what is possible and what might be in the future. But the truth is that those few human rights which have been granted in the past and codified into law - have only ever been granted to limited populations for limited periods of time (extremely limited periods of time given the scale of human history.. ) *******What is more, wherever human rights ARE being granted at any time, they are always under threat and subject to political or commercial interpretation by those who can bring a great deal of expertise and ingenuity to bear on defeating the moral intent of the code. One COULD try to explain that in so doing, these people are adopting an inferior and essentially self-defeating course - but one could also try to teach a dog to play chess... *********Human rights are grounded in personal autonomy and personal responsibility - as such there is a fundamental opposition between this set of rights and governmental authority which seeks to limit the autonomy of the individual and exercise a proxy for the good of the group. **********Governments will always therefore seek to limit human rights - to do otherwise is to abdicate their own power. Some do it by heavy-handed authoritarian displays of power. Others persuade their citizens to give up their rights voluntarily in the face of some trumped up external threat... any bells ringing? ************I would say there is a snowball's chance in hell of a coherent system of global human rights anytime soon - at least as applied at government level. BUT - all is not lost - the grass roots equivalent is a here and now thing. Since human rights are personal, we can apply the rules right now in our relations with everyone else in the world. All we have to do is BEHAVE as though the UN Charter was law - and for all intents and purposes - it is. To this extent, I believe that human rights are mine to seize. It is all a question of giving - and receiving - due respect and recognition. No rocket science needed! Jack Parkinson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 13:40:30 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:40:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: <40268.72.236.103.129.1150457847.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <20060616061704.54630.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <40268.72.236.103.129.1150457847.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: I think the points made thus far (by Lee, Amara & MB) are all reasonable. I was simply trying to point out that "rights" don't exist the same way other nouns exist (a dog, a cat, a car, etc.). As pointed out they exist in a social context by agreement between entities (beings?) who can claim or assert those rights. Where this gets fuzzy is when we start attributing the rights to entities who are incapable of asserting those rights (e.g. animals or pre-human beings) and in cases where you have something which can assert rights (an AI or a self-copy) but there is no "body" to to associate those rights with. Just as in the case with animals we are getting into the social discussion of creating "rights". (E.g. An AI has the right to never be shut down or a copy has a right to demand their fair share of "run" time on the computronium in the solar system.) Now, from a perfectly "extropic" perspective, one would argue that all unique information has value and a right to exist. So an "EXTROPIAN" would argue strongly that even a single bacteria with its unique information content (even bacteria within a species may have specific mutations in its genome -- like the unique information a mind copy would accumulate if it is allowed to run for any period of time). So when we hit the wall of easily available resources (matter & energy) decisions will need to be made with respect to what information (e.g. bacterial DNA sequences) get saved and which copies are allowed to have run time. This in turn depends upon the context in which the value of various types or quantities of information is determined. For example, Ted Bundy or Al-Zarqawi may have contained lots of information but society still chose to erase that information (an extropian might have argued that they should have been frozen to preserve their information content while eliminating the threat that they represented). The debate gets sticky when one tries to produce a rational basis for asserting rights that everyone can agree on. So for pre-humans it is commonly the claim that they have "souls". For dogs and cats its the fact that they can feel pain. For AIs its the fact that they are presumably self-conscious or self-aware. Of course as Michael points out we have slipped into the reality where even thinking about certain things can be deemed criminal [1]. So we have a situation where the actions of those in power use the power to retain that power. (IMO my friends that is something to be very concerned about.) Robert 1. I *still* assert a right to think about nuking Mecca. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Fri Jun 16 14:04:13 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:04:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health Care Costs (was Extinctions) Message-ID: > Do you happen to know how the private insurers compared to the HMOs? Most managed care organizations are actually run by private insurers, and they can have as high as 30% administrative costs (including advertising). Managed care has two basic models, the old-fashioned group model with all the docs working for the one HMO in its own hospitals, like in Kaiser Permanente, and the network model in which docs can be signed up with multiple managed care plans. The latter does require more administration, and administrative costs are also larger for smaller plans, which would lead a big system like Kaiser to be able to get economies of scale. Kaiser traditionally posts the lowest administrative costs of all the private insurers, around 3%, on par with the national systems and Medicare. In other words, large group model HMOs like Kaiser have lower administrative costs (and clinical costs, and better clinical outcomes) for many of the same reasons that single-payer national health insurance systems do: they aren't being crushed by crippling administrative inefficiency, and in turn are not assigning MBAs to micro-manage physician decision-making. ---------------------------------------- James J. Hughes Ph.D. Lecturer, Public Policy Williams 229B, Trinity College 300 Summit St. Hartford CT 06106 860-297-2376 james.hughes at trincoll.edu From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Jun 16 16:23:33 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:23:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:01:15AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Anyway, I believe that even if you compare white Americans to white > > Europeans or Canadians we still die sooner while spending twice as > > much money. > > Well :-) so far, you have your hunches and I have mine. Not a hunch but a memory of data. Also, if black women are within six months of white women, then white women will be close to the stat for women overall and we could compare that across countries. Okay, real data: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ Japan: 84.70 F 77.96 M 81.25 total 6.74 F-M diff 3.24 infant mort Sweden: 82.87 F 78.29 M 80.51 total 4.58 2.76 Australia: 83.52 F 77.64 M 80.50 total 5.88 4.63 Canada: 83.74 F 76.86 M 80.22 total 6.88 4.69 Italy: 82.94 F 76.88 M 79.81 total 6.06 5.83 France: 83.54 F 76.10 M 79.73 total 7.44 4.21 Norway: 82.31 F 76.91 M 79.54 total 5.40 3.67 Dutch: 81.67 F 76.39 M 78.96 total 5.28 4.96 Germany: 81.96 F 75.81 M 78.80 total 6.15 4.12 UK: 81.13 F 76.09 M 78.54 total 5.04 5.08 EU: 81.6 F 75.1 M 78.3 total 6.5 5.1 US: 80.82 F 75.02 M 77.85 total 5.80 6.43 We're at the bottom, and just looking at whites doesn't improve that (see below). There's a wider range for females than males, and interesting variation in the F-M difference. If you're male, you want to be Swedish (and moving to Britain might have cut Anders's life expectancy. :) Countries notionally similar to us such as Australia and Canada kick our butt. Lifestyle/diet might explain some things like Japan vs. Germany, or Italy's high rank despite high infant mortality; OTOH, the US looks bad on infant mortality rates as well, and the differences can be even larger. So, tell me again how socialized medicine doesn't work. Seems to work as well or better than ours for half as much money. http://www.jointcenter.org/DB/factsheet/lifexpec.htm "Black men remain the group with the lowest life expectancy. Those born in 1999 are expected to live to the age of 67.8, which is about 7 years less than for comparable white men (74.6). Among women born in 1999, blacks are expected to live to the age of 74.7, and whites to age 79.9" So my memory of a 6 month deficit for black women was wrong, but whites are still close to the official numbers. Remember blacks are only about 14% of the population, so the numbers above would give a 1999 US female LE of 79.17, pretty close to the white female figure of 79.9. US males would be 73.65. So if you want, you can add a year to the US numbers, moving white Americans up to the level of Germany and UK. Hurrah, ethnically privileged Americans live as long as the bottom rung of socialized medicine countries, while spending twice as much. http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/78LifeExpectancy.cfm This is more recent (2003, not 1999). 78 years for white total, 77.5 for US total. Just half a year difference, so we wouldn't rise even to UK levels. Infant mortality makes a large part of the white/black difference, though US whites would still compare quite unfavorably (x2) with Sweden or Japan in that statistic (which should be rather less sensitive to lifestyle and diet factors!) -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Jun 16 16:56:18 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:56:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060616165618.GB5571@ofb.net> My last url links two other data sources, possibly independent of the CIA figures. The WHO one lists Healthy Life Expectancy, at birth *and* at age 60 (broken down by male/female.) We're still poor. http://www.who.int/whr/2004/annex/topic/en/annex_4_en.pdf Healthy years from age 60 female male Japan 21.7 17.5 France 20.4 16.6 Sweden 19.6 17.1 Australia 19.5 16.9 Italy 19.4 16.4 Canada 19.3 16.1 Germany 19 15.9 Norway 18.9 16.2 Dutch 18.4 15.5 UK 18.1 15.7 US 17.9 15.3 Note: for a male Japanese relative to a US female, being Japanese almost makes up for being male. For contrast Cuba 16.7 15.2 Mexico 16.2 14.4 China 14.7 13.1 Vietnam 13.1 11.4 Zimbabwe 10.6 9.7 -xx- Damien X-) From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Fri Jun 16 17:31:28 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:31:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data Message-ID: > Healthy years from age 60 > > female male > Japan 21.7 17.5 > France 20.4 16.6 > Sweden 19.6 17.1 > Australia 19.5 16.9 > Italy 19.4 16.4 > Canada 19.3 16.1 > Germany 19 15.9 > Norway 18.9 16.2 > Dutch 18.4 15.5 > UK 18.1 15.7 > US 17.9 15.3 Oh my Damien - how could that be? The US is the best of all possible worlds! And we spend the most of healthcare per person in the OECD! Could it be that our healthcare system wastes money and doesn't work as well as that of the UK, which spends less than half as much? Total health expenditure per capita, US$, 2003 United States $5,635 Norway $3,807 Switzerland $3,781 Luxembourg $3,705 Iceland $3,115 Canada $3,001 Germany $2,996 Netherlands $2,976 France $2,903 Belgium $2,827 Denmark $2,763 Sweden $2,703 Australia $2,699 Ireland $2,451 Austria $2,302 Italy $2,258 United Kingdom $2,231 Japan $2,139 Finland $2,118 Greece $2,011 New Zealand $1,886 Spain $1,835 Portugal $1,797 Czech Republic $1,298 Hungary $1,269 Korea $1,074 Slovak Republic $777 Poland $744 Mexico $583 Turkey $513 From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Jun 16 18:14:38 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:14:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> Message-ID: <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> On Jun 16, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > So, tell me again how socialized medicine doesn't work. Seems to work > as well or better than ours for half as much money. Excluding relative gross deficiencies in medical care, which is not really in evidence in most industrialized countries, I do not see how the cost of medical care has any significant impact on infant mortality rates or life expectancy. I would expect that environmental and lifestyle factors completely dominate such that arguments over the cost of health care among modern countries is pretty much irrelevant to health. I doubt the difference in life expectancy between Utah and Mississippi (5 years!) has much to do with medical care per se. If the US had a socialized healthcare system tomorrow, even a very expensive one, it would have no impact on the factors that very likely account for differences in mortality. It would change the economics, but it is not the economics that are killing people (at least not for the sake of this discussion). It seems that the discussion here is conflating two mostly unrelated issues: the economic efficiency of health care and mortality rates. J. Andrew Rogers From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Jun 16 18:45:05 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:45:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <20060616165618.GB5571@ofb.net> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <20060616165618.GB5571@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060616184504.GA26853@ofb.net> And finally, financial data: Taken from http://www3.who.int/whosis/core/core_select.cfm %GDP $US(1) $US(2) %govh(3) HLE-F HLE-M %GDPprivh(4) Australia 9.5 2,519 2,874 67.5% 74.3 70.9 3.1% Canada 9.9 2,669 2,989 69.9% 74.0 70.1 3.0% France 10.1 2,981 2,902 76.3% 74.7 69.3 2.4% Germany 11.1 3,204 3,001 78.2% 74.0 69.6 2.4% Italy 8.4 2,139 2,266 75.1% 74.7 70.7 2.1% Japan 7.9 2,662 2,244 81.0% 77.7 72.3 1.5% Dutch 9.8 3,088 2,987 62.4% 72.6 69.7 3.7% Norway 10.3 4,976 3,809 83.7% 73.6 70.4 1.7% Sweden 9.4 3,149 2,704 85.2% 74.8 71.9 1.4% UK 8.0 2,428 2,389 85.7% 72.1 69.1 1.1% US 15.2 5,711 5,711 44.6% 71.3 67.2 8.4% halfUS 2,855 2,855 %GDP is %GDP spent on total health expenditures HLE Healthy Life Expectancy at birth (aka HALE but I wanted narrow columns) (1) "Average exchange rate" (2) "International dollar rate". I don't know the difference. (3) gov't health spending/total health spending (4) My calculation: %GDP in *private* health spending, %GDP*(1-%govh). Useful for adding to taxes for a total tax+health burden, e.g. Americans pay less taxes but more in premiums. Analysis: grapphs or regression curves would help, but just from eyeballing, we can see a lack of tight correlations. The most socialized countries at at the top and bottom of the HLE scale. Japan and Sweden, which top both socialism and HLE, differ in total tax burdens (data not shown(5)) with Japan being close to the US and Sweden most burdensome. Australia and the Dutch are relatively less socialized but more and less healthy. Actual spending is not tightly correlated with health, with Germany not doing as well for its money as Sweden while Italy and Japan don't spend much for their health. Conclusion: it's not clear who we should or can imitate but we should clearly stop imitating ourselves. I'd guess Canada, Australia, and Sweden have similar diets to us and for Canada and Australia similar lifestyles. Australia seems strictly better than Canada; Sweden lives even longer and may or may not spend less, depending on the exchange rate used. The UK is a poor model but the degree of socialism itself does not seem to be the problem. (5) http://images.forbes.com/media/2006/05/Overall_Tax_Burden_Governemt_Spending.pdf Sorting by $US(1) %GDP $US(1) $US(2) %govh(3) HLE-F HLE-M %GDPprivh(4) Italy 8.4 2,139 2,266 75.1% 74.7 70.7 2.1% UK 8.0 2,428 2,389 85.7% 72.1 69.1 1.1% Australia 9.5 2,519 2,874 67.5% 74.3 70.9 3.1% Japan 7.9 2,662 2,244 81.0% 77.7 72.3 1.5% Canada 9.9 2,669 2,989 69.9% 74.0 70.1 3.0% halfUS 2,855 2,855 France 10.1 2,981 2,902 76.3% 74.7 69.3 2.4% Dutch 9.8 3,088 2,987 62.4% 72.6 69.7 3.7% Sweden 9.4 3,149 2,704 85.2% 74.8 71.9 1.4% Germany 11.1 3,204 3,001 78.2% 74.0 69.6 2.4% Norway 10.3 4,976 3,809 83.7% 73.6 70.4 1.7% US 15.2 5,711 5,711 44.6% 71.3 67.2 8.4% Sorting by $US(2) %GDP $US(1) $US(2) %govh(3) HLE-F HLE-M %GDPprivh(4) Japan 7.9 2,662 2,244 81.0% 77.7 72.3 1.5% Italy 8.4 2,139 2,266 75.1% 74.7 70.7 2.1% UK 8.0 2,428 2,389 85.7% 72.1 69.1 1.1% Sweden 9.4 3,149 2,704 85.2% 74.8 71.9 1.4% halfUS 2,855 2,855 Australia 9.5 2,519 2,874 67.5% 74.3 70.9 3.1% France 10.1 2,981 2,902 76.3% 74.7 69.3 2.4% Dutch 9.8 3,088 2,987 62.4% 72.6 69.7 3.7% Canada 9.9 2,669 2,989 69.9% 74.0 70.1 3.0% Germany 11.1 3,204 3,001 78.2% 74.0 69.6 2.4% Norway 10.3 4,976 3,809 83.7% 73.6 70.4 1.7% US 15.2 5,711 5,711 44.6% 71.3 67.2 8.4% Sorting by %govh %GDP $US(1) $US(2) %govh(3) HLE-F HLE-M %GDPprivh(4) UK 8.0 2,428 2,389 85.7% 72.1 69.1 1.1% Sweden 9.4 3,149 2,704 85.2% 74.8 71.9 1.4% Norway 10.3 4,976 3,809 83.7% 73.6 70.4 1.7% Japan 7.9 2,662 2,244 81.0% 77.7 72.3 1.5% Germany 11.1 3,204 3,001 78.2% 74.0 69.6 2.4% France 10.1 2,981 2,902 76.3% 74.7 69.3 2.4% Italy 8.4 2,139 2,266 75.1% 74.7 70.7 2.1% Canada 9.9 2,669 2,989 69.9% 74.0 70.1 3.0% Australia 9.5 2,519 2,874 67.5% 74.3 70.9 3.1% Dutch 9.8 3,088 2,987 62.4% 72.6 69.7 3.7% US 15.2 5,711 5,711 44.6% 71.3 67.2 8.4% Sorting by HLE-M %GDP $US(1) $US(2) %govh(3) HLE-F HLE-M %GDPprivh(4) Japan 7.9 2,662 2,244 81.0% 77.7 72.3 1.5% Sweden 9.4 3,149 2,704 85.2% 74.8 71.9 1.4% Australia 9.5 2,519 2,874 67.5% 74.3 70.9 3.1% Italy 8.4 2,139 2,266 75.1% 74.7 70.7 2.1% Norway 10.3 4,976 3,809 83.7% 73.6 70.4 1.7% Canada 9.9 2,669 2,989 69.9% 74.0 70.1 3.0% Dutch 9.8 3,088 2,987 62.4% 72.6 69.7 3.7% Germany 11.1 3,204 3,001 78.2% 74.0 69.6 2.4% France 10.1 2,981 2,902 76.3% 74.7 69.3 2.4% UK 8.0 2,428 2,389 85.7% 72.1 69.1 1.1% US 15.2 5,711 5,711 44.6% 71.3 67.2 8.4% Sorting by HLE-F %GDP $US(1) $US(2) %govh(3) HLE-F HLE-M %GDPprivh(4) Japan 7.9 2,662 2,244 81.0% 77.7 72.3 1.5% Sweden 9.4 3,149 2,704 85.2% 74.8 71.9 1.4% Italy 8.4 2,139 2,266 75.1% 74.7 70.7 2.1% France 10.1 2,981 2,902 76.3% 74.7 69.3 2.4% Australia 9.5 2,519 2,874 67.5% 74.3 70.9 3.1% Canada 9.9 2,669 2,989 69.9% 74.0 70.1 3.0% Germany 11.1 3,204 3,001 78.2% 74.0 69.6 2.4% Norway 10.3 4,976 3,809 83.7% 73.6 70.4 1.7% Dutch 9.8 3,088 2,987 62.4% 72.6 69.7 3.7% UK 8.0 2,428 2,389 85.7% 72.1 69.1 1.1% US 15.2 5,711 5,711 44.6% 71.3 67.2 8.4% From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jun 16 19:00:46 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:00:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: <20060615194159.36897.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060615194159.36897.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:41 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > There have been a couple of threads on both lists > lately that have been somewhat contentious. On the WTA > there has been an ongoing debate on abortion that has > caused tempers to rise and people to go on angry > rants. Of course at the center of this debate is the > right of an unborn fetus to life versus a woman's > right to have control over her body. ExI, on the other > hand, has been hosting a debate on the right of poor > people to get rich enough to "eat beefsteak" versus > the right of a complex ecosystem known as a rainforest > to exist. > A clump of cells have rights eh? Funny the furor claiming so when much of the actual post-birth human population is de facto granted little or no rights. This would seem a sure indication than the anti-abortion crowd is not really interested in fetal rights at all except as a tool. > These debates have left me very pensive with a sense > of deep disquiet. This unease stems from the fact that > although I believe in rights, jealously guard mine, > and support the rights of other as well, I no longer > really know why I believe in them. So when people > started complaining that discussing the rights of > women versus those of fetuses is not a suitable topic > for a transhuman list, I found it necessary to ask the > lot of you to tell me what rights are, where they come > from, and why they are in any sense "real"? There are as real as any other aspect of ethics in which they are subsumed. Where they come from is a matter of considerable contention I do not want to wade into (again). But basically they are the agreed set of requirements as to how we treat one another in terms of the minimum common expectations we believe everyone is entitled to. It can be debated whether this is a social pact only or it is more or less based on the commonalities shared by all > \ > Natural rights, ca. the Enlightenment: > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men > are created equal, that they are endowed by their > Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among > these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." > The "Creator" part is not essential to a rights argument based on human nature. All that is necessary is that we do have a shared nature. Utterly irrelevant. - samantha From sentience at pobox.com Fri Jun 16 19:02:14 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:02:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <44930036.5010407@pobox.com> ...didn't Robin Hanson just get through presenting the evidence that increased healthcare spending does squat to decrease mortality? Does anyone remember this except me? Or was I hallucinating the entire thread? Countries with socialized healthcare can have year-long waits to see doctors, according to what I've heard. That is certainly a measure of inconvenience. The counterintuitive fact that this has no effect on mortality just goes to say that something is wrong with healthcare in both socialized and market countries. Personally, I suspect that healthcare spending is ineffective for the same reason that charity to Africa is ineffective. Everyone is too busy with socially expected cheering to pay any attention to outcome measures. They don't want to hear about what's effective and what's not. They're purchasing warm glow by throwing money at the problem, and would rather not have to think any more than that. If you start calling the cost-effectiveness into question, they get all indignant because you're trying to destroy the warm glow that they paid good money for. And for as long as that remains true, increased healthcare spending will fail to purchase increased health. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Jun 16 19:02:45 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:02:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <20060616190245.GB26853@ofb.net> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 11:14:38AM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On Jun 16, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > So, tell me again how socialized medicine doesn't work. Seems to work > > as well or better than ours for half as much money. > > Excluding relative gross deficiencies in medical care, which is not > really in evidence in most industrialized countries, I do not see how > the cost of medical care has any significant impact on infant > mortality rates or life expectancy. I would expect that I'd say it's not the cost but the amount spent. Anyway, I'd imagined spending would make a big difference for infant mortality: who gets the vaccines and the care when sick? With the US having lots of people, black and white, below the threshold of decent infant care. But I don't know, maybe nutrition and residential pollution make the difference. And it might be argued that "gross deficiency" is exactly what the US has. Not if you can afford it, no, and not if you have some problem which the ER can actually treat, but if you have a chronic condition whose drugs you can't afford, or if you put off going to the doctor because you can't afford visits and therefore miss out on cheaper preventive or early treatment care, you'll die sooner. In fact I'd guess the general difference is of good (not UK) socialized medicine encouraging check-ups and catching problems early, when it is both cheaper and more effective to treat them. ER care is both expensive and less useful, if you're only being treated after things turn into emergencies. But I am guessing. > environmental and lifestyle factors completely dominate such that > arguments over the cost of health care among modern countries is > pretty much irrelevant to health. I doubt the difference in life I can see that for lower LE in the US, UK, Netherlands, and Germany, and higher LE in Japan and Italy. But I'd think Sweden to have similar diet and they live long -- also longer than Norway next door. Similarly Canada and Australia seem similar to the US but live notably longer. The US smokes less than Germans or Japanese (actually Japanese women smoke less, but 47% of the men smoke) and about the same as Canada. > If the US had a socialized healthcare system tomorrow, even a very > expensive one, it would have no impact on the factors that very > likely account for differences in mortality. It would change the I think "no impact" is too strong, but I agree that it might be easier for us to save lots of money than to boost the life expectancy. Unless our lifestyle is so bad we need the extra money just to pretend to be a First World country. -xx- Damien X-) From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Jun 16 18:54:10 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:54:10 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Hughes, James J. wrote: > Oh my Damien - how could that be? The US is the best of all possible > worlds! And we spend the most of healthcare per person in the OECD! > Could it be that our healthcare system wastes money and doesn't work as > well as that of the UK, which spends less than half as much? On the other hand, the UK health system looks right now to be on the verge of bancrupcy (although that is a bit unfair, since it the main cause appears to be some bad planning and politics). And "v?rdkrisen" ("the health care crisis") has been ongoing in Sweden for the last 15 years - people are getting healthier and healthier (despite or perhaps thanks to being on sick leave more and more), while everybody thinks the hospitals are going down the drain. If there is one thing that remains constant everywhere in Europe it is that nobody thinks their health care system works well. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 19:09:47 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:09:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Feeds for the list? Message-ID: <5366105b0606161209k820aefuc316094c6539d6f@mail.gmail.com> Friday, 16 June 2006 Hello all: I don't think the mailing-list supports feeds for list content. If it does, or if anyone made a feed for the list, I'd sure like to know about it. If no one's done so, I'd like to know that too. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jun 16 19:32:30 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:32:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: References: <20060615194159.36897.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 6/15/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > Convince me and my client the devil that rights, human > or otherwise, actually exist. > > They *don't* "actually" exist! They are pure inventions of beings > that can think "consciously" in order to develop a social structure > which is less prone to destruction and/or decay then would > otherwise be the case. > > The "rights" used to be handed down by those in power until such a > time as the people decided to assert them for themselves. (The > many can overpower the few or the one if they agree that their > rights are relatively equal). All of the rest of the discussion of > extending rights is probably due to the fact that feeling sympathy > for those less fortunate probably had survival advantages > (reciprocal social contracts which promote self-survival when one > is less able to care for oneself, e.g. due to injury or illness, is > probably the origin of "rights"). > > If Extropianism has any value it may revolve around whether or not > we can consciously agree on a single or multi-dimensional scale > that can be used to evaluate the value of forms of complexity or > relative "worth" of such complexity (value & worth can be context > dependent). This would replace the social contract based system > where you and I agree that we have a "right" to life and use that > agreement to bring down our lethal injections, bullets (or the > wrath of 500 lb bombs) on those who disagree with that right. This is not "rights" at all but simply "might makes right" or in this case "might makes rights". I think you may be confusing defense or forceful assertion of rights with rights themselves. > > Mind you, not a lot of people on this list, much less in the world > at large, would be willing to agree that their self-proclaimed (& > group-acknowledged) rights are null and void and should be replaced > by a system which perhaps might balance whether their past, > present, or potential future contributions should determine their > access rights to the matter & energy at our disposal. Determined by whom or what? What could possibly have enough information to evaluate every sentient (more or less creature) and apportion all resources accordingly? > > If such a system were in place I suspect we might be putting a lot > of elderly individuals to sleep. Because with the exception of > those signed up for cryonic suspension most of those say 60-65+ are > a net drain (i.e . they are contributing more towards problems like > global warming that are going to have to be cleaned up later than > they might contribute to bringing forward lifespan extension, a > friendly AI, whatever, that might justify their current resource > consumption). > You are arguably a "net drain" when you assert such inhumane treatment of your fellow humans. Do you realize how much ammunition you give to those against extropy by such pronouncements? Do you understand how many will turn to mysticism to escape such draconian calculation from the supposedly rational and secular? If we are not about more abundant and longer life for all humans then what good is our work really? Where is the "good news"? Relative to the first AI of >human intelligence pretty much every one of us is of marginal utility to future progress in fairly short order. Will you suicide happily when you can no longer contribute or march to the ovens in the name of "progress"? > As a challenge, go through Fortune Mag's Top 10, 100, Hollywood or > Sports stars, etc (I'd argue against using politicians...) and do > an up or down (or "weakest link") analysis for who is potentially > accelerating the development of singularity related breakthroughs > vs. who is retarding them. > If we judge by the acceptance of such goals then you are probably not helping. > Instead of the question "Do they have a right to live?" one might > instead ask "Is their continued existence justified?" Mind you, > since we have an extremely large excess of resources at our > disposal currently we can be very generous but that will *not* > always be the case. > It will be much more the case in the future than it is today. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 21:31:15 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060616213115.5243.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > Lee, The definition I presented said nothing about > legality, At the > base, what I gave is a reasonable definition with > which to begin. If you > don't like the word, then fine. One still needs a > principle sanctioning > a man's freedom of action in a social context. Is it better to view rights as an active sanction of ones explicit freedoms or as passive constraints on ones freedom relative to other beings? Do non-individuals have rights? For example corporations, nations, etc.? > Unless you are a hermit, > then it doesn't matter. So if come upon a hermit that has a pot of gold in some remote woods somewhere, and I am certain that nobody would miss him, I am within my rights to kill him and take his gold? Obviously by being a hermit, he has voluntarily opted out of any presumed social contract. > > The next step is to claim "what" are your moral > principles and "what" > are the social contexts and "how" does one put it in > legal context, if > that is what you want, and if it is, then "how" does > one arbitrate > disputes. That's another level. I said nothing about > that. Yes, I belive that we are speaking of something more fundamental than mere legality here. > > For moral principles, one must decide what is at the > core of one's > personal philosophy. > > I would think 'right' to one's body as the most > basic right that one can > have. I do not know why H+ people feel a need to > debate this and why > such a basic issue is being brought up. If one > doesn't accept this, then > everything else that people in the transhuman > community have discussed > during the last 20 years as desirable for their > future collapses. I think you may not quite understand what I am trying to achieve by this thread. Of course I *believe* that people have a right to their own bodies but that is not good enough. For example pretend you are taken before a super-intelligent future A.I. This A.I. has immense power at its disposal and it is neither hostile nor friendly, merely logical and supremely indifferent. It has no sympathy, no heart, no conscience, no emotion at all. It however is constrained to act absolutely RATIONALLY, that is to say that it could not act irationally even if it wanted to. This A.I. takes you aside and says, "Amara, unless you can convince me otherwise, I am going to upload you painlessly into a suitably arcadian runtime environment and use your body to make carbon control rods to moderate my nuclear reactor." How do you state your case for "a right to your body"? Now if you can come up with such an argument and generalize to cover all such "principles of social interaction" then this thread will have accomplished its stated purpose. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Fri Jun 16 21:37:36 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:37:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data Message-ID: > If there is one thing > that remains constant everywhere in Europe it is that nobody > thinks their health care system works well. True. But very few European want to trade their health care system for ours: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=830 Harris Poll 2004 For each of the following (countries) please indicate which countries you feel positive about their health care system...United States? Britons 17% French 3% Germans 5% Italians 14% Spanish 8% J. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 21:47:16 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: <20060615212032.GA4422@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060616214716.10910.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Sullivan wrote: > You can derive a lot just from social contract -- > what would rough > equals agree to? Not everything, e.g. it doesn't > give a great reason > for a majority to not exploit a distinct minority. > That I think needs > supplementation from lots of people deciding they > don't like it and > fighting to establish their preference. I am hoping that there might be something superior to social contract theory. Especially since as you say it does not protect minorities from majorities. Also it does not speak to the cause of individuals apart from society. What if for example we are speaking of a hermit? Or a unique non-human entity (the first AGI or ET)? Is the fact that ET is not part of "society" mean that we can dissect him? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Jun 16 22:02:04 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:02:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <44930036.5010407@pobox.com> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> <44930036.5010407@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060616220203.GA28766@ofb.net> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > ...didn't Robin Hanson just get through presenting the evidence that > increased healthcare spending does squat to decrease mortality? Yep. Did that cause anyone to decide to not go see the doctor the next time they're sick? Will you, Eliezer, skip the doctor's office? Will Robin refrain from taking his children there (assuming his wife would let him)? -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Jun 16 22:07:26 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:07:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:54:10PM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On the other hand, the UK health system looks right now to be on the verge > of bancrupcy (although that is a bit unfair, since it the main cause > appears to be some bad planning and politics). And "v?rdkrisen" ("the Impressive, given that the UK is near the bottom of the spending list! Of course, the Left accuses the Thatcher-Major-Blair regimes of trying to cut or bankrupt the NHS in the name of the market. > are going down the drain. If there is one thing that remains constant > everywhere in Europe it is that nobody thinks their health care system > works well. Except for the French, apparently. :) -xx- Damien X-) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 21:50:34 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: <40268.72.236.103.129.1150457847.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <20060616215035.99338.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- MB wrote: > Yes - and I'd like to add the 'right' to one's mind. > Nowadays things are > shifting towards trials and punishments for > thoughts, you know. :( I heartily concur. The idea of "thought crime" is on the rise. > > Actually, I guess thoughts were always highly > punishable. Sigh. Yes, but before the government did not have access to advanced data mining techniques to screen millions of communications per day for seditious thoughts. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Jun 16 22:17:28 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:17:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: <20060616214716.10910.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060615212032.GA4422@ofb.net> <20060616214716.10910.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060616221728.GC28766@ofb.net> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 02:47:16PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > I am hoping that there might be something superior to > social contract theory. Especially since as you say it > does not protect minorities from majorities. Also it > does not speak to the cause of individuals apart from > society. What if for example we are speaking of a > hermit? Or a unique non-human entity (the first AGI or Millennia of thought have failed to come up with a superior alternative; in fact, there seems to be a marked convergence to social contract or utilitarianism among materialists, and with the latter there's the question of one why should care about everyone else's utility. Your questions to Amara about the auriferous hermit or the uploadphilic AI are similar to how I gave up on natural rights. (In my case it was "how can I convince a Nazi they're wrong?") Not only do I see no answer, I fail to see how absolute rights can be relevant. Say someone proves that the hermit has a right to the gold -- so what? What prevents you from killing him anyway? What prevents the AI from uploading Amara no matter what argument she makes? Nothing. Rights without consequences seem pointless. Note that theistic doctrines promised consequences, even if those were vague or untestable: Heaven, Hell, karma, general forture or misfortune. Having stripped away the supernatural, naturalists have to back up the rights they assert by real force or incentives. > ET)? Is the fact that ET is not part of "society" mean > that we can dissect him? Of course we *can*. Do we want to? Do we want to be that kind of people, or tell our children we did that, or hide that sort of thing as a secret? Do we fear he came from a greater society which might get pissed off if it finds out? -xx- Damien X-) From sentience at pobox.com Fri Jun 16 22:39:46 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:39:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <20060616220203.GA28766@ofb.net> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> <44930036.5010407@pobox.com> <20060616220203.GA28766@ofb.net> Message-ID: <44933332.5040205@pobox.com> Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >>...didn't Robin Hanson just get through presenting the evidence that >>increased healthcare spending does squat to decrease mortality? > > Yep. > > Did that cause anyone to decide to not go see the doctor the next time > they're sick? Will you, Eliezer, skip the doctor's office? Will Robin > refrain from taking his children there (assuming his wife would let > him)? It's certainly causing me to be more cautious around the prospect of surgery. If at least some doctor visits are effective, that implies that some of the visits are anti-effective - costly and harmful - to balance out the effective visits. I believe the statistic is that one-third of hospital deaths are iatrogenic. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From amara at amara.com Fri Jun 16 22:55:52 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:55:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? Message-ID: You are setting up a number of straw men. I am not particularly interested in your Orwellian Universe. The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com : >So if come upon a hermit that has a pot of gold in >some remote woods somewhere, and I am certain that >nobody would miss him, I am within my rights to kill >him and take his gold? Then you would commit murder and theft. By reason that he is a man and so are you. >This A.I. takes you aside and says, "Amara, unless you can convince me >otherwise, I am going to upload you painlessly into a suitably >arcadian runtime environment and use your body to make carbon control >rods to moderate my nuclear reactor. That is called coersion and initiation of force and I will defend my life because I'm human. >How do you state your case for "a right to your body"? Without my body I don't live. Amara From charlie at antipope.org Fri Jun 16 22:38:06 2006 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 23:38:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> Message-ID: <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> On 16 Jun 2006, at 23:07, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:54:10PM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > >> On the other hand, the UK health system looks right now to be on >> the verge >> of bancrupcy (although that is a bit unfair, since it the main cause >> appears to be some bad planning and politics). And "v?rdkrisen" ("the > > Impressive, given that the UK is near the bottom of the spending list! > Of course, the Left accuses the Thatcher-Major-Blair regimes of trying > to cut or bankrupt the NHS in the name of the market. [ Just ducking in ] Speaking as a Brit, the problem is entirely political in origin, and relates to some really stupid policy decisions taken over funding the NHS a few years ago. (Thumbnail: the government wanted to increase spending. They did so by leveraging private investment, offering lock- in contracts and selling off real estate owned by NHS hospitals to pay for it. Now the pigeons are coming home to roost in the form of interest payments. To add insult to injury, the huge NHS IT integration project -- which was appallingly badly planned -- turns out to be roughly ?6Bn -- about US $11Bn -- over budget, a margin which exceeds the NHS funding shortfall by an order of magnitude. They wouldn't be in a crisis if they'd planned their IT program properly, bluntly, and it can be solved trivially if the politicians would stop posturing and ... gaah. You've heard it all before about any number of large institutions, right?) Oh yeah. Last time I had to go see my GP I was sitting in his examining room all of five hours after I picked up the phone. I keep *hearing* about the alleged one year waiting times, but I've never met anyone who actually *did* have to wait a year -- or even a week -- to see their GP. Discussions of healthcare are inevitably propagandized, especially when someone dumps a handful of free market ideology chum in the shark pool. >> ... If there is one thing that remains constant >> everywhere in Europe it is that nobody thinks their health care >> system >> works well. I suspect this is because in the USA you have one interesting phenomenon that's absent elsewhere: a vast, parasitic health insurance industry that needs to keep medicine expensive -- and has the advocacy/lobbying/advertising dollars to spend on convincing everyone that their way is best. -- Charlie From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 22:38:51 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060616223851.61372.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > One possible way to argue "rights" from an extropic > perspective is simply to > look at the information content (from a fetus to a > species). So you would say that rights derive from information content? This is an interesting perspective since it would apply to a lesser and greater degree to all things, living or not. For example, it would mean that texts, artifacts, or buildings may have some rights. More so if there is much information content in them. The surprisal for a cookie-cutter tract-housing home would be considerably less than let's say for example, the pyramids of egypt. So by your rationale the pyramids would have more of a right to preservation than the suburban house. It does have a certain intuitive appeal. There was a > recent paper that I don't happen to have a reference > handy for which I think > cited the cost of the creation of a new species (of > microorganism) at ~10^23 > J. The only problem is that "speciation" may or may > not depend upon a real > net gain of information. Actually speciation can often times lead to a decrease in information content. For example free-living earthworms and parasitic tapeworms most likely came from a common segmented worm ancestor. The earthworm, however, most likely gained information relative to that ancestor, whereas the streamlining allowed by parasitism allowed the tapeworm to lose information relative to that ancestor. So evolution is not always toward higher complexity. Gould actually thought that it was *seldomly* toward greater complexity, although I don't agree with Gould on that point. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sentience at pobox.com Fri Jun 16 23:15:31 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:15:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> Message-ID: <44933B93.40204@pobox.com> Charlie Stross wrote: > > Oh yeah. Last time I had to go see my GP I was sitting in his > examining room all of five hours after I picked up the phone. I keep > *hearing* about the alleged one year waiting times, but I've never > met anyone who actually *did* have to wait a year -- or even a week > -- to see their GP. Thanks for the data - always good to hear from the front lines. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Jun 17 00:38:34 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:38:34 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> Message-ID: <63987.86.138.88.108.1150504714.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Sullivan wrote: >> are going down the drain. If there is one thing that remains constant >> everywhere in Europe it is that nobody thinks their health care system >> works well. > > Except for the French, apparently. :) In France, it is the doctors who hate the health care system! If I remember right, there are price limits on french health care and pretty low doctor salaries - so the french enjoy the cheap care, while doctors don't want to have more patients since the margins sometimes even become negative. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From riel at surriel.com Sat Jun 17 01:14:18 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:14:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <200606101535.k5AFZkbQ019156@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606101535.k5AFZkbQ019156@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, spike wrote: > I noticed that USian environmentalists do not flock to Brazil in huge > numbers, and I fully understand why: it is useless to preach > environmental stewardship to hungry people. I figure it will take > another thirty to fifty years before the US is as crowded and hungry as > Brazil is today. You've never been to Brazil, have you? The Amazon forest is in the far north of the country, where almost nobody lives. An area maybe 1 1/2 to 2 times the size of Alaska, with maybe 10 million people in it. The majority of the deforestation is done by rich companies, not by poor subsistance farmers - the poor farmers live in the north-east and mid-west of the country, nowhere near the Amazon river. Most people want to see the rain forest saved, and legislation is in place. However, the north of the country is so empty that effective law enforcement on a reasonable budget is just not possible. Overcrowding definately doesn't have anything to do with deforestation of the Amazon region... -- "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 Jun 17 03:33:49 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:33:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606170345.k5H3jdvm015806@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rik van Riel > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > > On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, spike wrote: > > > ... it is useless to preach environmental stewardship to hungry people.. . > > The majority of the deforestation is done by rich companies, > not by poor subsistance farmers - ... Rich companies and poor farmers are two examples of hungry. I use the term to mean more than lacking food, it also means eager to make money. In any case, thanks for the post Rik. Your comments pique my interest enough that I shall google myself up to speed. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jun 17 04:09:48 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:09:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <20060616220203.GA28766@ofb.net> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> <44930036.5010407@pobox.com> <20060616220203.GA28766@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606162109h6fdbfa0fj1dd1c87b4acf62e1@mail.gmail.com> On 6/16/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > ...didn't Robin Hanson just get through presenting the evidence that > > increased healthcare spending does squat to decrease mortality? > > Yep. > > Did that cause anyone to decide to not go see the doctor the next time > they're sick? Will you, Eliezer, skip the doctor's office? Will Robin > refrain from taking his children there (assuming his wife would let > him)? > ### I think you are missing the point, Damien. Eliezer is not necessarily saying that healthcare spending makes no difference in health (which is the extreme part of Robin's opinion). Instead, he says that the marginal spending on healthcare makes no difference, and I heartily agree with him (and Robin). As I previously argued on this and other lists, after paying for vaccinations, blood pressure medications, kidney dialysis, and a few other interventions with very good cost-to-benefit ratios, there is a whole lot of therapies, and a humongous number of diagnostic tests, with almost no impact on health or survival. As a purely intuitive assessment based on the observation of my own practice patterns, this spending may account for at least 1/3 of the total spending, and could easily surpass the 50% mark. You could cut at least 2/3 of the imaging studies I order daily by the dozen (well, almost) and there would be only a small difference in survival. The amount of money spent without paying attention to the cost-benefit ratios is immense. I see two conclusions from the above: 1) Do go the doctor if you want to stay healthy but if you happen to pay for it yourself, be very, very demanding about justifications for every 1000$ that the good doc may have you spend on his salary. Of course, if the other insured or the taxpayers pay, indulge yourself, since there ain't no free lunch anywhere else. 2) All attempts to justify one's own idea of social justice by comparing national spending patterns and outcomes are silly. Most of the spending is useless anyway, and the overall impact of medicine is further obscured by quite substantial differences in lifestyle factors and other issues. Socialists like to compare the US with Sweden but it's useless since both countries are rich enough to pay for the useful, basic healthcare, and differ only in the amount of fluff they offer on top of that and in their ethnic makeup. Instead, if you want to see real differences relevant to healthcare spending levels, try to compare the socialized medicine in Sweden with the socialized medicine in Russia, or maybe North Korea, or maybe Saudi Arabia. Rafal From ken at javien.com Sat Jun 17 03:27:18 2006 From: ken at javien.com (Ken Kittlitz) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:27:18 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> References: <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20060616211659.03f0be00@127.0.0.1> At 11:38 PM 6/16/2006 +0100, Charlie Stross wrote: >Oh yeah. Last time I had to go see my GP I was sitting in his >examining room all of five hours after I picked up the phone. I keep >*hearing* about the alleged one year waiting times, but I've never >met anyone who actually *did* have to wait a year -- or even a week >-- to see their GP. In Canada, wait times for GPs are also not a problem. The problems start when you need a more esoteric test, treatment or surgery. *Then*, the wait times can easily be six months or more. Of course, if the condition to be treated is deemed to be life-threatening, you get higher priority. The trick is to have a doctor that can accurately distinguish the life-threatening conditions from the non-life-threatening ones. ;-) Actually, Canada does have a GP-related problem: there are too few of them. Many doctors decide to specialize or move to the U.S. to practice medicine; both are more lucrative options than being a GP in Canada. Those of us lucky enough to have GPs rarely have to wait long to see them; those without (GPs generally cap the number of patients they'll deal with) use the walk-in clinics. --- Ken Kittlitz http://www.javien.com From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jun 17 04:44:33 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:44:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <44933B93.40204@pobox.com> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> <44933B93.40204@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606162144w21feb4d7g5555d6e1aa637965@mail.gmail.com> On 6/16/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Charlie Stross wrote: > > > > Oh yeah. Last time I had to go see my GP I was sitting in his > > examining room all of five hours after I picked up the phone. I keep > > *hearing* about the alleged one year waiting times, but I've never > > met anyone who actually *did* have to wait a year -- or even a week > > -- to see their GP. > > Thanks for the data - always good to hear from the front lines. > ### Seeing the GP is trivial. Ask him how long he needs to wait to see a nuclear medicine specialist, or a neurologist. Or better, go to: http://www.nhs.uk/England/AboutTheNhs/WaitingTimes/ConsultantSearch.aspx and get the waiting times straight from the horse's mouth. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jun 17 04:48:23 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:48:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606162148n5cd5d489o5749b41ed91cce40@mail.gmail.com> On 6/16/06, Charlie Stross wrote: > > I suspect this is because in the USA you have one interesting > phenomenon that's absent elsewhere: a vast, parasitic health > insurance industry that needs to keep medicine expensive -- and has > the advocacy/lobbying/advertising dollars to spend on convincing > everyone that their way is best. > ### Gee, this is so bizarre.... Looks like these Americans are just stupid puppets, happily and without duress dumping their own money down the drain because the capitalist propaganda machine tells them to. And, amazingly, the insurance companies, those greedy capitalist scum, they expect to make more money by spending *more* money! The more they pay out of the money they receive, the more is left for them! A true case of magic! The more money they force on the docs, the more they earn themselves, like pulling an infinite number of little green rabbits out of a hat! Rafal PS. Charlie, think it over - How can an insurance company hope to make more money (or as one would say in social-speak, parasitize better) by keeping their reimbursements higher than its competitors? Once you can think your way through this little economic exercise, you will be on your way out of the confusion. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Jun 17 04:54:48 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:54:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> Message-ID: <20060617045448.GA9877@ofb.net> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 11:38:06PM +0100, Charlie Stross wrote: > > Impressive, given that the UK is near the bottom of the spending list! > > Of course, the Left accuses the Thatcher-Major-Blair regimes of trying > > to cut or bankrupt the NHS in the name of the market. > > [ Just ducking in ] Always glad to have you! > Oh yeah. Last time I had to go see my GP I was sitting in his > examining room all of five hours after I picked up the phone. I keep > *hearing* about the alleged one year waiting times, but I've never > met anyone who actually *did* have to wait a year -- or even a week > -- to see their GP. The inverse of the American Cadillac welfare queen? > I suspect this is because in the USA you have one interesting > phenomenon that's absent elsewhere: a vast, parasitic health > insurance industry that needs to keep medicine expensive -- and has > the advocacy/lobbying/advertising dollars to spend on convincing > everyone that their way is best. Insurance does seem like something which should benefit from having a really large risk pool, including the people who think they don't need it now but will age into people who do. But we've got the insurance companies. Of course, employer-linked insurance would also seem to limit employee mobility and small business creation; can't just walk off the job if you're worried about your health in the meantime. Though the gov't partially patched that with COBRA. (For 18 months after leaving work you get to keep your group plan at the old premiums, though you have to pay them.) -xx- Damien X-) From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jun 17 04:59:19 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:59:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <20060616190245.GB26853@ofb.net> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> <20060616190245.GB26853@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606162159q1282b84fh333f515098edded7@mail.gmail.com> On 6/16/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > I'd say it's not the cost but the amount spent. Anyway, I'd imagined > spending would make a big difference for infant mortality: who gets the > vaccines and the care when sick? With the US having lots of people, > black and white, below the threshold of decent infant care. But I don't > know, maybe nutrition and residential pollution make the difference. > > And it might be argued that "gross deficiency" is exactly what the US > has. Not if you can afford it, no, and not if you have some problem > which the ER can actually treat, but if you have a chronic condition > whose drugs you can't afford, or if you put off going to the doctor > because you can't afford visits and therefore miss out on cheaper > preventive or early treatment care, you'll die sooner. ### Damien, at appears that you are not familiar with the actual patterns of availability of medical care to the indigent in the US. This country is spending more on its poor per capita than EU countries spend on their regular citizens (which I think is wrong, but this is another issue). The poor in the US have a better access to medicine than regular Germans have. The Daily Kos is not a good source of information on medicine, I might add. Rafal From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Jun 17 04:59:53 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:59:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606162109h6fdbfa0fj1dd1c87b4acf62e1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> <44930036.5010407@pobox.com> <20060616220203.GA28766@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606162109h6fdbfa0fj1dd1c87b4acf62e1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060617045953.GB9877@ofb.net> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:09:48AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > of that and in their ethnic makeup. Instead, if you want to see real > differences relevant to healthcare spending levels, try to compare the > socialized medicine in Sweden with the socialized medicine in Russia, > or maybe North Korea, or maybe Saudi Arabia. Or the not-so-free market of the US with the free market of Mexico? Then there's Cuba. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Jun 17 05:03:37 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:03:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606162159q1282b84fh333f515098edded7@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> <20060616190245.GB26853@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606162159q1282b84fh333f515098edded7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060617050337.GC9877@ofb.net> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:59:19AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Damien, at appears that you are not familiar with the actual > patterns of availability of medical care to the indigent in the US. Right... I grew up on food stamps. > This country is spending more on its poor per capita than EU countries > spend on their regular citizens (which I think is wrong, but this is > another issue). The poor in the US have a better access to medicine > than regular Germans have. "Spending more" isn't better access if it's doled out through emergency rooms. I know people who don't go to the doctor for lack of money, or worry about their drugs. > The Daily Kos is not a good source of information on medicine, I might add. I've never mentioned the Daily Kos and in fact don't read it, I might add. Why did you feel the need to bring it up? -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Jun 17 05:05:09 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:05:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <200606170345.k5H3jdvm015806@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606170345.k5H3jdvm015806@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060617050509.GD9877@ofb.net> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:33:49PM -0700, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rik van Riel > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > > > > On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, spike wrote: > > > > > ... it is useless to preach environmental stewardship to hungry > > > people.. > Rich companies and poor farmers are two examples of hungry. I use the term > to mean more than lacking food, it also means eager to make money. Rich companies don't have the moral case of needing food, though. They also have assets and thus more to lose, if someone enforces the law on them. -xx- Damien X-) From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 04:58:11 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What are animal rights anyway? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060617045811.98170.qmail@web52613.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > I think the points made thus far (by Lee, Amara & > MB) are all reasonable. I was simply trying to > point out that "rights" don't exist the same way > other nouns exist (a dog, a cat, a car, etc.). As > pointed out they exist in a social context by > agreement between entities (beings?) who can claim > or assert those rights. Where this gets fuzzy is > when we start attributing the rights to entities > who are incapable of asserting those rights (e.g. > animals or pre-human beings) and in cases where you > have something which can assert rights (an AI or a > self-copy) but there is no "body" to to associate > those rights with. In what sense are animals incapable of asserting rights? If you tried to assert your 'right' to carve your initials into the side of a lion, of course we know the lion would not only be capable of asserting its right to maintain his bodily integrity as he sees fit, he'd probably assert rights so forcefully you might be killed in the process! No sane person would attempt to do such a thing unless they believed they'd managed to subdue the lion's ability to defend itself. And of course the same measures (tranquilizer drugs or some such) could be used to subdue the ability of a human to assert rights. So the fact that we can often *overcome* the ability of animals to assert rights certainly does not establish that they are incapable of asserting rights; in fact, I think it tends to *prove* that they do assert rights! And on the other extreme, feebleness of ability is not evidence of incapability. Sometimes when I'm sitting in my backyard a squirrel sits up in a tree scolding me. They make a series of sounds only when some other animal (human, cat, dog) is on their defined property and they want them to leave. That's an assertion of rights, even as I can go back to my reading and ignore the noise, and unlike a lion, the squirrel being much smaller than I is incapable exerting any greater punishment on me. But that variety of 'incapability' is akin to a person's incapability of preventing a larger gang from assaulting them. And of course just because party A is bigger than B and thus B cannot defend against A does not establish B's incapability of asserting rights. So I don't see in what meaningful sense animals are incapable of asserting rights. Note that all that is aside from whether or not we will or should respect an animal's assertions. In other words, one way says we can do what we will with animals because they don't have or assert rights. And another path says they do have or assert rights, but our rights supercede their rights, and unless they can stop us, we'll do as we see fit. ~Ian http://iangoddard.net "All inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion, that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion." - David Hume __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tark at kc.rr.com Sat Jun 17 05:45:24 2006 From: tark at kc.rr.com (Tark) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:45:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] What are rights Message-ID: <000801c691d1$3b1df810$6401a8c0@agross> Re rights: We started with divine rights of kings, then natural rights, then human rights; however there is a fourth type -- rights derived from reason. Most schools of philosophy fall into two camps: one based on supernatural metaphysics (religious, Plato's "forms", mysticism, etc.) and the other based on the metaphysics of science and reason. Divine, natural, and human rights as stated come from that first camp, what rights come from reason & science, or the other camp of philosophy? I am not asking the members of the list to re-create objectivism by any means, however you should recognize that there is another source of rights. One camp followed from Plato to Hobbes to Kant to modern philosophers, the other from Aristotle to Bacon, to Locke, to objectivism. One camp is the camp of religion, the other of science. So if rights based on the supernatural do not exist, and I submit they don't for your client, then rights based on science & reason are the only ones that would serve his need. Why both science and reason? Because reason alone becomes unproven theory after several steps up the ladder of metaphysics, and slowly metamorphoses into faith. If as you step that ladder you prove the assumptions supporting the next, then it becomes less faith and more a prognosis, forecast, theory, or projection. Going to Amara's claim of right to body, and another's of right to mind, that right derives from something. Going to Camus, one of the earliest debates you should have is "does life have purpose, meaning, value, or not" Camus posits that the next question that follows if you answer "not" is "why am I still hanging around then?" So, my assumption is that all reading the list value life to some extent, and think it has purpose derived from some form of metaphysics. If you don't think it has value and purpose & have refused to answer the "why am I still hanging around" please don't get in the way of the folks who do think it has meaning and value as a pure courtesy if you would. So the start point might be "if Amara thinks life has purpose and value, and determines from that the right of ownership of her body, what reason-derived moral begets that?" Now I am suggesting a potential purpose -- you might consider members of this list as belonging to the church of "We are Becoming God", based on science, reason, and projections. We have no proof that the singularity will come, but we have a reasoned projection. At some point current trends projected onward we will reach a point of transhumanity. That could be characterized as faith by some. What then lies beyond the singularity, will we become at some point omnipresent and omniscient, or godlike? If we are becoming god, is that faith or science? Re: health care One note on the socialized vs. free enterprise medicine chain: There are too many other factors beyond health care affecting life expectancy in any given region that Life-expectancy alone cannot determine which is best. E.g. Living in the US in some cities is inherently more dangerous than living anywhere in the UK. Indeed, living in Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, and some other large cities is statistically more dangerous for 21-39 year old males than patrolling Baghdad with the Marines. There are also culturally more risk-takers in the US than most comparable countries; witness the recent phenomena of extreme sports which didn't start in Europe. US citizens travel more frequently and longer to work than most other countries (just an outcome of population densities) The most comparable countries would be Russia, China, and Canada, however Canada has a much lower death rate from violence. The other two examples belie the argument for socialized health care. (note: I am discounting Australia because it's largely undeveloped and under-populated once you leave the coastlines, if you go to JPL the "earthlights" photo clearly demonstrates that.) One other note: Someone asked how to get the best health care based on the article regarding emergency rooms full to overflowing. The answer is simple, move to where they aren't. I live two blocks from a great hospital in a suburban area well away from major metropolitan areas. The second benefit is that my house is on the same power grid, and even when ice storms take out the power over the metropolitan area, the power is always put back on here the quickest. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jun 17 05:47:52 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:47:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <20060617045953.GB9877@ofb.net> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> <44930036.5010407@pobox.com> <20060616220203.GA28766@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606162109h6fdbfa0fj1dd1c87b4acf62e1@mail.gmail.com> <20060617045953.GB9877@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606162247k6b08cec5l7c34e93586072615@mail.gmail.com> On 6/17/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:09:48AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > of that and in their ethnic makeup. Instead, if you want to see real > > differences relevant to healthcare spending levels, try to compare the > > socialized medicine in Sweden with the socialized medicine in Russia, > > or maybe North Korea, or maybe Saudi Arabia. > > Or the not-so-free market of the US with the free market of Mexico? > > Then there's Cuba. ### Yes, indeed, one can come with comparisons till the cows come home but I doubt we have the means to statistically disentangle the enormous number of confounding factors. I'd rather think that the approach that is more likely to give useful information on the relative efficiency of different systems of healthcare delivery would be piecemeal. First, identify a basket of specific life-saving interventions that are likely to be equally needed in the countries under comparison, like vaccinations, or appendectomy for appendicitis. You don't look at country-specific treatments, like bariatric surgery in the US, and Guinea worm treatment in the tropics. Second, try to measure the actual cost of delivery of each of these treatments, including the fraction of the overhead relevant to the treatment, and normalize for differences in average incomes. You have to normalize for incomes, since the same amount of labor may cost differently in different countries. Third, compare the costs of the basket of treatments between countries. The more exhaustive is your sampling of useful treatments in this basket, the better your idea of the actual impact of the treatments on survival , and the cost of a year of life bought by a given system. Fourth, look at the remaining treatments, things that are likely to be of little value for outcomes, subtract the cost of your basket from the total of spending, and get an approximate estimate of the amount of waste in the system. The results would have little to do with the comparisons of average survival between countries. I would expect that some of the poorer countries with relatively short lifespans but highly unregulated systems would outperform the usual poster children. India does outperform the US and Europe in terms of surgery costs. The regulated partially monopolistic system in the US would fare poorly in terms of the fraction of waste, but overall well in terms of efficiency of useful care delivery (actually, the cost of some useful surgeries was compared between the US and Europe, and the comparison was favorable for the US). The wholly regulated, monopolistic systems in Europe would fare well in the fraction of waste measure, but middling to poor in the efficiency of useful care delivery. These are my hunches, based what I heard about medical tourism (which measures relative costs of equal-quality care), and the partially unregulated, fee-for-service areas of medicine, like cosmetic surgery, or infertility treatments. As far as I know, the US should learn from Thailand, not Sweden. Rafal From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jun 17 05:52:32 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:52:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606162109h6fdbfa0fj1dd1c87b4acf62e1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200606170603.k5H637vJ018802@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki ... > vaccinations, blood pressure medications, kidney dialysis, and a few > other interventions with very good cost-to-benefit ratios, there is a > whole lot of therapies, and a humongous number of diagnostic tests, > with almost no impact on health or survival... > Rafal Ja, we have yet to mention the health cost of our legal system. If a doctor misses some oddball disease because she failed to order the test for it, then she is liable for malpractice lawsuits. We can scarcely blame doctors for ordering a bunch of diagnostic tests that are way low on the cost benefit ratio scale. Once in a long while someone is saved by all that, someone who would have otherwise perished. But it does run up the cost of medicine without adding significantly to its efficacy. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jun 17 06:07:39 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:07:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <20060617045448.GA9877@ofb.net> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> <20060617045448.GA9877@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60606162307j2712d6faw9b4737008e6dcded@mail.gmail.com> On 6/17/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > Insurance does seem like something which should benefit from having a > really large risk pool, including the people who think they don't need > it now but will age into people who do. But we've got the insurance > companies. Of course, employer-linked insurance would also seem to > limit employee mobility and small business creation; can't just walk off > the job if you're worried about your health in the meantime. Though the > gov't partially patched that with COBRA. (For 18 months after leaving > work you get to keep your group plan at the old premiums, though you > have to pay them.) ### In other words, if I am an employer, I have to think twice about hiring, especially hiring somebody who might get sick, since if he does, I will be stuck with his bills. A long time ago the good government decided to punish people who want to buy private health insurance by tax-exempting employer contributions to health insurance, but still taxing private purchase of health insurance at the usual rates. So, almost everybody is forced into employer-run healthcare, nobody can easily go insurer-shopping, and insurance rates creep ever higher, since the customers can't easily get away. And here the good gov't comes to the rescue and says you can keep your employer-provided plan, making it even more difficult to shop for better and cheaper care. It's piling new stupidities on top of old ones. The whole idea of non-catastrophic health insurance is pure stupidity, like insurance against your car needing gas, but I pontificated here about this before, so I won't waste your time. Rafal From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Jun 17 07:01:38 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:01:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What are rights In-Reply-To: <000801c691d1$3b1df810$6401a8c0@agross> References: <000801c691d1$3b1df810$6401a8c0@agross> Message-ID: <20060617070137.GA26741@ofb.net> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:45:24AM -0500, Tark wrote: > determine which is best. E.g. Living in the US in some cities is > inherently more dangerous than living anywhere in the UK. Indeed, > living in Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, and some other large cities > is statistically more dangerous for 21-39 year old males than > patrolling Baghdad with the Marines. There are also culturally more But the differences hold even if we look only at whites, or at females -- in fact the cross-country difference is bigger for females than for males. > risk-takers in the US than most comparable countries; witness the > recent phenomena of extreme sports which didn't start in Europe. US The difference also holds for life expectancy at age 60. > citizens travel more frequently and longer to work than most other > countries (just an outcome of population densities) The most > comparable countries would be Russia, China, and Canada, however > Canada has a much lower death rate from violence. The other two > examples belie the argument for socialized health care. (note: I am > discounting Australia because it's largely undeveloped and > under-populated once you leave the coastlines, if you go to JPL the I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Canada is "undeveloped and under-populated" if you go 100 miles north of the US. Russia is probably under-populated in Siberia, though undeveloped overall. The US seems under-populated in much of the West -- though like Australia and Canada, the "under-" is misleading; the areas simply aren't that hospitable. Russia and China don't belie the case, anyway; no one calls for imitating them, but for Canada or France or Sweden or Australia or... rich, developed, democratic and capitalist countries, not poor underdeveloped autocracies. -xx- Damien X-) From xyz at iq.org Sat Jun 17 07:25:53 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:25:53 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: <000d01c69141$0c3c0680$0f830d0a@JPAcer> References: <000d01c69141$0c3c0680$0f830d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: <1150529153.7211.264030300@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:33:10 +0800, "Jack Parkinson" said: > started complaining that discussing the rights of women versus those > of fetuses is not a suitable topic for a transhuman list, I found it > necessary to ask the lot of you to tell me what rights are, where they > come from, and why they are in any sense "real"? > Rights are freedoms of action that if abridged result in punishment to the actors involved. If there were no people there would be no rights. Hence the Divine right of kings from the middle ages, the right way, mining rights, conjugal rights, marital rights, etc. The decision as to what should be punished and what may be ignored is political. This does not mean that rights are unimportant, but rather, that politics, (the societal control of freedom and wealth), is so important as to be more important that rights. From amara at amara.com Sat Jun 17 10:51:44 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:51:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? Message-ID: Harry: That last quote was not from Jack Parkinson but from Avantguardian. -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From amara at amara.com Sat Jun 17 11:28:04 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:28:04 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data Message-ID: spike: >Ja, we have yet to mention the health cost of our legal system. If a >doctor misses some oddball disease because she failed to order the >test for it, then she is liable for malpractice lawsuits. When I was in the States in December and needing antibiotics and a doctor visit, the doctor at the neighborhood clinic (private, walk-in, services) profusely apologized for how expensive was his visit + antibiotics. He said that if there were not the high cost malpractice lawsuits, he could charge reasonable fees for his services. My Italy private doctor treatment two weeks before that visit for the equivalent service was about ~1/3 the US private doctor cost. I don't think that malpractice suits exist here, at least I've not heard about it. (lack of legal system to support it, maybe) Amara From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Jun 17 12:39:50 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:39:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060617083850.02412008@gmu.edu> At 07:28 AM 6/17/2006, Amara Graps wrote: >When I was in the States in December and needing antibiotics and a >doctor visit, the doctor at the neighborhood clinic (private, walk-in, >services) profusely apologized for how expensive was his visit + >antibiotics. He said that if there were not the high cost malpractice >lawsuits, he could charge reasonable fees for his services. My Italy >private doctor treatment two weeks before that visit for the equivalent >service was about ~1/3 the US private doctor cost. I don't think >that malpractice suits exist here, at least I've not heard about it. >(lack of legal system to support it, maybe) That US doctor was exaggerating. "Malpractice insurance costs amount to only 3.2 percent of the average physician's revenues. " http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/National-Medical-Malpractice-Facts.cfm Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Jun 17 12:05:36 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:05:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <20060616220203.GA28766@ofb.net> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> <44930036.5010407@pobox.com> <20060616220203.GA28766@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060617074505.024bcbc8@gmu.edu> At 06:02 PM 6/16/2006, Damien Sullivan wrote: >On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > ...didn't Robin Hanson just get through presenting the evidence that > > increased healthcare spending does squat to decrease mortality? > >Did that cause anyone to decide to not go see the doctor the next >time they're sick? Will you, Eliezer, skip the doctor's >office? Will Robin refrain from taking his children there (assuming >his wife would let him)? Eliezer S. Yudkowsky responded: >It's certainly causing me to be more cautious around the prospect of surgery. Rafal Smigrodzki responded: >Eliezer ... says that the marginal spending on healthcare makes no >difference, and I heartily agree with him (and Robin). ... after >paying for vaccinations, blood pressure medications, kidney dialysis, and a few >other interventions with very good cost-to-benefit ratios, there is >a whole lot of therapies, and a humongous number of diagnostic >tests, with almost no impact on health or survival. ... based on the >observation >of my own practice patterns, this spending may account for at least >1/3 of the total spending, and could easily surpass the 50% mark. >... 1) Do go the doctor if you want to stay healthy but if you >happen to pay for it yourself, be very, very demanding about >justifications for every 1000$ that the good doc may have you spend >on his salary. As a practical matter try to raise my standard of skepticism so that I induce about 1/3 as much medical spending as I would had I not know about this data. This includes when to bother to go to the doctor, what tests to take, and what treatments to undergo. I want a strong recommendation for each test or treatment, not just "we could try this" or "this has worked in some people" or "this is what we usually do." For something large with substantial risks, I'd want to see real data for myself. I think Rafal could endorse this strategy. I do this primarily to save health, not money. I get Kaiser, the cheapest health plan my employer offers, but that pays for far more treatment than I want. I'd love for there to be enough people like me that we could get a health plan designed for us, as that should cost a lot less. Alas, the prospects for that are slim - people want to *believe* in medicine, and are scared to seem uncaring if they cut back much for their family. 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 mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Jun 17 13:54:36 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:54:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060617074505.024bcbc8@gmu.edu> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> <44930036.5010407@pobox.com> <20060616220203.GA28766@ofb.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20060617074505.024bcbc8@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <40678.72.236.103.200.1150552476.squirrel@main.nc.us> > I'd love for there to be enough people like > me that we could get a health plan designed for us, as that should > cost a lot less. Alas, the prospects for that are slim - people > want to *believe* in medicine, and are scared to seem uncaring if > they cut back much for their family. > > If you can figure out how to do this and have it cover us wherever we live, I'm very interested! Regards, MB From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Jun 17 14:04:58 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606162307j2712d6faw9b4737008e6dcded@mail.gmail.com> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> <20060617045448.GA9877@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606162307j2712d6faw9b4737008e6dcded@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <40701.72.236.103.200.1150553098.squirrel@main.nc.us> Rafal writes: > A long time ago the good government decided to punish people who want > to buy private health insurance by tax-exempting employer > contributions to health insurance, but still taxing private purchase > of health insurance at the usual rates. I feel highly discriminated against! I've been purchasing my own health insurance for more than 10 years now and every year I feel great resentment building when I remember that a business can write off this expense. But for me it's after-tax-dollars all the way. :( And then they bitch about how many don't have health insurance. Gee. I wonder why! Plus, my insurance, the cheapest I could find anywhere here, pays for much more than I am interested in. Regards, MB From amara at amara.com Sat Jun 17 14:37:15 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:37:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data Message-ID: Robin: > I'd love for there to be enough people like > me that we could get a health plan designed for us, as that should > cost a lot less. Alas, the prospects for that are slim - people > want to *believe* in medicine, and are scared to seem uncaring if > they cut back much for their family. MB: >If you can figure out how to do this and have it cover us wherever we >live, I'm very interested! Me too. Later next year when I begin to see money from my PSI position, I will either have to give up the health insurance that the other researchers have, or the administrators and I will use a different health insurance company that would be willing to cover me as a researcher living abroad. The latter seems fantastic. We don't know if such a company that can cross country borders to provide some amount of medical coverage even exists. Amara From charlie at antipope.org Sat Jun 17 15:22:18 2006 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:22:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606162144w21feb4d7g5555d6e1aa637965@mail.gmail.com> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> <44933B93.40204@pobox.com> <7641ddc60606162144w21feb4d7g5555d6e1aa637965@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 17 Jun 2006, at 05:44, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On 6/16/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >> Charlie Stross wrote: >>> >>> Oh yeah. Last time I had to go see my GP I was sitting in his >>> examining room all of five hours after I picked up the phone. I keep >>> *hearing* about the alleged one year waiting times, but I've never >>> met anyone who actually *did* have to wait a year -- or even a week >>> -- to see their GP. >> >> Thanks for the data - always good to hear from the front lines. >> > ### Seeing the GP is trivial. Ask him how long he needs to wait to see > a nuclear medicine specialist, or a neurologist. Last time I had to see a specialist in a hurry -- last February, after the kind of GP visit you *don't* want to have -- I was seen by the cardiology professor at the local teaching hospital within six hours. (And no, it wasn't a heart attack; just severe -- very severe -- hypertension.) When I needed an opthalmology consultant -- for a non-urgent checkup -- that took about five weeks. (Again: when I had an acute eye- related emergency, the delay was measured in hours.) My father had an unpleasant hospital stay a couple of years ago (bacterial endocarditis with complications), and got a CAT scan within 48 hours -- part of which delay was caused by him coming in over a weekend, and being shuffled between two consultants: not brilliant timing and management, but the resource was basically available on demand subject to the clinicians asking for it. But when my wife needed a ganglion draining, that took four months to arrange. How long you wait depends on whether the condition is acute. I'll concede that non-acute conditions -- especially annoyances that require specialist treatment from a hospital in another district (like a swollen ganglion in one wrist). For which conditions, it's possible to go private and pay ... if you really feel it's necessary. -- Charlie From riel at surriel.com Sat Jun 17 15:52:05 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:52:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060617050509.GD9877@ofb.net> References: <200606170345.k5H3jdvm015806@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060617050509.GD9877@ofb.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:33:49PM -0700, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rik van Riel > > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > > > > > > On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, spike wrote: > > > > > > > ... it is useless to preach environmental stewardship to hungry > > > > people.. > > > Rich companies and poor farmers are two examples of hungry. I use the term > > to mean more than lacking food, it also means eager to make money. > > Rich companies don't have the moral case of needing food, though. They > also have assets and thus more to lose, if someone enforces the law on > them. Rich companies also have deeper pockets than the government, which makes enforcing environmental legislation much much harder. Economics trumps politics most of the time... -- "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 amara at amara.com Sat Jun 17 16:04:06 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:04:06 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of bad probability estimation Message-ID: (this is good!) From boingboing: http://server1.sxsw.com/2006/coverage/SXSW06.INT.20060311.DanielGilbert.mp3 23MB MP3 Link Psychology of bad probability estimation: why lottos and terrorists matter "Here's the audio from a South By Southwest 2006 presentation by Harvard's Daniel Gilbert on the psychology of probability estimation. This is important stuff -- it explains why we're socially willing to commit nigh-infinite social resources to fighting terrorism, though statistically, terrorist attacks almost never happen; though we barely lift a finger to help save people from routine traffic accidents, backyard pool drownings, and asthma, which mow down our neighbors by the thousands. It explains why people buy lottery tickets. It explains a great deal about many kinds of human activity. This is both sensible and entertaining audio, and it's got a great title: "How to Do Precisely the Right Thing at All Possible Times." " -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." --Anais Nin From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Jun 17 16:04:27 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:04:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: References: <200606170345.k5H3jdvm015806@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060617050509.GD9877@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060617160427.GA24531@ofb.net> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 11:52:05AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > > Rich companies don't have the moral case of needing food, though. They > > also have assets and thus more to lose, if someone enforces the law on > > them. > > Rich companies also have deeper pockets than the government, > which makes enforcing environmental legislation much much > harder. The government has much deeper pockets (well, maybe not in the case of Brazil). The environmental part of the gov't may not have much access to the pockets, but that's a choice. As is the law, and the penalties for violating it, and for wasting the court's time in a lawsuit you should have known you'd lose... -xx- Damien X-) From brian at posthuman.com Sat Jun 17 16:07:04 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:07:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <40701.72.236.103.200.1150553098.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> <20060617045448.GA9877@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606162307j2712d6faw9b4737008e6dcded@mail.gmail.com> <40701.72.236.103.200.1150553098.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <449428A8.5040008@posthuman.com> I'm pretty sure there are various methods you and your employer can use to hold back a chunk of your earnings pre-tax and use to reimburse you tax free for your health expenses. You just need to investigate this with their help. Or use this as an excuse to start your own business :-) -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jun 17 16:33:07 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:33:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] reply attributions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606171651.k5HGpNJs027057@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ExIers, I have noticed several incorrect attributions in addition to this one. Do pay close attention to this thanks. Anna your email program seems to do something funky on attribution where it makes it somehow look like your own post is a reply to yourself. I often can't tell who wrote what. I don't know how to fix that, perhaps someone here does. I am open to suggestion here. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 3:52 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? > > Harry: That last quote was not from Jack Parkinson but from Avantguardian. > > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jun 17 17:02:25 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:02:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] reply attributions In-Reply-To: <200606171651.k5HGpNJs027057@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606171651.k5HGpNJs027057@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060617170225.GV28956@leitl.org> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 09:33:07AM -0700, spike wrote: > ExIers, I have noticed several incorrect attributions in addition to this > one. Do pay close attention to this thanks. Anna your email program seems > to do something funky on attribution where it makes it somehow look like > your own post is a reply to yourself. I often can't tell who wrote what. I > don't know how to fix that, perhaps someone here does. I am open to > suggestion here. If it's MS Outlook or Outlook Express then Quotefix is the right googlism. -- 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 Jun 17 18:11:04 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:11:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] reply attributions In-Reply-To: <200606171651.k5HGpNJs027057@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606171651.k5HGpNJs027057@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 6/17/06, spike wrote: > ExIers, I have noticed several incorrect attributions in addition to this > one. Do pay close attention to this thanks. Anna your email program seems > to do something funky on attribution where it makes it somehow look like > your own post is a reply to yourself. I often can't tell who wrote what. I > don't know how to fix that, perhaps someone here does. I am open to > suggestion here. > According to the mail header, Anna is using the Yahoo webmail client. I think the problem is that Anna is replying in HTML and is trying to hack the message about to get round this. Anna, The Extropy-chat and wta-talk lists prefer plain text messages. Go to General Preferences, and click the box to 'Compose messages in plain text'. Also click the box for 'Include full original message when replying'. Now when you click on 'Reply' you will get the Compose screen with the complete previous message indented as standard. Two more points. :) It is generally regarded as bad practice to quote the full message, so you should highlight and delete the less important parts of the message you are replying to. Yahoo webmail seems to default to top posting for your reply, so you should skip down and type your reply at the end of the message. (That's why you just deleted some of the original message. Otherwise every reader would have to skip down the whole previous message to get to your reply at the end). :) You can also interleave your comments paragraph by paragraph, if you want to split a very long reply up. Best wishes, BillK From tark at kc.rr.com Sat Jun 17 18:29:59 2006 From: tark at kc.rr.com (Tark) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:29:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] health Message-ID: <000501c6923c$0a542ea0$6401a8c0@agross> Damien, You miss the point by trying to refute, take the passion of the politics away for a moment. There are many variables in every country that make life expectancy alone an inaccurate measure of the efficacy of the health care system. There are so many variables beyond those complexities in the health care system itself that you must use multiple sets of complex data to arrive at best assessment or comparison. (think about how to measure "golden hour infrastructure effectiveness" alone) If you make the argument socialized vs free-enterprise systems, you lose real purpose and jump to a solution. Life expectancy is not just a function of health care systems, and it's specious to argue that it is. If you want to improve life expectancy, then you should look at life style, diet, location, culture, health care infrastructure, risk averseness, infrastructure, climate, and energy. To sum up, yes I would prefer health care in Canada, Sweden, or Australia to that which I might find in Los Angeles, but I wouldn't trade the health care I get where I live now near Kansas City for any of the above. If you want to live long, your personal choices are one of the biggest determinants in the equation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jun 17 19:20:56 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:20:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606171921.k5HJL82N015660@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data > > spike: > >Ja, we have yet to mention the health cost of our legal system. If a > >doctor misses some oddball disease because she failed to order the > >test for it, then she is liable for malpractice lawsuits. > > ... > doctor visit, the doctor at the neighborhood clinic (private, walk-in, > services) profusely apologized for how expensive was his visit + > antibiotics. He said that if there were not the high cost malpractice > lawsuits, he could charge reasonable fees ... Amara Ja I have long advocated a medical malpractice lawsuit structure along the following lines: the doctor's track records all become public domain, but in return they need not buy insurance or take on any liability. The patients contract privately with the insurance company: make it clear exactly what they want done, write up a contract specifying if the medic screws up in this particular way, we pay this much, etc. Both parties (patient and insurer) agree to binding arbitration by a randomly chosen member of a professional pool of judges, with full transparency. So good doctors will end up being cheaper to insure, which would bring them more business and more profit. So the feedback path is intact, enhanced even. If a patient has a record of suing for medical malpractice, then the insurance company would be wary. It makes medical insurance more like car insurance. Currently the very poor need not pay for their health costs, but rather they can hang out all day at the emergency room. In the slack times, the medics will see them free. OK arrangement seemingly, but eventually it must occur to the destitute that if the medics goof this free service, the patient can sue for millions. A lawyer will take the case for a cut of the profit, so the destitute patient is offered free medical lottery tickets. Surely this would encourage penniless but healthy patients to clog the ER and the legal system. We could do the same trick with big pharmaceutical companies: instead of suing the company, you buy insurance against a particular medication messing you up. If a particular medication is expensive to insure, it provides an instant feedback to the patient on which drugs are dangerous. We could even do the same trick with recreational drugs: let companies with actual statistics, competitive pricing structure and profit motive determine which forms of dope are dangerous and which ones not. This would work so much better than having the proletariat guess at it (as I did incorrectly on LSD a few months ago) based on sensationalized mass media coverage. Having the patients buy their own insurance would save costs all over the place. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jun 17 19:21:55 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:21:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60606171221oe80cbd7wdd3a1cf977a4e8ac@mail.gmail.com> On 6/17/06, Amara Graps wrote: > Robin: > > I'd love for there to be enough people like > > me that we could get a health plan designed for us, as that should > > cost a lot less. Alas, the prospects for that are slim - people > > want to *believe* in medicine, and are scared to seem uncaring if > > they cut back much for their family. > > MB: > >If you can figure out how to do this and have it cover us wherever we > >live, I'm very interested! > > Me too. Later next year when I begin to see money from my PSI position, > I will either have to give up the health insurance that the other > researchers have, or the administrators and I will use a different > health insurance company that would be willing to cover me as a > researcher living abroad. The latter seems fantastic. We don't know > if such a company that can cross country borders to provide some > amount of medical coverage even exists. > ### I don't know if this would be helpful to you but in general the most cost-effective form of insurance is catastrophic health insurance. In these plans you have a deductible of at least 5 000$/year, or even more, 10 - 15k, and essentially unlimited coverage above that figure. You can exercise your own judgment in spending, and this helps keep costs low. I am not sure though if there are catastrophic plans paying for coverage abroad. Rafal From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Jun 17 19:58:12 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:58:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Persuading Nazis (was: What the --blankety blank-- are rights anyway?) In-Reply-To: <20060616221728.GC28766@ofb.net> Message-ID: Amid the fury (avalanche of posts), there appears this remark by Damien S. > Your questions to Amara about the auriferous hermit or the uploadphilic > AI are similar to how I gave up on natural rights. (In my case it was > "how can I convince a Nazi they're wrong?") The argument can be made from similarity: if you show enough isomorphism between a member of an "inferior" race and the Nazi, he must gradually come to conclude that pain to the creature is similar to pain to himself. Oh, oh. Come to think of it, many otherwise reasonable people won't concede that pain to their physical *duplicates* is tantamount to pain to themselves, from an objective POV based on physics. But then, we are considering a totally *rational* Nazi (who just has beliefs that differ from ours), and---to me---totally rational philosophers :-) Lee P.S. Please drop the funny characters in #$?! in subject lines. It creates havoc with some people's spam filters. Unless, of course, you'd just rather some people not even ever see your post. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Jun 17 20:10:16 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:10:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] reply attributions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anna says she's just reading the archives, and replying from there. Thanks for explaining in more detail how she might fix that. Lee BillK wrote > According to the mail header, Anna is using the Yahoo webmail client. > > I think the problem is that Anna is replying in HTML and is trying to > hack the message about to get round this. > > Anna, > The Extropy-chat and wta-talk lists prefer plain text messages. > Go to General Preferences, and click the box to 'Compose messages in > plain text'. > Also click the box for 'Include full original message when replying'. > > Now when you click on 'Reply' you will get the Compose screen with the > complete previous message indented as standard. > > Two more points. :) > > It is generally regarded as bad practice to quote the full message, so > you should highlight and delete the less important parts of the > message you are replying to. > > Yahoo webmail seems to default to top posting for your reply, so you > should skip down and type your reply at the end of the message. > > (That's why you just deleted some of the original message. Otherwise > every reader would have to skip down the whole previous message to get > to your reply at the end). :) > > You can also interleave your comments paragraph by paragraph, if you > want to split a very long reply up. > > Best wishes, BillK From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Jun 17 20:31:57 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <449428A8.5040008@posthuman.com> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> <20060617045448.GA9877@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606162307j2712d6faw9b4737008e6dcded@mail.gmail.com> <40701.72.236.103.200.1150553098.squirrel@main.nc.us> <449428A8.5040008@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <40784.72.236.103.83.1150576317.squirrel@main.nc.us> > I'm pretty sure there are various methods you and your employer can use to > hold > back a chunk of your earnings pre-tax and use to reimburse you tax free > for your > health expenses. You just need to investigate this with their help. > If you are referring to Health Care Savings Accounts, indeed they do exist. And they are *very* specific about what kind of money is involved, what kind of insurance you must already possess, and what your employer can and must do. I didn't fit. :( Regards, MB From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Jun 17 21:15:36 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:15:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606171221oe80cbd7wdd3a1cf977a4e8ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60606171221oe80cbd7wdd3a1cf977a4e8ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <40811.72.236.103.83.1150578936.squirrel@main.nc.us> Rafal writes: >> > ### I don't know if this would be helpful to you but in general the > most cost-effective form of insurance is catastrophic health > insurance. In these plans you have a deductible of at least 5 > 000$/year, or even more, 10 - 15k, and essentially unlimited coverage > above that figure. You can exercise your own judgment in spending, and > this helps keep costs low. I am not sure though if there are > catastrophic plans paying for coverage abroad. > This is what I tried to get but it does not seem to be available in my state. Not as described. What I have has a very high deductible along with a high cost (IMHO), is widely available, and has many added features that I'm not interested in. I'd much rather lower the premium! Most frustrating. I've not found any way to get it "cut down" to the policy I want. :( Regards, MB From riel at surriel.com Sat Jun 17 21:12:12 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060617160427.GA24531@ofb.net> References: <200606170345.k5H3jdvm015806@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060617050509.GD9877@ofb.net> <20060617160427.GA24531@ofb.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 11:52:05AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > Rich companies don't have the moral case of needing food, though. They > > > also have assets and thus more to lose, if someone enforces the law on > > > them. > > > > Rich companies also have deeper pockets than the government, > > which makes enforcing environmental legislation much much > > harder. > > The government has much deeper pockets (well, maybe not in the case of > Brazil). The environmental part of the gov't may not have much access > to the pockets, but that's a choice. As is the law, and the penalties > for violating it, and for wasting the court's time in a lawsuit you > should have known you'd lose... Think of eg. border patrol. The government spreads out its forces over 8000 km of border. Even with a large number of forces, they end up being spread very thinly. Smuggling operations only need to outgun (or outsmart) the government in *one* place. It's especially difficult when you factor in that most of the area (1.5 to 2 times the size of Alaska) is covered by trees and has no roads... -- "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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Jun 17 22:02:07 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:02:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: References: <200606170345.k5H3jdvm015806@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060617050509.GD9877@ofb.net> <20060617160427.GA24531@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060617220207.GA4226@ofb.net> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 05:12:12PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > Smuggling operations only need to outgun (or outsmart) > the government in *one* place. Conversely if they get detected and heavy forces get brought in they're dead. I'd think border patrol would want easy detection and targetting, with mobile force called in, vs. a "solid" wall. > It's especially difficult when you factor in that most > of the area (1.5 to 2 times the size of Alaska) is > covered by trees and has no roads... If we're talking about preventing illegal logging and farming then that's a plus; deforestation follows roads. (And rivers, I guess, but then you patrol the rivers.) Trees block rich corporations just as well as governments. And activity can be detectable by satellite. -xx- Damien X-) From brian at posthuman.com Sat Jun 17 22:35:38 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:35:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <40784.72.236.103.83.1150576317.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> <20060617045448.GA9877@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606162307j2712d6faw9b4737008e6dcded@mail.gmail.com> <40701.72.236.103.200.1150553098.squirrel@main.nc.us> <449428A8.5040008@posthuman.com> <40784.72.236.103.83.1150576317.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <449483BA.6070200@posthuman.com> MB wrote: >> I'm pretty sure there are various methods you and your employer can use to >> hold >> back a chunk of your earnings pre-tax and use to reimburse you tax free >> for your >> health expenses. You just need to investigate this with their help. >> > > If you are referring to Health Care Savings Accounts, indeed they do > exist. And they are *very* specific about what kind of money is involved, > what kind of insurance you must already possess, and what your employer > can and must do. I didn't fit. :( > Not quite sure what you want then - HSAs are usually a high deductible generally low cost premium type of insurance, which you say you want, and the money you put into them is portable from employer to employer and can usually be spent on most kinds of health spending tax free. But there also are things called Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) and also FSAs I think, and probably other things I've never heard of. Get googling. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jun 17 23:52:46 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:52:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] immigration In-Reply-To: <20060617220207.GA4226@ofb.net> Message-ID: <200606172352.k5HNqwKi024299@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Sullivan > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 05:12:12PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > Smuggling operations only need to outgun (or outsmart) > > the government in *one* place... Ja, and with cell phones, how hard could it be? > > Conversely if they get detected and heavy forces get brought in they're > dead... -xx- Damien X-) Dead? Damien X, have you not heard of the US policy of catch and release? There is no severe price to be paid for getting caught crossing the US Mexico border. They have been talking about changing that, but I ha' me doots. spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jun 18 00:26:30 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <449483BA.6070200@posthuman.com> References: <61385.86.138.88.108.1150484050.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060616220726.GB28766@ofb.net> <0E6C82C3-FC4F-40CF-8BD3-0B9A9B24B30C@antipope.org> <20060617045448.GA9877@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606162307j2712d6faw9b4737008e6dcded@mail.gmail.com> <40701.72.236.103.200.1150553098.squirrel@main.nc.us> <449428A8.5040008@posthuman.com> <40784.72.236.103.83.1150576317.squirrel@main.nc.us> <449483BA.6070200@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <40927.72.236.103.180.1150590390.squirrel@main.nc.us> >> If you are referring to Health Care Savings Accounts, indeed they do >> exist. And they are *very* specific about what kind of money is >> involved, >> what kind of insurance you must already possess, and what your employer >> can and must do. I didn't fit. :( >> > > Not quite sure what you want then - HSAs are usually a high deductible > generally > low cost premium type of insurance, which you say you want, and the money > you > put into them is portable from employer to employer and can usually be > spent on > most kinds of health spending tax free. The difficulty is in the employer end of things. I'm not a regular full time employee anywhere, I'm part time employee and part time on my own. That knocks me out of employer healthcare. And HSA nad HRA and all the others, as far as I can tell. My accountant and I have been 'round on this before. I'm on my own, buying full cost healthcare as an individual. Boo. :( Regards, MB > > But there also are things called Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) > and > also FSAs I think, and probably other things I've never heard of. Get > googling. > -- > 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 Sun Jun 18 01:18:09 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:18:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of bad probability estimation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606180118.k5I1ILfo026311@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps ... > This is important stuff -- it explains why we're socially willing to > commit nigh-infinite social resources to fighting terrorism, though > statistically, terrorist attacks almost never happen... Amara Graps, PhD The probability of being slain by a terrorist is extraordinarily small, yet its social impact is enormous. Consider for instance the dance we do every time we get on a plane: we have our shoes examined. One man spawned an entire industry, without even successfully slaying a single infidel. Theoretical terrorism makes a compelling case for not investing in subways, because they are *inherently* difficult to defend from a terrorist. Since tunnels trap heat, one could slay a bunch of infidels with a few dollars worth of flammable liquid and a simple time delay igniter. Since one need not give one's identity to board a subway, one could get away with it without even going to meet one's 73 virgins. Looks to me like investments in subways are a waste, now and henceforth forever. Cities will develop differently knowing that mass transit via subway is impractical. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jun 18 01:23:59 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:23:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of bad probability estimation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606180135.k5I1ZScu004999@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > ... we're socially willing to > commit nigh-infinite social resources to fighting terrorism, though > statistically, terrorist attacks almost never happen... Amara Graps, PhD Ja, of course some terrorists are caught before they attack. We may not even know when terrorist attacks are thwarted, since we can imagine a lot of advantage in not publicizing them. We can also imagine fake terrorist attacks trumped up by authorities in order to justify their salaries. Consider the seventeen suspected Presbyterians with no apparent cultural connection, representing a broad spectrum of Canadian society, recently caught plotting to either blow up public buildings in Canada or take up farming: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663276/ Canadian authorities are racking their brains, struggling to imagine what could possibly have motivated these individuals. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jun 18 04:29:14 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:29:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of bad probability estimation In-Reply-To: <200606180118.k5I1ILfo026311@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200606180429.k5I4TQgh029988@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > Theoretical terrorism makes a compelling case for not investing in > subways, > because they are *inherently* difficult to defend from a terrorist. Since > tunnels trap heat, one could slay a bunch of infidels with a few dollars > worth of flammable liquid and a simple time delay igniter. Since one need > not give one's identity to board a subway, one could get away with it > without even going to meet one's 73 virgins. Looks to me like investments > in subways are a waste, now and henceforth forever. Cities will develop > differently knowing that mass transit via subway is impractical. > > spike Altho a remarkable coincidence, I wrote the above paragraph a few hours before this report showed up on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/17/subway.plot/index.html Report: Al Qaeda planned N.Y. subway attack Saturday, June 17, 2006; Posted: 11:30 p.m. EDT (03:30 GMT) Osama bin Laden's top deputy halted a plot to release a poison gas in New York's subway system "only 45 days from zero hour," according to a new book excerpted Saturday on Time magazine's Web site. Two former U.S. officials with knowledge of the terror plan confirmed to CNN on Saturday night some details from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine," but disagreed with others. One former official agreed that bin Laden's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called off the al Qaeda attack. The reason for his doing so was not made clear. Both former officials said the United States was familiar with the design of the gas-dispersal device and had passed the information to state and local officials. They disagreed with Suskind that the terrorists were thwarted within 45 days of the planned attack; the officials said the proposed timing was not that precise. "We were aware of the plot and took appropriate precautions," Paul Browne, New York City Police Department deputy commissioner, told CNN. FBI spokesman Bill Carter said no one at the agency has seen the book and had no comment. According to Time's report on the book, U.S. intelligence learned of the plot from the contents of a laptop computer belonging to a Bahraini jihadist captured in Saudi Arabia early in 2003. Terrorists had planned to disperse hydrogen-cyanide gas, which is deadly when inhaled, using a system dubbed "the mubtakkar," meaning "invention" in Arabic, the Time article says. The CIA immediately set about building a prototype based on the captured design, which had separate chambers for sodium cyanide and a stable source of hydrogen, such as hydrochloric acid. A seal between the two could be broken remotely, producing the gas for dispersal, according to Time. "In the world of terrorist weaponry," Suskind writes, "this was the equivalent of splitting the atom. Obtain a few widely available chemicals, and you could construct it with a trip to Home Depot -- and then kill everyone in the store." The device was shown to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Suskind wrote. One of the former officials who talked to CNN said officials didn't necessarily believe Suskind's reference to the device having the capability of killing "everyone in a store." "Our feeling was, it could be dangerous in a tightly sealed environment but not in a shopping mall-type environment," the official said. On the other hand, the reference to a tip about the gas-dispersion device as coming from Bahrain was true, one of the officials confirmed to CNN. But the official could not confirm whether it came from a laptop belonging to Yusef al Ayeri, bin Laden's top operative on the Arabian Peninsula. Al Ayeri was killed in a gun battle between Saudi security forces and al Qaeda militants about the time the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. Suskind quotes a CIA operative as questioning whether it was an accident that the Saudis killed the man who could expose a cell that was planning a chemical weapons attack in the United States. "The Saudis just shrugged," Time quotes the source as telling Suskind. "They said their people got a little overzealous." A mole within al Qaeda? Suskind, according to Time, writes that a "management-level" al Qaeda operative identified as "Ali" had given U.S. agents accurate tips and had believed his leaders had erred in attacking the United States on September 11, 2001. "Ali revealed that Ayeri had visited Ayman Zawahiri in January 2003 to inform him of a plot to attack the New York City subway system using cyanide gas. Several mubtakkars were to be placed in subway cars and other strategic locations," according to the Time report. "Ali did not know the precise explanation why" al-Zawahiri called off the plot, Time quoted Suskind as writing. "He just knew that Zawahiri had called them off." Meanwhile, administration officials wondered why Ali was cooperating -- and why the plot was called off, Suskind wrote, according to Time. Time magazine is owned by Time-Warner, the parent company of CNN From amara at amara.com Sun Jun 18 08:27:34 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 10:27:34 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Psychology of bad probability estimation Message-ID: spike: Please change the subject line. I posted with a quote from boingboing about a good MP3 lecture describing how people estimate probabilities, and now I find I am quoted about terrorists and the thread with the same subject line has become about Al Quaeda. Amara From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun Jun 18 08:53:18 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 04:53:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] reply attributions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060618085318.50403.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anna Replies:) Thanks, I will make sure my future posts make better sense. Sorry for any inconvenience. Anna Lee Corbin wrote: Anna says she's just reading the archives, and replying from there. Thanks for explaining in more detail how she might fix that. Lee BillK wrote > According to the mail header, Anna is using the Yahoo webmail client. > > I think the problem is that Anna is replying in HTML and is trying to > hack the message about to get round this. > > Anna, > The Extropy-chat and wta-talk lists prefer plain text messages. > Go to General Preferences, and click the box to 'Compose messages in > plain text'. > Also click the box for 'Include full original message when replying'. > > Now when you click on 'Reply' you will get the Compose screen with the > complete previous message indented as standard. > > Two more points. :) > > It is generally regarded as bad practice to quote the full message, so > you should highlight and delete the less important parts of the > message you are replying to. > > Yahoo webmail seems to default to top posting for your reply, so you > should skip down and type your reply at the end of the message. > > (That's why you just deleted some of the original message. Otherwise > every reader would have to skip down the whole previous message to get > to your reply at the end). :) > > You can also interleave your comments paragraph by paragraph, if you > want to split a very long reply up. > > Best wishes, BillK --------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail --------------------------------- Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun Jun 18 09:07:44 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 05:07:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] reply attributions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060618090744.18145.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lee, don't take an offlist discussion and make it public, I've already been there, and done that. I said I was sorry for not writing in the proper terms. Anna Lee Corbin wrote: Anna says she's just reading the archives, and replying from there. Thanks for explaining in more detail how she might fix that. Lee BillK wrote > According to the mail header, Anna is using the Yahoo webmail client. > > I think the problem is that Anna is replying in HTML and is trying to > hack the message about to get round this. > > Anna, > The Extropy-chat and wta-talk lists prefer plain text messages. > Go to General Preferences, and click the box to 'Compose messages in > plain text'. > Also click the box for 'Include full original message when replying'. > > Now when you click on 'Reply' you will get the Compose screen with the > complete previous message indented as standard. > > Two more points. :) > > It is generally regarded as bad practice to quote the full message, so > you should highlight and delete the less important parts of the > message you are replying to. > > Yahoo webmail seems to default to top posting for your reply, so you > should skip down and type your reply at the end of the message. > > (That's why you just deleted some of the original message. Otherwise > every reader would have to skip down the whole previous message to get > to your reply at the end). :) > > You can also interleave your comments paragraph by paragraph, if you > want to split a very long reply up. > > Best wishes, BillK --------------------------------- The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jun 18 14:56:14 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 09:56:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: EMAIL list FAQ & gmail [was Re: reply attributions] Message-ID: Don't (or shouldn't) we have a FAQ someplace that points out the list protocols and how to work around the various "quirks" in various email systems, particularly the common ones like Outlook, AOL, Yahoo, etc. that newbies might be using? [I've lost track of how many times over the last ~9 years I've seen "How to play nicely on the ExI list" threads. I suspect it is dozens, if not hundreds.] I would expect that as transhumanism slowly seeps into popular consciousness that the ExI list might pick up more drive-by newbies checking things out. That in turn would lead to even more "this is what you should do" messages unless people know up front the sandbox behavior rules. A more proper suggestion for Anna & others using proprietary systems is to get them off of those and onto something like Gmail (yes I know its a pain) or maybe Thunderbird. There isn't any reason why people have to remain stuck in swamps when there are open source and/or open-web alternatives that *are* available under both Linux and Windows (and almost everything else for that matter). I would note that suggestions that people use the list in text-only mode may be outdated at this point. Very few email readers remain in popular use that can't process HTML messages. (HTML to text for mail messages is *not* that hard unless the message is pseudo-spam). Robert P.S. a) Does anyone know what gmail sends out is HTML or mixed HTML+TEXT? (A quick look at the settings and a Google doesn't easily yield that information). If the messages are normally mixed does it switch to text-only if you write the message in "Plain text"? b) Is anyone else noticing a recent increase in SPAM making it through the gmail SPAM filters (it appears that the SPAMers are gaining ground on the GMAIL filter team but I'd like to know if that is just a subjective experience on my part). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jun 18 15:21:37 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 10:21:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List bounces & software [was: immigration] Message-ID: I would like to draw attention to: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Sullivan > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions Now it is entirely possible that Damien is having list problems similar to those Keith was having (which seemed to be due to strict verification requirements on incoming mail) or perhaps this is due to there being a restriction on the number of messages a user may send each day or perhaps this is due to Damien being on a restricted list. The point is *I don't know*. I posted a message a while back asking the list managers to explain precisely what software was being used and what the default settings on it are. I do not believe those questions were ever answered (:-(). If they were I would request that someone send the response to me directly. If they weren't I would like to request again that the mailing list logistics information be made public. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jun 18 15:43:57 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 10:43:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Discussion about ExI list future Message-ID: There is an interesting question one might raise given all of the recent press about nagorzinations bypassing methods put into place by reasonably wise people to prevent the abuse of woper. Should we take the ExI List off of the public "grid"? I.e. change the ExI list to a software base which uses rypencred communications on a pre-two-pre network that would be difficult for those who would like to do things like bypass the accepted methods to get access to information? One reason to consider this is that it might allow people to sleep a little easier when messages morph into a optic they doesn't want to be associated with (because we *know* that the message nnacsing software is intelligent enough to not even consider associating someone who is presumably quite rational with individuals who are significantly less so. Another possible reason is that if and when a *cough* FAI develops and starts running amok it will probably be too late to hide. One has to have the means in place to discuss how to pull the plug(s) long before they need pulling. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Jun 15 06:01:15 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:01:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Feral Cities Message-ID: <4490F7AB.2060500@mindspring.com> This was sent to me this morning. -Mike ----------------------------------- Feral cities - The New Strategic Environment Naval War College Review, Autumn, 2003 by Richard J. Norton Imagine a great metropolis covering hundreds of square miles. Once a vital component in a national economy, this sprawling urban environment is now a vast collection of blighted buildings, an immense petri dish of both ancient and new diseases, a territory where the rule of law has long been replaced by near anarchy in which the only security available is that which is attained through brute power. (1) Such cities have been routinely imagined in apocalyptic movies and in certain science-fiction genres, where they are often portrayed as gigantic versions of T. S. Eliot's Rat's Alley. (2) Yet this city would still be globally connected. It would possess at least a modicum of commercial linkages, and some of its inhabitants would have access to the world's most modern communication and computing technologies. It would, in effect, be a feral city. Admittedly, the very term "feral city" is both provocative and controversial. Yet this description has been chosen advisedly. The feral city may be a phenomenon that never takes place, yet its emergence should not be dismissed as impossible. The phrase also suggests, at least faintly, the nature of what may become one of the more difficult security challenges of the new century. Over the past decade or so a great deal of scholarly attention has been paid to the phenomenon of failing states. (3) Nor has this pursuit been undertaken solely by the academic community. Government leaders and military commanders as well as directors of nongovernmental organizations and intergovernmental bodies have attempted to deal with faltering, failing, and failed states. Involvement by the United States in such matters has run the gamut from expressions of concern to cautious humanitarian assistance to full-fledged military intervention. In contrast, however, there has been a significant lack of concern for the potential emergence of failed cities. This is somewhat surprising, as the feral city may prove as common a feature of the global landscape of the first decade of the twenty-first century as the faltering, failing, or failed state was in the last decade of the twentieth. While it may be premature to suggest that a truly feral city--with the possible exception of Mogadishu--can be found anywhere on the globe today, indicators point to a day, not so distant, when such examples will be easily found. This article first seeks to define a feral city. It then describes such a city's attributes and suggests why the issue is worth international attention. A possible methodology to identify cities that have the potential to become feral will then be presented. Finally, the potential impact of feral cities on the U.S. military, and the U.S. Navy specifically, will be discussed. DEFINITION AND ATTRIBUTES The putative "feral city" is (or would be) a metropolis with a population of more than a million people in a state the government of which has lost the ability to maintain the rule of law within the city's boundaries yet remains a functioning actor in the greater international system. (4) In a feral city social services are all but nonexistent, and the vast majority of the city's occupants have no access to even the most basic health or security assistance. There is no social safety net. Human security is for the most part a matter of individual initiative. Yet a feral city does not descend into complete, random chaos. Some elements, be they criminals, armed resistance groups, clans, tribes, or neighborhood associations, exert various degrees of control over portions of the city. Intercity, city-state, and even international commercial transactions occur, but corruption, avarice, and violence are their hallmarks. A feral city experiences massive levels of disease and creates enough pollution to qualify as an international environmental disaster zone. Most feral cities would suffer from massive urban hypertrophy, covering vast expanses of land. The city's structures range from once-great buildings symbolic of state power to the meanest shantytowns and slums. Yet even under these conditions, these cities continue to grow, and the majority of occupants do not voluntarily leave. (5) Feral cities would exert an almost magnetic influence on terrorist organizations. Such megalopolises will provide exceptionally safe havens for armed resistance groups, especially those having cultural affinity with at least one sizable segment of the city's population. The efficacy and portability of the most modern computing and communication systems allow the activities of a worldwide terrorist, criminal, or predatory and corrupt commercial network to be coordinated and directed with equipment easily obtained on the open market and packed into a minivan. The vast size of a feral city, with its buildings, other structures, and subterranean spaces, would offer nearly perfect protection from overhead sensors, whether satellites or unmanned aerial vehicles. The city's population represents for such entities a ready source of recruits and a built-in intelligence network. Collecting human intelligence against them in this environment is likely to be a daunting task. Should the city contain airport or seaport facilities, such an organization would be able to import and export a variety of items. The feral city environment will actually make it easier for an armed resistance group that does not already have connections with criminal organizations to make them. The linkage between such groups, once thought to be rather unlikely, is now so commonplace as to elicit no comment. WHAT'S NEW? But is not much of this true of certain troubled urban areas of today and of the past? It is certainly true that cities have long bred diseases. Criminal gangs have often held sway over vast stretches of urban landscape and slums; "projects" and shantytowns have long been part of the cityscape. Nor is urban pollution anything new--London was environmentally toxic in the 1960s. So what is different about "feral cities"? The most notable difference is that where the police forces of the state have sometimes opted not to enforce the rule of law in certain urban localities, in a feral city these forces will not be able to do so. Should the feral city be of special importance--for example, a major seaport or airport--the state might find it easier to negotiate power and profit-sharing arrangements with city power centers to ensure that facilities important to state survival continue to operate. For a weak state government, the ability of the feral city to resist the police forces of the state may make such negotiations the only option. In some countries, especially those facing massive development challenges, even the military would be unequal to imposing legal order on a feral city. In other, more developed states it might be possible to use military force to subdue a feral city, but the cost would be extremely high, and the operation would be more likely to leave behind a field of rubble than a reclaimed and functioning population center. Other forms of state control and influence in a feral city would also be weak, and to an unparalleled degree. In a feral city, the state's writ does not run. In fact, state and international authorities would be massively ignorant of the true nature of the power structures, population, and activities within a feral city. Yet another difference will be the level and nature of the security threat posed by a feral city. Traditionally, problems of urban decay and associated issues, such as crime, have been seen as domestic issues best dealt with by internal security or police forces. That will no longer be an option. REASONS FOR CONCERN Indeed, the majority of threats posed by a feral city would be viewed as both nontraditional and transnational by most people currently involved with national security. Chief among the nontraditional threats are the potential for pandemics and massive environmental degradation, and the near certainty that feral cities will serve as major transshipment points for all manner of illicit commodities. As has been noted, city-born pandemics are not new. Yet the toxic environment of a feral city potentially poses uniquely severe threats. A new illness or a strain of an existing disease could easily breed and mutate without detection in a feral city. Since feral cities would not be hermetically sealed, it is quite easy to envision a deadly and dangerously virulent epidemic originating from such places. As of this writing, the SARS outbreak of 2003 seems to offer an example of a city (Guangdong, China) serving as a pathogen incubator and point of origin of an intercontinental epidemic. (6) In the case of SARS, the existence of the disease was rapidly identified, the origin was speedily traced, and a medical offensive was quickly mounted. Had such a disease originated in a feral city, it is likely that this process would have been much more complicated and taken a great deal more time. As it is, numerous diseases that had been believed under control have recently mutated into much more drug-resistant and virulent forms. Globally, large cities are already placing significant environmental stress on their local and regional environments, and nowhere are these problems more pronounced than in coastal metropolises. A feral city--with minimal or no sanitation facilities, a complete absence of environmental controls, and a massive population--would be in effect a toxic-waste dump, poisoning coastal waters, watersheds, and river systems throughout their hinterlands. (7) Major cities containing ports or airfields are already trying to contend with black-market activity that ranges from evading legal fees, dues, or taxes to trafficking in illegal and banned materials. Black marketeers in a feral city would have carte blanche to ship or receive such materials to or from a global audience. (8) As serious as these transnational issues are, another threat is potentially far more dangerous. The anarchic allure of the feral city for criminal and terrorist groups has already been discussed. The combination of large profits from criminal activity and the increasing availability of all families of weapons might make it possible for relatively small groups to acquire Weapons of mass destruction. A terrorist group in a feral city with access to world markets, especially if it can directly ship material by air or sea, might launch an all but untraceable attack from its urban haven. GOING FERAL Throughout history, major cities have endured massive challenges without "going feral." How could it be determined that a city is at risk of becoming feral? What indicators might give warning? Is a warning system possible? The answer is yes. This article offers just such a model, a taxonomy consisting of twelve sets of measurements, grouped into four main categories. (9) In it, measurements representing a healthy city are "green," those that would suggest cause for concern are "yellow," and those that indicate danger, a potentially feral condition, "red." In the table below, the upper blocks in each category (column) represent positive or healthy conditions, those at the bottom unhealthy ones. The first category assesses the ability of the state to govern the city. A city "in the green" has a healthy, stable government--though not necessarily a democratically elected one. A democratic city leadership is perhaps the most desirable, but some cities governed by authoritarian regimes could be at extremely low risk of becoming feral. City governments "in the green" would be able to enact effective legislation, direct resources, and control events in all parts of the city at all times. (10) A yellow indication would indicate that city government enjoyed such authority only in portions of the city, producing what might be called "patchwork" governance, or that it exerted authority only during the day--"diurnal" governance. State authorities would be unable to govern a "red" city at all, or would govern in name only. (11) An entity within the city claiming to be an official representative of the state would simply be another actor competing for resources and power. The second category involves the city's economy. Cities "in the green" would enjoy a productive mix of foreign investment, service and manufacturing activities, and a robust tax base. Cities afforded a "yellow" rating would have ceased to attract substantial foreign investment, be marked by decaying or heavily subsidized industrial facilities, and suffer from ever-growing deficits. Cities "in the red" would have no governmental tax base. Any industrial activity within their boundaries would be limited to subsistence-level manufacturing and trade or to illegal trafficking--in smuggled materials, weapons, drugs, and so on. The third category is focused on city services. Cities with a "green" rating would not only have a complete array of essential services but would provide public education and cultural facilities to their populations. These services would be available to all sectors without distinction or bias. Cities with a yellow rating would be lacking in providing education and cultural opportunities but would be able to maintain minimal levels of public health and sanitation. Trash pickup, ambulance service, and access to hospitals would all exist. Such a city's water supply would pass minimum safety standards. In contrast, cities in the "red" zone would be unable to supply more than intermittent power and water, some not even that. Security is the subject of the fourth category. "Green" cities, while obviously not crime free, would be well regulated by professional, ethical police forces, able to respond quickly to a wide spectrum of threats. "Yellow" cities would be marked by extremely high crime rates, disregard of whole families of "minor crimes" due to lack of police resources, and criminal elements capable of serious confrontations. A "yellow" city's police force would have little regard for individual rights or legal constraints. In a "red" city, the police force has failed altogether or has become merely another armed group seeking power and wealth. Citizens must provide for their own protection, perhaps by hiring independent security personnel or paying protection to criminal organizations. A special, overarching consideration is corruption. Cities "in the green" are relatively corruption free. Scandals are rare enough to be newsworthy, and when corruption is uncovered, self-policing mechanisms effectively deal with it. Corruption in cities "in the yellow" would be much worse, extending to every level of the city administration. In yellow cities, "patchwork" patterns might reflect which portions of the city were able to buy security and services and which were not. As for "red" cities, it would be less useful to speak of government corruption than of criminal and individual opportunism, which would he unconstrained. CITY "MOSAICS" The picture of a city that emerges is a mosaic, and like an artist's mosaic it can be expected to contain more than one color. Some healthy cities function with remarkable degrees of corruption. Others, robust and vital in many ways, suffer from appalling levels of criminal activity. Even a city with multiple "red" categories is not necessarily feral--yet. It is the overall pattern and whether that pattern is improving or deteriorating over time that give the overall diagnosis. It is important to remember a diagnostic tool such as this merely produces a "snapshot" and is therefore of limited utility unless supported by trend analysis. "Patchwork" and "diurnal" situations can exist in all the categories; an urban center with an overall red rating--that is, a feral city--might boast a tiny enclave where "green" conditions prevail; quite healthy cities experience cycles of decline and improvement. Another caution concerns the categories themselves. Although useful indicators of a city's health, the boundaries are not clearly defined but can be expected to blur. The Healthy City: New York. To some it would seem that New York is an odd example of a "green" city. One hears and recalls stories of corruption, police brutality, crime, pollution, neighborhoods that resemble war zones, and the like. Yet by objective indicators (and certainly in the opinion of the majority of its citizens) New York is a healthy city and in no risk of "going feral." Its police force is well regulated, well educated, and responsive. The city is a hub of national and international investment. It generates substantial revenues and has a stable tax base. It provides a remarkable scope of services, including a wide range of educational and cultural opportunities. Does this favorable evaluation mean that the rich are not treated differently from the poor, that services and infrastructure are uniformly well maintained, or that there are no disparities of economic opportunity or race? Absolutely not. Yet despite such problems New York remains a viable municipality. The Yellow Zone: Mexico City. This sprawling megalopolis of more than twenty million continues to increase in size and population every year. It is one of the largest urban concentrations in the world. As the seat of the Mexican government, it receives a great deal of state attention. However, Mexico City is now described as an urban nightmare. (12) Mexico City's air is so polluted that it is routinely rated medically as unfit to breathe. There are square miles of slums, often without sewage or running water. Law and order is breaking down at an accelerating rate. Serious crime has doubled over the past three to four years; it is estimated that 15.5 million assaults now occur every year in Mexico City. Car-jacking and taxi-jacking have reached such epidemic proportions that visitors are now officially warned not to use the cabs. The Mexico City police department has ninety-one thousand officers--more men than the Canadian army--but graft and corruption on the force are rampant and on the rise. According to Mexican senator Adolfo Zinser, police officers themselves directly contribute to the city's crime statistics: "In the morning they are a policeman. In the afternoon they're crooks" The city's judicial system is equally corrupt. Not surprisingly, these aspects of life in Mexico City have reduced the willingness of foreign investors to send money or representatives there. (13) Johannesburg; On a Knife Edge. As in many South African cities, police in Johannesburg are waging a desperate war for control of their city, and it is not clear whether they will win. Though relatively small in size, with only 2.9 million official residents, Johannesburg nevertheless experiences more than five thousand murders a year and at least twice as many rapes. Over the last several years investors and major industry have fled the city. Many of the major buildings of the Central Business District have been abandoned and are now home to squatters. The South African National Stock Exchange has been removed to Sandton--a safer northern suburb. Police forces admit they do not control large areas of the city; official advisories warn against driving on certain thoroughfares. At night residents are advised to remain in their homes. Tourism has dried up, and conventions, once an important source of revenue, are now hosted elsewhere in the country. The city also suffers from high rates of air pollution, primarily from vehicle exhaust but also from the use of open fires and coal for cooking and heating. Johannesburg's two rivers are also considered unsafe, primarily because of untreated human waste and chemicals leaching from piles of mining dross. Mining has also contaminated much of the soil in the vicinity. Like those of many states and cities in Africa, Johannesburg's problems are exacerbated by the AIDS epidemic. Nationally it is feared the number of infected persons may reach as high as 20 percent of the population. All sectors of the economy have been affected adversely by the epidemic, including in Johannesburg. (14) Although Mexico City and Johannesburg clearly qualify for "yellow" and "red" status, respectively, it would be premature to predict that either of these urban centers will inevitably become feral. Police corruption has been an aspect of Mexico City life for decades; further, the recent transition from one political party to two and a downswing in the state economy may be having a temporarily adverse influence on the city. In the case of Johannesburg, the South African government has most definitely not given up on attempts to revive what was once an industrial and economic showplace. In both Mexico and South Africa there are dedicated men and women who are determined to eliminate corruption, clean the environment, and better the lives of the people. Yet a note of caution is appropriate, for in neither example is the trend in a positive direction. Further--and it should come as no surprise--massive cities in the developing world are at far greater risk of becoming feral than those in more developed states. Not only are support networks in such regions much less robust, but as a potentially feral city grows, it consumes progressively more resources. (15) Efforts to meet its growing needs often no more than maintain the status quo or, more often, merely slow the rate of decay of government control and essential services. All this in turn reduces the resources that can be applied to other portions of the country, and it may well increase the speed of urban hypertrophy. However, even such developed states as Brazil face the threat of feral cities. For example, in March 2003 criminal cartels controlled much of Rio de Janeiro. Rio police would not enter these areas, and in effect pursued toward them a policy of containment. (16) FERAL CITIES AND THE U.S. MILITARY Feral cities do not represent merely a sociological or urban-planning issue; they present unique military challenges. Their very size and densely built-up character make them natural havens for a variety of hostile nonstate actors, ranging from small cells of terrorists to large paramilitary forces and militias. History indicates that should such a group take American hostages, successful rescue is not likely. (17) Combat operations in such environments tend to be manpower intensive; limiting noncombatant casualties can be extraordinarily difficult. An enemy more resolute than that faced in the 2003 war with Iraq could inflict substantial casualties on an attacking force. The defense of the Warsaw ghetto in World War II suggests how effectively a conventional military assault can be resisted in this environment. Also, in a combat operation in a feral city the number of casualties from pollutants, toxins, and disease may well be higher than those caused by the enemy. These environmental risks could also affect ships operating near a feral city. Its miles-long waterfront may offer as protected and sheltered a setting for antishipping weapons as any formal coastal defense site. Furthermore, many port cities that today, with proper security procedures, would be visited for fuel and other supplies will, if they become feral, no longer be available. This would hamper diplomatic efforts, reduce the U.S. Navy's ability to show the flag, and complicate logistics and supply for forward-deployed forces. Feral cities, as and if they emerge, will be something new on the international landscape. Cities have descended into savagery in the past, usually as a result of war or civil conflict, and armed resistance groups have operated out of urban centers before. But feral cities, as such, will be a new phenomenon and will pose security threats on a scale hitherto not encountered. (18) It is questionable whether the tools, resources, and strategies that would be required to deal with these threats exist at present. But given the indications of the imminent emergence of feral cities, it is time to begin creating the means. THE HEALTH OF CITIES Government Economy Health Enacts effective Robust. Significant ("Green") legislation, directs foreign investment. resources, controls Provides goods and events in all portions services. Possesses of the city all the stabnle and adequate time. Not corrupt. tax base. Marginal Evxercises only Limited/no foreign ("Yellow") "patchwork" or investment. Subsi- "diurnal" control. dized or decaying Highly corrupt. industries and grow- ing deficits. Going Feral At best has negoti- Either local subsi- ("Red") ated zones of con- tence industries or trol; at worst does industry based on il- not exist. legal commerce. Services Security Health Complete range of Well regulated by ("Green") services, including professional, ethical educational and cul- police forces. Quick tural, available to all response to wide city residents. spectrum of requirements. Marginal Can manage mini- Little regard for le- ("Yellow") mal level of public gality/human rights. health, hospital ac- Police often matched/ cess, potable water, stymied by criminal trash disposal. "peers." Going Feral Intermittent to non- Nonexistent. Secu- ("Red") existent power and rity is attained water. Those who through private can afford ro will means or paying privately contract. protection. NOTES (1.) I am indebted to my colleague Dr. James Miskel for the "petri dish" analogy. (2.) Thomas Stern Eliot, "The Wasteland," in The New Oxford Book of English Verses: 1250-1950, ed. Helen Gardner (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 881. (3.) See, for example, James F. Miskel and Richard J. Norton, "Spotting Trouble: Identifying Faltering and Failing States," Naval War College Review 50, no. 2 (Spring 1997), pp. 79-91. (4.) Perhaps the most arbitrary component of this definition is the selection of a million inhabitants as a defining characteristic of a feral city. An earlier approach to this issue focused on megacities, cities with more than ten million inhabitants. However, subsequent research indicated that much smaller cities could also become feral, and so the population threshold was reduced. For more information on concepts of urbanization see Stanley D. Brunn, Jack P. Williams, and Donald J. Zeigler, Cities of the World: World Regional Urban Development (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), pp. 5-14. (5.) Such a pattern is already visible today. See Brunn, Williams, and Zeigler, chap. 1. (6.) "China Criticized for Dragging Feet on Outbreak," News in Science, 7 April 2003, p. 1. (7.) The issue of pollution stemming from coastal cities is well documented. For example, see chapter two of United Nations Environmental Program, Global Environmental Outlook--2000 (London: Earthscan, 2001). (8.) The profits involved in such enterprises can be staggering. For example, the profits from smuggled cigarettes in 1997 were estimated to be as high as sixteen billion dollars a year. Among the identified major smuggling centers were Naples, Italy; Hong Kong; and Bogota, Colombia. Raymond Bonner and Christopher Drew, "Cigarette Makers Are Seen as Aiding Rise in Smuggling," New York Times, 26 August 1997, C1. (9.) A similar approach was used in Miskel and Norton, cited above, for developing a taxonomy for identifying failing states. (10.) This is not to imply that such a city would be 100 percent law-abiding or that incidents of government failure could not be found. But these conditions would be the exception and not the rule. (11.) Not that this would present no complications. It is likely that states containing a feral city would not acknowledge a loss of sovereignty over the metropolis, even if this were patently the case. Such claims could pose a significant obstacle to collective international action. (12.) Transcript, PBS Newshour, "Taming Mexico City," 12 January 1999, available at www.Pbs .org/newshour/bb/latin_American/jan-jun99/ mexico [accessed 15 June 2003]. (13.) Compiled from a variety of sources, most notably "Taming Mexico City," News Hour with Jim Lehrer, transcript, 12 January 1999. (14.) Compiled from a variety of sources, including BBC reports. (15.) Brunn, Williams, and Zeigler, p. 37. (16.) Interview, Dr. Peter Liotta, with the author, Newport, R.I., 14 April 2003. (17.) While the recent successful rescue of Army Private First Class Jessica Lynch during the 2003 Iraq War demonstrates that success in such operations is not impossible, U.S. experiences with hostages in Iran, Lebanon, and Somalia would suggest failure is a more likely outcome. (18.) It is predicted that 60 percent of the world's population will live in an urban environment by the year 2030, as opposed to 47 percent in 2000. Furthermore, the majority of this growth will occur in less developed countries, especially in coastal South Asia. More than fifty-eight cities will boast populations of more than five million people. Brunn, williams, and Zeigler, pp. 9-11. Dr. Norton holds an undergraduate degree from Tulane University and a Ph.D. in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Before retiring as a commander in the U.S. Navy he served extensively a t sea in cruisers and destroyers and in a variety of political-military billets ashore. He is now a professor of national security affairs in the National Security Decision Making Department of the Naval War College. COPYRIGHT 2003 U.S. Naval War College COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group __,_._,___ -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Jun 18 16:12:16 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:12:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: EMAIL list FAQ & gmail [was Re: reply attributions] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5366105b0606180912h170eb66aof5599316d5ff175c@mail.gmail.com> I haven't seen an explicit list FAQ, but the current welcome message from GNU Mailman has at least some list-etiquette material. If you read the documentation for that program you might find much of what you want to know. I also suggest any such FAQ remind users to search tne archives before posting. On that note, I can't edit this reply's Subject line. GMail's mobile version doesn't permit it, nor will it let me edit quoted text. I mention this to point out as mobile Internet access grows cheap & common, list etiquette will need to change and make allowances for limited interfaces. OT: Anyone want to post an IF about when the first target recipient of the OLPC project subscribes to this list? Notice the abbreviations above? Keystrokes really count on mobiles! GMail's spam filters did have a rough patch in the last few weeks. This cleaned up for me about three days past. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Jun 18 16:16:04 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:16:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Discussion about ExI list future In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5366105b0606180916i2eb3b593j6239a421ae00d127@mail.gmail.com> I'd like more details, Robert, starting with a definition of "woper", please. Next, other than encryption & p2p, why not use the ExI forum? -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jun 18 19:02:46 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:02:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Discussion about ExI list future In-Reply-To: <5366105b0606180916i2eb3b593j6239a421ae00d127@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200606181902.k5IJ2w4o023584@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jay Dugger > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] META: Discussion about ExI list future > > I'd like more details, Robert, starting with a definition of "woper", > please... Jay Dugger Wikipedia has no entry for woper. Perhaps it's when Elmer Fudd competes as as a wodeo wider? spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jun 18 19:02:46 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:02:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Psychology of bad subject line discipline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606181903.k5IJ2w4q023584@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Oops OK. {8-] That MP3 lecture does mention terrorism, but I see your point. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 1:28 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Psychology of bad probability estimation > > spike: > Please change the subject line. I posted with a quote from boingboing > about a good MP3 lecture describing how people estimate probabilities, and > now I find I am quoted about terrorists and the thread with the > same subject line has become about Al Quaeda. > > Amara From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jun 18 19:02:46 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:02:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: EMAIL list FAQ & gmail [was Re: replyattributions] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606181903.k5IJ2w4p023584@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury ... b) Is anyone else noticing a recent increase in SPAM making it through the gmail SPAM filters (it appears that the SPAMers are gaining ground on the GMAIL filter team but I'd like to know if that is just a subjective experience on my part)... Robert I don't know how those things are getting thru. I have half a mind to have us all pose as gullible newbies hoping to plunder 20 million dollars from Nigerian royalty, let them use up hundreds of hours on canned replies from us, then all on the same day have us all post to the silly perp explaining to her what a gullible idiot she is, muahaaaahahaahahahahahahaaaa. }8-] {8^D spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jun 18 20:01:19 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:01:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Discussion about ExI list future In-Reply-To: <200606181902.k5IJ2w4o023584@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5366105b0606180916i2eb3b593j6239a421ae00d127@mail.gmail.com> <200606181902.k5IJ2w4o023584@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <41361.72.236.103.207.1150660879.squirrel@main.nc.us> >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jay Dugger >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] META: Discussion about ExI list future >> >> I'd like more details, Robert, starting with a definition of "woper", >> please... Jay Dugger > > Read the post again. Many words are odd, read them and fix them! :) woper = power etc. Regards, MB From riel at surriel.com Sun Jun 18 20:31:24 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:31:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <20060617220207.GA4226@ofb.net> References: <200606170345.k5H3jdvm015806@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060617050509.GD9877@ofb.net> <20060617160427.GA24531@ofb.net> <20060617220207.GA4226@ofb.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 05:12:12PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > Smuggling operations only need to outgun (or outsmart) > > the government in *one* place. > > Conversely if they get detected and heavy forces get brought in they're > dead. I'd think border patrol would want easy detection and targetting, > with mobile force called in, vs. a "solid" wall. OK, so a band of smugglers is detected and the border patrol radios for help, because the local forces are not strong enough. An hour later, there's a helicopter overhead. ... now, where did the bad guys go? > > It's especially difficult when you factor in that most > > of the area (1.5 to 2 times the size of Alaska) is > > covered by trees and has no roads... > > If we're talking about preventing illegal logging and farming then > that's a plus; deforestation follows roads. (And rivers, I guess, but > then you patrol the rivers.) Trees block rich corporations just as well > as governments. And activity can be detectable by satellite. Deforestation is indeed easier to deal with, though even here the lack of realtime enforcement is an issue. Satellite and military aircraft are the main ways the Amazon area gets patrolled. -- "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 transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Jun 18 21:41:12 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:41:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Robosapien" on Science Channel tonight Message-ID: <4495C878.5090507@goldenfuture.net> http://science.discovery.com/tvlistings/episode.jsp?episode=0&cpi=118293&gid=0&channel=SCI "From the early days of Dr. Jose Delgado to the ground breaking work of Dr. Phil Kennedy, this film will closely examine the technologies that give hope to the disabled, allowing them to push beyond their limits and realize their potential." Repeats a couple times tomorrow, too. Looks very interesting. Best quote from the commercial: "I was born human. I'll die a cyborg." Joseph From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jun 18 22:38:02 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:38:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of bad probability estimation In-Reply-To: <200606180118.k5I1ILfo026311@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606180118.k5I1ILfo026311@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <10F92890-0661-4742-8FDE-C2713120E300@mac.com> Changing our plans, even for mass transit, for what you yourself admit is a extraordinarily small possibility does not strike me as reasonable. Can this society get off the Fear drug and get on with life again? I fervently hope so. It is certainly not possible to eliminate or guard against all that we may fear will do us harm. Many current aspects of the very effort do us harm. - samantha On Jun 17, 2006, at 6:18 PM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > ... >> This is important stuff -- it explains why we're socially willing to >> commit nigh-infinite social resources to fighting terrorism, though >> statistically, terrorist attacks almost never happen... Amara >> Graps, PhD > > > The probability of being slain by a terrorist is extraordinarily > small, yet > its social impact is enormous. Consider for instance the dance we > do every > time we get on a plane: we have our shoes examined. One man > spawned an > entire industry, without even successfully slaying a single infidel. > > Theoretical terrorism makes a compelling case for not investing in > subways, > because they are *inherently* difficult to defend from a > terrorist. Since > tunnels trap heat, one could slay a bunch of infidels with a few > dollars > worth of flammable liquid and a simple time delay igniter. Since > one need > not give one's identity to board a subway, one could get away with it > without even going to meet one's 73 virgins. Looks to me like > investments > in subways are a waste, now and henceforth forever. Cities will > develop > differently knowing that mass transit via subway is impractical. > > spike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jun 18 22:42:45 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:42:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of bad probability estimation In-Reply-To: <200606180429.k5I4TQgh029988@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606180429.k5I4TQgh029988@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4C9E3F3F-076B-4532-86FE-D57461696A05@mac.com> I don't know what to make of this "news". When what is happening comes second hand in a book that some anonymous "officials" say is partly true then it is difficult to know what is real or be an informed citizen of this supposed democracy. - samantha On Jun 17, 2006, at 9:29 PM, spike wrote: > >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > ... >> Theoretical terrorism makes a compelling case for not investing in >> subways, >> because they are *inherently* difficult to defend from a >> terrorist. Since >> tunnels trap heat, one could slay a bunch of infidels with a few >> dollars >> worth of flammable liquid and a simple time delay igniter. Since >> one need >> not give one's identity to board a subway, one could get away with it >> without even going to meet one's 73 virgins. Looks to me like >> investments >> in subways are a waste, now and henceforth forever. Cities will >> develop >> differently knowing that mass transit via subway is impractical. >> >> spike > > > Altho a remarkable coincidence, I wrote the above paragraph a few > hours > before this report showed up on CNN: > > http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/17/subway.plot/index.html > > > Report: Al Qaeda planned N.Y. subway attack > > Saturday, June 17, 2006; Posted: 11:30 p.m. EDT (03:30 GMT) > > Osama bin Laden's top deputy halted a plot to release a poison gas > in New > York's subway system "only 45 days from zero hour," according to a > new book > excerpted Saturday on Time magazine's Web site. > > Two former U.S. officials with knowledge of the terror plan > confirmed to CNN > on Saturday night some details from Pulitzer Prize-winning > journalist Ron > Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine," but disagreed with others. > > One former official agreed that bin Laden's second-in-command, Ayman > al-Zawahiri, called off the al Qaeda attack. The reason for his > doing so was > not made clear. > > Both former officials said the United States was familiar with the > design of > the gas-dispersal device and had passed the information to state > and local > officials. > > They disagreed with Suskind that the terrorists were thwarted > within 45 days > of the planned attack; the officials said the proposed timing was > not that > precise. > > "We were aware of the plot and took appropriate precautions," Paul > Browne, > New York City Police Department deputy commissioner, told CNN. > > FBI spokesman Bill Carter said no one at the agency has seen the > book and > had no comment. > > According to Time's report on the book, U.S. intelligence learned > of the > plot from the contents of a laptop computer belonging to a Bahraini > jihadist > captured in Saudi Arabia early in 2003. > > Terrorists had planned to disperse hydrogen-cyanide gas, which is > deadly > when inhaled, using a system dubbed "the mubtakkar," meaning > "invention" in > Arabic, the Time article says. > > The CIA immediately set about building a prototype based on the > captured > design, which had separate chambers for sodium cyanide and a stable > source > of hydrogen, such as hydrochloric acid. A seal between the two > could be > broken remotely, producing the gas for dispersal, according to Time. > > "In the world of terrorist weaponry," Suskind writes, "this was the > equivalent of splitting the atom. Obtain a few widely available > chemicals, > and you could construct it with a trip to Home Depot -- and then kill > everyone in the store." > > The device was shown to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, > Suskind > wrote. > > One of the former officials who talked to CNN said officials didn't > necessarily believe Suskind's reference to the device having the > capability > of killing "everyone in a store." > > "Our feeling was, it could be dangerous in a tightly sealed > environment but > not in a shopping mall-type environment," the official said. > > On the other hand, the reference to a tip about the gas-dispersion > device as > coming from Bahrain was true, one of the officials confirmed to > CNN. But the > official could not confirm whether it came from a laptop belonging > to Yusef > al Ayeri, bin Laden's top operative on the Arabian Peninsula. > > Al Ayeri was killed in a gun battle between Saudi security forces > and al > Qaeda militants about the time the United States invaded Iraq in > March 2003. > > > Suskind quotes a CIA operative as questioning whether it was an > accident > that the Saudis killed the man who could expose a cell that was > planning a > chemical weapons attack in the United States. > > "The Saudis just shrugged," Time quotes the source as telling > Suskind. "They > said their people got a little overzealous." > > A mole within al Qaeda? > Suskind, according to Time, writes that a "management-level" al Qaeda > operative identified as "Ali" had given U.S. agents accurate tips > and had > believed his leaders had erred in attacking the United States on > September > 11, 2001. > > "Ali revealed that Ayeri had visited Ayman Zawahiri in January 2003 to > inform him of a plot to attack the New York City subway system > using cyanide > gas. Several mubtakkars were to be placed in subway cars and other > strategic > locations," according to the Time report. > > "Ali did not know the precise explanation why" al-Zawahiri called > off the > plot, Time quoted Suskind as writing. "He just knew that Zawahiri > had called > them off." > > Meanwhile, administration officials wondered why Ali was > cooperating -- and > why the plot was called off, Suskind wrote, according to Time. > > Time magazine is owned by Time-Warner, the parent company of CNN > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jun 18 23:03:55 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:03:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway? In-Reply-To: <20060616221728.GC28766@ofb.net> References: <20060615212032.GA4422@ofb.net> <20060616214716.10910.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> <20060616221728.GC28766@ofb.net> Message-ID: On Jun 16, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 02:47:16PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > >> I am hoping that there might be something superior to >> social contract theory. Especially since as you say it >> does not protect minorities from majorities. Also it >> does not speak to the cause of individuals apart from >> society. What if for example we are speaking of a >> hermit? Or a unique non-human entity (the first AGI or > > Millennia of thought have failed to come up with a superior > alternative; > in fact, there seems to be a marked convergence to social contract or > utilitarianism among materialists, and with the latter there's the > question of one why should care about everyone else's utility. I have a suspicion that a quite benign ethics becomes a necessity for a species (and its created intelligences) to survive the technology bloom to and through Singularity. If so then this would be a sort of ultimate utility criteria. > > Your questions to Amara about the auriferous hermit or the > uploadphilic > AI are similar to how I gave up on natural rights. (In my case it was > "how can I convince a Nazi they're wrong?") Not only do I see no > answer, I fail to see how absolute rights can be relevant. Say > someone > proves that the hermit has a right to the gold -- so what? What > prevents you from killing him anyway? What prevents the AI from > uploading Amara no matter what argument she makes? Nothing. > What kind of world do you want to live in? Would you prefer a world where only your vigilance and self-defense capabilities protect you? Would the AI prefer a world where it fears advancement it does not control lest a more advanced model use it for scrap? > Rights without consequences seem pointless. Note that theistic > doctrines promised consequences, even if those were vague or > untestable: > Heaven, Hell, karma, general forture or misfortune. Having stripped > away the supernatural, naturalists have to back up the rights they > assert by real force or incentives. Karma is not particularly theistic. In point of fact we do make relative heaven or hell for ourselves and one another right here in the good old natural world. We do sow consequences that we or others reap. With more technology at our disposal I suspect we will do so much more efficiently and thoroughly. I do not see where only force or incentives can be used to come up with a workable system of ethics. Our own best interest and survival is the ultimate incentive. > >> ET)? Is the fact that ET is not part of "society" mean >> that we can dissect him? > > Of course we *can*. Do we want to? Do we want to be that kind of > people, or tell our children we did that, or hide that sort of > thing as > a secret? Do we fear he came from a greater society which might get > pissed off if it finds out? > Exactly. - samantha From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jun 18 23:17:29 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:17:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <10F92890-0661-4742-8FDE-C2713120E300@mac.com> Message-ID: <200606182317.k5INHcaU021339@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Psychology of bad probability estimation > > Changing our plans, even for mass transit, for what you yourself > admit is a extraordinarily small possibility does not strike me as > reasonable... Regardless of the truth of this report, subways are inherently vulnerable to gas attacks as the Japanese found out on 20 March 1995. First time such an attack is attempted in the US, passenger levels will drop off steeply and permanently, then the entire system is no longer commercially viable. It is a bad investment because of the inherent risk even today. Does anyone here think that terrorism will quietly go away? Who thinks that terrorism will stay as it is now: an occasional successful attack with many more planned attacks caught before they can be carried out? Who here thinks that terrorism will escalate? I think that it will escalate, don't know how much, and that subways and freeway tunnels are the logical target. > Can this society get off the Fear drug and get on with > life again? We are on with life again. > It is certainly not possible to > eliminate or guard against all that we may fear will do us harm...-samantha Ja we cannot reasonably guard against all possible attacks, but we can invest according to our best estimate of risk. I am suggesting that vulnerable stuff like subways are a bad investment with current technology. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jun 19 02:17:02 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:17:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <200606182317.k5INHcaU021339@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606182317.k5INHcaU021339@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Jun 18, 2006, at 4:17 PM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Psychology of bad probability estimation >> >> Changing our plans, even for mass transit, for what you yourself >> admit is a extraordinarily small possibility does not strike me as >> reasonable... > > > Regardless of the truth of this report, subways are inherently > vulnerable to > gas attacks as the Japanese found out on 20 March 1995. First time > such an > attack is attempted in the US, passenger levels will drop off > steeply and > permanently, then the entire system is no longer commercially > viable. It is > a bad investment because of the inherent risk even today. > > Does anyone here think that terrorism will quietly go away? That which we pay inordinate attention to and center our lives and country around certainly will not got away. "You get more of what you pay attention to" has an unfortunate amount of truth to it when much of what we do in name of "the war on terror" results in more of the very policies that engender more terrorism. Terrorism cannot be successfully fought without holding everyone and everything in suspicion forever. This is no "success". Terrorism is also an excuse for much the US (and others) wanted to do in any case. If you want terrorism to go away then end the circumstances that fuel it. Nothing else will do. > Who thinks that > terrorism will stay as it is now: an occasional successful attack > with many > more planned attacks caught before they can be carried out? Who > here thinks > that terrorism will escalate? It will escalate if we continue as we are now. But the fear and paranoia will escalate much faster. > > I think that it will escalate, don't know how much, and that > subways and > freeway tunnels are the logical target. > >> Can this society get off the Fear drug and get on with >> life again? > > We are on with life again. No, we are not. We are in an unending war and will justify all matter of evil to support it. - samantha From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jun 19 03:11:02 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:11:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606190322.k5J3MnVd010951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... > > Does anyone here think that terrorism will quietly go away? > > That which we pay inordinate attention to and center our lives and > country around certainly will not go away. So we can somehow ignore it away? ... > > If you want terrorism to go away then end the circumstances that fuel > it. Nothing else will do... Doesn't sound to me like that will do either. Canada did nothing to fuel terrorism that I can see. Did they? I didn't see any indication that the Canadian terrorists were blaming Israel or the US for anything. They were specifically going after Canada for some odd reason. I admit I am puzzled. Perhaps it is all fake. > > ...Who here thinks that terrorism will escalate? > > It will escalate if we continue as we are now. But the fear and > paranoia will escalate much faster... Ja I can imagine the Canadians feeling a rising paranoia. Perhaps they are struggling to understand why suddenly everyone hates them. To these Canadians I say: get over it, everyone doesn't hate you. > >> Can this society get off the Fear drug and get on with > >> life again? > > > > We are on with life again. > > No, we are not. We are in an unending war and will justify all > matter of evil to support it. - samantha Perhaps I should have spoken for myself only. I am on with my life again. I ran across an interesting essay that was written for the German(?) news agency Spiegel Online by Flemming Rose, the Danish editor that published the infamous cartoons: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,418930,00.html spike From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon Jun 19 05:53:10 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:53:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to build a Babel fish Message-ID: <44963BC6.50204@mindspring.com> [Comments near the end of the article cite the validity of the Voynich manuscript.] < http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7001819 > Technology Quarterly How to build a Babel fish Jun 8th 2006 >From The Economist print edition Translation software: The science-fiction dream of a machine that understands any language is getting slowly closer IT IS arguably the most useful gadget in the space-farer's toolkit. In "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", Douglas Adams depicted it as a "small, yellow and leech-like" fish, called a Babel fish, that you stick in your ear. In "Star Trek", meanwhile, it is known simply as the Universal Language Translator. But whatever you call it, there is no doubting the practical value of a device that is capable of translating any language into another. <>Remarkably, however, such devices are now on the verge of becoming a reality, thanks to new "statistical machine translation" software. Unlike previous approaches to machine translation, which relied upon rules identified by linguists which then had to be tediously hand-coded into software, this new method requires absolutely no linguistic knowledge or expert understanding of a language in order to translate it. And last month researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh began work on a machine that they hope will be able to learn a new language simply by getting foreign speakers to talk into it and perhaps, eventually, by watching television. Within the next few years there will be an explosion in translation technologies, says Alex Waibel, director of the International Centre for Advanced Communication Technology, which is based jointly at the University of Karlsruhe in Germany and at CMU. He predicts there will be real-time automatic dubbing, which will let people watch foreign films or television programmes in their native languages, and search engines that will enable users to trawl through multilingual archives of documents, videos and audio files. And, eventually, there may even be electronic devices that work like Babel fish, whispering translations in your ear as someone speaks to you in a foreign tongue. This may sound fanciful, but already a system has been developed that can translate speeches or lectures from one language into another, in real time and regardless of the subject matter. The system required no programming of grammatical rules or syntax. Instead it was given a vast number of speeches, and their accurate translations (performed by humans) into a second language, for statistical analysis. One of the reasons it works so well is that these speeches came from the United Nations and the European Parliament, where a broad range of topics are discussed. "The linguistic knowledge is automatically extracted from these huge data resources," says Dr Waibel. "Most of the time, the languages that translation researchers deal with in their laboratories are so unfamiliar that they may as well be alien." Statistical translation encompasses a range of techniques, but what they all have in common is the use of statistical analysis, rather than rigid rules, to convert text from one language into another. Most systems start with a large bilingual corpus of text. By analysing the frequency with which clusters of words appear in close proximity in the two languages, it is possible to work out which words correspond to each other in the two languages. This approach offers much greater flexibility than rule-based systems, since it translates languages based on how they are actually used, rather than relying on rigid grammatical rules which may not always be observed, and often have exceptions. Examples abound of the ridiculous results produced by rule-based systems, which are unable to cope in the face of similes, ambiguities or bad grammar. In one example, a sentence written in Arabic meaning "The White House confirmed the existence of a new bin Laden tape" was translated using a standard rule-based translator and became "Alpine white new presence tape registered for coffee confirms Laden." So it is hardly surprising that researchers in the field have migrated towards statistical translation in the past few years, says Dr Waibel. Now you're speaking my language The statistical approach, which starts off without any linguistic knowledge of a language, might seem a strange way of doing things, but it is actually remarkably similar to the way humans attempt to translate languages, says Shou-de Lin, a machine-translation expert who was until recently a researcher at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI). "It looks at the script and bunches symbols together," he explains, much as a human mind might try to solve the problem. But in order for this approach to work, the voracious translation systems must be fed with huge numbers of training texts. This prompted Franz Och, Google's machine-translation expert, to boast recently that the search-engine giant would probably have a key role in the future of machine translation, since it has such a huge repository of text. Translation systems are of limited use if they cannot be used by people on the move, such as tourists looking for a restaurant or soldiers talking to local people in a war zone. So what is on the cards to replace the good old-fashioned phrasebook? In the past couple of years the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an American military research body, has been testing a number of projects that cram a combination of speech-recognition, machine-translation and voice-synthesis software into a handheld device. One of these projects, developed at CMU and called Babylon, can now perform two-way translations between spoken English and Iraqi Arabic. From Babylon to Babel fish This is a huge improvement on the earlier one-way text-based translators used by American soldiers, says Alan Black, one of the researchers involved in the development of Babylon. For one thing, Iraqis can respond in their native language, rather than communicating through nods and shakes of the head, he says. Better still, Babylon is capable of translating completely novel sentences, rather than being limited to only a couple of hundred set phrases, as with the earlier systems. It is still far from perfect, says Dr Black. But that is hardly surprising given the limited processing power of a hand-held computer. By comparison, the hardware used to run the lecture translator looks almost like a supercomputer, he says. The trade-off is that these hand-held systems tend to be "domain specific"--that is, they work well as long as the conversation is limited to a particular topic. The next phase of the project, says Dr Black, will be to allow portable translation devices to be trained in the field. The idea is that when a traveller encounters people speaking a new language that is unknown by the translation device, it can be trained by exposing the software to lots of chatter. In theory, once a language model has been acquired, you could just leave the device in training mode in front of the television, although it would probably be preferable to find some bilingual people and ask them to repeat set phrases containing a lot of linguistic information, says Dr Black. Learning a new language from scratch, as humans can, is far more difficult than statistical translation using parallel texts. But since the number of high-quality parallel texts is limited, particularly for more obscure languages, a lot of effort is now being put into the development of statistical translation systems that can manage without them. Instead, the aim is to use statistical techniques to divine the language's inherent structure, and then to work out what particular words mean. If this could be done, of course, it would open the way to a universal translator. How far can machine translators be taken? "There is no reason why they should not become as good, if not better, than humans," says Dr Waibel. Indeed, Dr Lin and his colleague Kevin Knight at ISI have been applying statistical translation techniques to try to make sense of ancient hieroglyphics and scriptures that have baffled scholars for centuries. One example is a 15th-century work known as the Voynich manuscript, which is written in an unknown and mysterious language. Its length, of around 20,000 words, and the regular patterns in its syntax, mean it is unlikely to be a hoax, says Dr Knight. One theory is that it was written in a known language but using a novel alphabet. Some people have suggested that it is actually written in a form of ancient Ukrainian in which vowels are omitted. Dr Knight has used a statistical-translation program to debunk this theory by showing that the order and frequencies of symbols do not match those in Ukrainian. This was not particularly surprising, says Dr Knight, because most scholars now reject the Ukrainian theory. But it was a small victory for him, because it let him test his translation software on the closest thing he could get to an alien language. "We wanted to translate documents that had never been seen before," he says. Provided there is some common frame reference in the subject matter, there is no reason why translating an alien language should not eventually be possible, says Dr Waibel. Most of the time, the languages that machine-translation researchers deal with in their laboratories are so unfamiliar that they may as well be alien, he says. "As a joke, one of the students built a Klingon translator," he says, referring to the fictional alien language in "Star Trek". But perhaps the best way to practice translating an alien language would be to try to communicate with dolphins, says Dr Black. By using statistical translation programs to analyse the chirps, clicks and whistles of wild dolphins off the coast of the Bahamas, he and his colleagues believe it may be possible to make sense of what the dolphins are saying. The challenge here lies in both capturing good samples and also identifying "words". Only then can the structure and frequency be analysed, he says. So far, Dr Black and his team have managed to identify only signature whistles, the calls that dolphins use to identify themselves. But Douglas Adams's suggestion that fish-like creatures might provide the key to understanding alien languages might turn out to be true after all. -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jun 19 06:39:00 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:39:00 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60606162159q1282b84fh333f515098edded7@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net> <20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net> <4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com> <20060616190245.GB26853@ofb.net> <7641ddc60606162159q1282b84fh333f515098edded7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060619063900.GQ28956@leitl.org> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:59:19AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > The poor in the US have a better access to medicine > than regular Germans have. Hm. Strikes me as unlikely. Can you back this up with actual data? -- 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 mark at permanentend.org Mon Jun 19 13:20:20 2006 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:20:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Draft Paper on Boredom and Superlongevity References: <20060616053223.GA19905@ofb.net><20060616162333.GA5571@ofb.net><4323CD7C-349E-4C77-BED5-99330588B153@ceruleansystems.com><20060616190245.GB26853@ofb.net><7641ddc60606162159q1282b84fh333f515098edded7@mail.gmail.com> <20060619063900.GQ28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <0af901c693a3$1e6ab5e0$9a00a8c0@old> I've put an early draft of a paper here: www.permanentend.org/walker/Boredom.html As usual, comments welcome. Below is the abstract: Abstract: 'Superlongevity' may be thought of as doubling (or more) the human lifespan through the use of technology. Critics have argued that superlongevity will inevitably lead to boredom, while proponents have denied this claim. Rather than attempting to resolve the debate through theoretical speculation, I argue that allowing persons to become superlongevitists can be construed as an experiment to decide this issue. Further, the moral benefits of conducting the experiment greatly outweigh the moral costs of not running the experiment. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jun 19 13:56:37 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:56:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <200606182317.k5INHcaU021339@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <10F92890-0661-4742-8FDE-C2713120E300@mac.com> <200606182317.k5INHcaU021339@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060619135637.GZ28956@leitl.org> On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 04:17:29PM -0700, spike wrote: > Does anyone here think that terrorism will quietly go away? Who thinks that Which terrorism? Statistically, there is no terrorism. > terrorism will stay as it is now: an occasional successful attack with many > more planned attacks caught before they can be carried out? Who here thinks What makes you think there are many credible attacks caught for each successful one? (I personally think the ratio is way worse than 1:1, and a determined attacker will not be detected in time). > that terrorism will escalate? I personally wouldn't start worrying yet. > I think that it will escalate, don't know how much, and that subways and > freeway tunnels are the logical target. Chemical weapons are not that interesting. You need a lot of them, weaponized properly, and they don't do that much of a damage. > Ja we cannot reasonably guard against all possible attacks, but we can > invest according to our best estimate of risk. I am suggesting that I agree! Let's commit resources to combat the greatest killers: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html > vulnerable stuff like subways are a bad investment with current technology. I think your risk perception is quite askew. (Having this said, I personally wouldn't want to live/work in Manhattan, which has black swan landing place written all over 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 james.hughes at trincoll.edu Mon Jun 19 15:30:06 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:30:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Health data Message-ID: > > The poor in the US have a better access to medicine than regular > > Germans have. > > Hm. Strikes me as unlikely. > Can you back this up with actual data? Indeed, there is no evidence for that statement. For instance in this recent comparative study: MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: AN UPDATE ON THE QUALITY OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE THROUGH THE PATIENT'S LENS Karen Davis, Cathy Schoen, Stephen C. Schoenbaum, Anne-Marie J. Audet, Michelle M. Doty, Alyssa L. Holmgren, and Jennifer L. Kriss The Commonwealth Fund April 2006 http://www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/Davis_mirrormirror_915.pdf Germany outperformed the US in timeliness of care, efficiency of care, equitable access to care, patient safety and "patient-centeredness." In fact the US scored worse of the six nations studied (Australia, Canada, Germany, NZ, UK, USA) on four of the six measures. OECD studies of waiting times in the US and Germany do not support the notion that Germans wait longer for care either. ---------------------------------------- James J. Hughes Ph.D. Lecturer, Public Policy Williams 229B, Trinity College 300 Summit St. Hartford CT 06106 860-297-2376 james.hughes at trincoll.edu From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jun 19 16:54:36 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:54:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <200606182317.k5INHcaU021339@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <10F92890-0661-4742-8FDE-C2713120E300@mac.com> <200606182317.k5INHcaU021339@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0606190954n72cb0059q4bd09eb9f2ec565a@mail.gmail.com> On 6/19/06, spike wrote: > > Ja we cannot reasonably guard against all possible attacks, but we can > invest according to our best estimate of risk. I am suggesting that > vulnerable stuff like subways are a bad investment with current > technology. > This is ridiculous. What are you going to do, let fear of terrorism convince you to start driving to work instead of taking the subway? How many people have terrorists killed in the last few years? A handful of thousands. How many people have road accidents killed in the last few years? Hundreds of thousands. Our Cro-Magnon brains are programmed to respond emotionally to violent deaths out of all proportion to their actual numbers; we can't help that. But now that we know the reason for this programming, we know why the reaction is irrational in today's world and in this case we even have hard data directing us to the correct conclusion, we can refrain from letting our programming dictate a self-destructive course of action. Come on, Spike, you know all this. Extropy-chat is a list for rationalists, and rationality is about letting our beliefs and actions be dictated by reality. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 16:57:06 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Discussion about ExI list future In-Reply-To: <200606181902.k5IJ2w4o023584@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060619165707.86394.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jay Dugger > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] META: Discussion about > ExI list future > > > > I'd like more details, Robert, starting with a > definition of "woper", > > please... Jay Dugger > > > Wikipedia has no entry for woper. Perhaps it's when > Elmer Fudd competes as > as a wodeo wider? Nope. It is power hastily written. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jun 19 17:46:59 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:46:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Discussion about ExI list future In-Reply-To: <20060619165707.86394.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200606181902.k5IJ2w4o023584@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060619165707.86394.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 6/19/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > Nope. It is power hastily written. It wasn't "hastily" written. I actually devoted some mental energy to the recative llesping to make it a little more difficult for the pumcoters that might be reading my writings to flag them as "erestinting". Zheesh... And I thought this was the Extropians list. And in answer to Jay's question I'd simply suggest that one read the message from the perspective of the problem the various agendas of all of the various subscribers to the list (as well as those in stealth mode or those who may be reading the list but are not even subscribed). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 18:44:16 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of bad probability estimation In-Reply-To: <10F92890-0661-4742-8FDE-C2713120E300@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060619184416.49539.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > Changing our plans, even for mass transit, for what > you yourself > admit is a extraordinarily small possibility does > not strike me as > reasonable. Can this society get off the Fear drug > and get on with > life again? I fervently hope so. It is certainly > not possible to > eliminate or guard against all that we may fear will > do us harm. > Many current aspects of the very effort do us harm. Agreed. God forbid we learn to trust our fellow man when he is not looking down the barrel of a gun. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jun 19 20:10:24 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:10:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Discussion about ExI list future In-Reply-To: References: <200606181902.k5IJ2w4o023584@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060619165707.86394.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 6/19/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > It wasn't "hastily" written. I actually devoted some mental energy to the > recative llesping to make it a little more difficult for the pumcoters that > might be reading my writings to flag them as "erestinting". > > Zheesh... And I thought this was the Extropians list. > > And in answer to Jay's question I'd simply suggest that one read the message > from the perspective of the problem the various agendas of all of the > various subscribers to the list (as well as those in stealth mode or those > who may be reading the list but are not even subscribed). > It has been estimated that English is about 75% redundant. i.e. If you remove three out of four letters in a text, it will still be understandable. (By native English speakers). Like the abbreviations the kids use for text messages. Some now have difficulty writing 'real' English. Or just remove all the vowels. Still understandable, though with occasional possible errors, which the context usually corrects. 'Water' or 'Waiter' ?? Like Ancient Hebrew was written with no vowels. Leading to some debatable interpretations when the insertion of different vowels produced different words. Especially as scholars cannot easily enter the environment and mindset of the ancient Hebrews. One possible reason for writing like this is that different tribes (families) in different areas pronounced the vowels with different accents. Just as Scottish, English and American regional accents differ nowadays. So different tribes could read the text without vowels, understand it and speak it in their own regional accent. Hebrew added to the confusion by not putting any spaces between words. Making it even more challenging for modern scholars. Btwrtngwthtvwlsndspcscnstllbndrstd. :) BillK From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue Jun 20 01:04:54 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:04:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Enigmatic object baffles supernova team Message-ID: <1FE82825-0C24-4994-A255-4B3F0C5C2B01@ceruleansystems.com> Here is something interesting: http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9360-enigmatic-object- baffles-supernova-team.html An extremely energetic object of unknown location and origin with strange/unusual properties that do no fit with any previously cataloged space object or energetic event. This weird object looks like it might make some good fodder for megascale engineering speculation based on the set of things that make it unusual. J. Andrew Rogers From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jun 20 01:49:44 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:49:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0606190954n72cb0059q4bd09eb9f2ec565a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200606200149.k5K1nqa2022059@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure On 6/19/06, spike wrote: Ja ...??I am suggesting that vulnerable stuff like subways are a bad investment with current technology. >This is ridiculous. What are you going to do, let fear of terrorism convince you to start driving to work instead of taking the subway?... No, not at all. It would convince me to vote against building of subways because they are too likely to go bust. The reason I avoid subways is not because of terrorism, it is because they are inconvenient. > How many people have terrorists killed in the last few years? A handful of thousands. How many people have road accidents killed in the last few years? Hundreds of thousands... Inappropriate comparison. Far more people drive than ride subways. Freeways are more difficult to attack than subways. > Our Cro-Magnon brains are programmed ...etc... Come on, Spike, you know all this. Extropy-chat is a list for rationalists, and rationality is about letting our beliefs and actions be dictated by reality. I am puzzled by some of these reactions. Imagine the kindergarten classroom, five-year-olds playing everywhere. A kid quietly playing with blocks by herself in the corner, no one paying a bit of attention to her. She starts to stack the blocks, making an intricate block castle four feet high. What soon happens? My notion is that building expensive vulnerable infrastructure can actually *cause* terrorism, in which case past history doesn't really help us much. The most expensive most vulnerable target will be hit first, for it produces the most bang for the buck. Examples: the Japanese subway, the World Trade Center (twice), the Spanish and British rail station attacks. The next lesson from kindergarten is that having your block tower knocked down requires no provocation. The little girl in the corner hurled no insults. Canada did nothing to provoke an attack. Russell, do explain what is irrational about this line of reasoning. spike From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Tue Jun 20 02:01:39 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:01:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: The Trouble With Transhumanism Message-ID: An article by Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute: http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=15222_0_32_0_C >From the end of the article: ""Personhood as the criterion for moral value would entitle smart robots, uplifted animals, and artificially intelligent computers?assuming they ever exist?to equal rights. But the cost would be high to existing and future human beings, particularly the unborn, infants, and the profoundly brain injured, who would all be excluded from the moral community under that ethical paradigm. This could lead to practices such as cloned fetal farming and killing the catastrophically brain injured for their organs. "Unfortunately, such eugenics thinking can be seductive. Indeed, the government is already flirting with transhumanist fantasies. Thus, "Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance," a 2002 report issued by the National Science Foundation and United States Department of Commerce, recommended the government spend billions pursuing some of the very technologies that transhumanists crave to utilize in their morphological quests. And real money is already being spent on threshold transhumanist agendas: The NIH just issued a $773,000 grant to Case Law School in Cleveland to determine the "ethically-acceptable rules" to permit human research into genetic enhancement technologies." "... It is easy to laugh at transhumanist fantasies but there is nothing funny about a movement whose core value is inherently discriminatory and oppressive. And while we will almost surely never become a post human society, we could easily devolve into a post-sanctity-of-life culture. The antidote to such a dystopian future is to stick with the basics and by recommitting ourselves to the fundamental concepts of human exceptionalism and the intrinsic value of all human life." From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jun 20 02:32:22 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:32:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <200606190322.k5J3MnVd010951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606190322.k5J3MnVd010951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8B618F31-11AB-4AE2-86DE-2CE50271B86A@mac.com> On Jun 18, 2006, at 8:11 PM, spike wrote: > >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > ... >>> Does anyone here think that terrorism will quietly go away? >> >> That which we pay inordinate attention to and center our lives and >> country around certainly will not go away. > > So we can somehow ignore it away? Those are not the only two choices of course. Terrorism should not be the high priority and general excuse it is today. > ... >> >> If you want terrorism to go away then end the circumstances that fuel >> it. Nothing else will do... > > Doesn't sound to me like that will do either. Canada did nothing > to fuel > terrorism that I can see. Did they? I didn't see any indication > that the > Canadian terrorists were blaming Israel or the US for anything. > They were > specifically going after Canada for some odd reason. I admit I am > puzzled. > Perhaps it is all fake. > That is the only thing that will lessen terrorism significantly. I did not say or mean it will eliminate it totally. >>> ...Who here thinks that terrorism will escalate? >> >> It will escalate if we continue as we are now. But the fear and >> paranoia will escalate much faster... > > Ja I can imagine the Canadians feeling a rising paranoia. Perhaps > they are > struggling to understand why suddenly everyone hates them. To these > Canadians I say: get over it, everyone doesn't hate you. It is we in the US who are suffering from deep paranoia and engaging in foolish foreign and domestic policy as a result. Unlike perhaps the Canadians much of the Middle East especially has very good reasons to despise us. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jun 20 02:36:52 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:36:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Discussion about ExI list future In-Reply-To: References: <200606181902.k5IJ2w4o023584@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060619165707.86394.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <37A0E663-7A50-4A74-B885-3581030CC5C0@mac.com> On Jun 19, 2006, at 10:46 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 6/19/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > Nope. It is power hastily written. > > It wasn't "hastily" written. I actually devoted some mental energy > to the recative llesping to make it a little more difficult for the > pumcoters that might be reading my writings to flag them as > "erestinting". > > Zheesh... And I thought this was th