From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Mar 1 00:49:02 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:49:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Quantum Interrogation Message-ID: <380-220063310492501@M2W033.mail2web.com> From: Amara Graps >"Quantum Interrogation" by Sean Carroll: >http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/27/quantum-interrogation/ >is a work of masterful teaching. He explains effortlessly to the >layman (and scientist!) collapsing wavefunctions, non-destructive >quantum measurement, and the quantum Zeno effect using a puppy, and >a steak and a salad. One of the finest pieces of popular science >writing I have ever read. Clever. I also enjoyed reading the article comments at the bottom of the page. I'm not sure I'd get an invitation to join Kool Kwantum Kids, but the puppy certainly is cute. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 1 03:37:20 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:37:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <20060228225754.84163.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200603010337.k213bafX004869@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 2:58 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? > > Last week a news report proposed that because several > members of a family walk on all fours and use very > limited language that we have a cause of "backward > evolution" toward our primate ancestors. [1] Say > what?! The claim was published in the International > Journal of Neuroscience... It seems others are skeptical too. [2] ~Ian A big part of the reason why so many report not believing in evolution is that it is so widely misunderstood. This has been shown in surveys, where test takers reported having learned more about evolution by taking the survey than in any other exposure to the discipline. Evolution is widely caricatured by fish crawling out on land, becoming an ape then a human, as if evolution has a particular direction. Cartoon images can have enormous impact, as we have seen. Stephen J. Gould has written extensively on this misconception and its affect on the public. As time goes on, modern humans have ever more disciplines to master, yet a constant or possibly decreasing amount of time devoted to learning. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to explain evolutionary theory to the layman using the amount of text that would fit on one side of one sheet of printer paper, using language not out of reach of the average eighth grader. Ready set go. spike From transcend at extropica.com Wed Mar 1 03:58:42 2006 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:58:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <200603010337.k213bafX004869@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200603010434.k214YgPx006912@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to explain evolutionary theory to the layman using the amount of text that would fit on one side of one sheet of printer paper, using language not out of reach of the average eighth grader. Ready set go. This frustrates me. People are not so dumb. When inclined, any average layman is capable of great feats of understanding. The real motivator is a desire to learn. If a person is dead set against evolution, no simple explanation will catch their imagination. I would think it would be more likely to reinforce their opinion of "condescending, brash scientist types." Rather, I suspect that an artful, insightful explanation would be more effective at peaking interest. What is missing is not a simple, eighth grade explanation of evolution. What is missing is the explanation of the complete picture: the world view in absence of a creator; the reasoning for a moral framework without god given ethics. I think the "one side of one sheet of printer paper" explanations are the reason for so a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. What we should do is say "before you criticize, educate yourself." We should encourage people to read Darwin. I would be willing to bet that the majority of those who oppose evolutionary theory, or have a weak grasp of the principles, are not well read on the subject. Brandon From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 1 05:58:26 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:58:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <200603010434.k214YgPx006912@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200603010603.k2163fwo023016@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Reinhart > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:59 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? > > > Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to explain evolutionary > theory to the layman using the amount of text that would fit on one side > of > one sheet of printer paper, using language not out of reach of the average > eighth grader. Ready set go. > > This frustrates me... Me too. > ...People are not so dumb. When inclined, any average > layman is capable of great feats of understanding. The real motivator is a > desire to learn. If a person is dead set against evolution, no simple > explanation will catch their imagination... Agreed. I have in mind something like the quantum mechanics website that Amara posted, but for evolution. Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. Explanations of evolution have been offered that are simpler than possible to get the point across. Evolution will not fit on a bumper sticker. But creationism will. With room left over. > ...What is missing is the explanation of the > complete picture: the world view in absence of a creator; the reasoning for a moral framework without god given ethics... I am open to suggestion. > I think the "one side of one sheet of printer paper" explanations are the > reason for so a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. What we should > do is say "before you criticize, educate yourself." We should encourage > people to read Darwin. I would be willing to bet that the majority of those who > oppose evolutionary theory, or have a weak grasp of the principles, are > not well read on the subject... Brandon Active minds will grok evolution. But how do we introduce evolution to lazy and indifferent minds? Is it necessary? Is it even possible? spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Mar 1 05:18:07 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:18:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? References: <200603010434.k214YgPx006912@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <030601c63cef$86c278e0$640fa8c0@kevin> The problem here is that teachers are so scared to teach evolution properly, they fail to convince the students. I did a paper on this once in college and if I can dig it up I'll post it somewhere. I don;t remember the exact numbers, but something like 9 of 11 science teacher I spoke with were afraid to teach evolution and only skirted the basics. Common descent and natural selection were barely touched. Genetic mutation was covered, but it was all glossed over quickly and then they moved on to other things. Some even claimed to qualify every statement with "some scientists believe" when speaking about evolution. Can you imagine teaching chemistry like this? So yes, the average person has this half-baked idea of how evolution works. They see it as a progression from less complex to more complex. They have no concept of the vast amounts of time involved or the number of steps between various species. They picture a fish getting up and waling and wonder why there are still fish in the seas. To them, the common ancestor of Chimps and humans is a chimp, or worse, a gorilla. They don;t know that the creatures from 500 million years ago were "fish like" or that the common ancestor of humans and chimps was only rudely similar to us both. Once I actually had a family member at Christmas ask me "You don;t really believe we came from Apes do you? I mean, if apes had human babies back then, why ain't they still having them now?" But that is changing. Some of these people watch Discovery channel and will watch "American Chopper" and then stay on the same channel to see some great programming such as "Walking with Cavemen" or "The Future is Wild". They are quite basic in their concepts but they do a good job explaining things in laymens terms. So go ahead and print the sheet of paper and get it out there. But stick with the basics straight from Darwin's "Origin" If there are organisms that reproduce, and If offspring inherit traits from their parents(s), and If there is variability of traits, and If the environment limits the size of natural populations, Then those members of the population with maladaptive traits (as determined by the environment) will die out or reproduce less, and Then those members with adaptive traits (as determined by the environment) will survive to reproduction or reproduce more The result is the evolutionary change of populations and eventually of species. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brandon Reinhart" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? > > Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to explain evolutionary > theory to the layman using the amount of text that would fit on one side of > one sheet of printer paper, using language not out of reach of the average > eighth grader. Ready set go. > > This frustrates me. People are not so dumb. When inclined, any average > layman is capable of great feats of understanding. The real motivator is a > desire to learn. If a person is dead set against evolution, no simple > explanation will catch their imagination. I would think it would be more > likely to reinforce their opinion of "condescending, brash scientist types." > > Rather, I suspect that an artful, insightful explanation would be more > effective at peaking interest. What is missing is not a simple, eighth grade > explanation of evolution. What is missing is the explanation of the complete > picture: the world view in absence of a creator; the reasoning for a moral > framework without god given ethics. > > I think the "one side of one sheet of printer paper" explanations are the > reason for so a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. What we should do > is say "before you criticize, educate yourself." We should encourage people > to read Darwin. I would be willing to bet that the majority of those who > oppose evolutionary theory, or have a weak grasp of the principles, are not > well read on the subject. > > Brandon > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed Mar 1 05:31:59 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:31:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <200603010337.k213bafX004869@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060301053159.13289.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Evolution is widely caricatured by fish crawling > out on land, becoming an ape then a human, as > if evolution has a particular direction. Cartoon > images can have enormous impact, as we have seen. > Stephen J. Gould has written extensively on this > misconception and its affect on the public. Right, "no direction" matches what I understand. While my knowledge here is weak, by my understanding evolution has no direction other than being those who "keep showing up" under changing environmental conditions. If the oceans rose and lands became barren, only land animals that could get food from the oceans would "keep showing up." And of those, the ones that did it the best would keep showing up the most. Eventually their descendents are dolphins and whales. That isn't really "progress" in any direction as much as it is life being shaped to fit a changing environment. Life follows the environment, and the environment follows no particular "direction." Another point comes to mind regarding the given case. [*] Even if we accept "backward evolution" I'm not persuaded that this case of some people who walk on all fours would be such a case. Monkeys and apes walk on all fours because their anatomy is suited for it, not because they want to or are stupid. If you found yourself in a monkey's body, you'd likely find that knuckle walking works pretty well, what the hell! But those odd people are in bodies suited for bipedal locomotion. The long short, they most likely walk on all fours for *different reasons* than monkeys and apes do. They probably have a neurological balance problem that monkeys and apes don't have. Monkey's and apes have a too-short-hind-legs "problem," if you will. So even if backward evolution is valid, this case is probably a category error at best. ~Ian ______________________________________________________ [*] http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060221_unertanfrm.htm Here's an abstract to a report by the cited scientist: http://www.neuroquantology.com/2005/04/250.255.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pkbertine at hotmail.com Wed Mar 1 06:43:48 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 01:43:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <200603010434.k214YgPx006912@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Ok, this one really needs some serious debunking. That article was so full of logical holes and riddled with nonsense that much better minds than mine had better fire off some emails to "World Science." (What a over hyped rag!) In fact I had to check to make sure that the webpage hadn't been taken over by scientologists before I could actually believe that a scientist could "go public" with a "Reverse Evolution" claim of such magnitude. Genetic proof my hoof. Reading a little deeper shows that *only* 5 people are walking on their hands and feet and grunting in a poor town in Turkey. I spent one month in the mental health ward a few months after 9/11 (I'm bi-polar, I went off my meds) and let me tell you Dr. Tan, there were 3 people walking on their hands and feet and grunting and one of them had a very funny looking head. I bet some of their DNA looked a little funny if you looked real close where you really wanted to find something wrong. Oh, come on now ! The very fact that the 5 Turkish (what would the National Enquirer call them, "Monster Ape Turkey People"?) people all came from the same family would lead a New York City psychiatrist to suspect learned behavior, sexual abuse as children and perhaps some good old fashioned showmanship. I suggest a study to see exactly how long these people have been exhibiting these traits from a social scientist's perspective. Perhaps I was a New Yorker for too long to not know every street scam in the book and go ahead call me too much of a skeptic, but when I hear of the father going out to collect cans and bottles with his teeth to feed his family, I hear "sucker scientist" written all over it. Too often we have been fooled by Clever Hans. If a horse can learn to count by reading the involuntary twitches of his trainer, then a family in Turkey can walk on their hands and grunt if it gets them more bottles to collect and then more attention and then nice Dr. Tan measuring their brains. Nice Dr. Tan thank you for more bottles, ooooooo, a Hershey bar... we behave like good ape people now. Sucker. Thus when Spike said: > > Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to explain evolutionary > theory to the layman using the amount of text that would fit on one side > of > one sheet of printer paper, using language not out of reach of the average > eighth grader. Ready set go. Then Brandon said: > This frustrates me. People are not so dumb. [PKB] snip What is missing is not a simple, eighth > grade explanation of evolution. What is missing is the explanation of the > complete picture: the world view in absence of a creator; the reasoning for a moral framework without god given ethics. [PKB] Then PKB said: Let's first check the premise really close here and make sure we all aren't being fooled, like I suspect Dr. Tan is. BTW... We absolutely do need a good 1 sheet definition of evolution so I can go nail it to the door of the Vatican. Been several hundred years since my ancestors nailed anything to the door of a Catholic church and I'm ready to get my hammer. (Spike, it is OK to threaten the Catholic Church with a hammer on the list, isn't it?) From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 1 07:04:43 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:04:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <030601c63cef$86c278e0$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <200603010704.k2174urf000821@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com ... > family member at Christmas ask me "You don;t really believe we came from > Apes do you?... Me: What do you mean "came from?" We are apes now. From an anatomical point of view, from the neck down chimps and humans are practically indistinguishable. > I mean, if apes had human babies back then, why ain't they > still having them now?"... They are, we do. > > But that is changing. Some of these people watch Discovery channel and > will watch "American Chopper" and then stay on the same channel to see some great programming... After viewing American Chopper, who could deny that humans are apes? > ...such as "Walking with Cavemen" or "The Future is Wild". They > are quite basic in their concepts but they do a good job explaining things in laymens terms. > > So go ahead and print the sheet of paper and get it out there. But stick > with the basics straight from Darwin's "Origin"... Ja I must give TV credit where credit is due. There have been some excellent programs on evolution and human development in the past couple years. National Geographic continues to do their valiant best. Check this, apes have culture: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186336,00.html spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 1 07:10:29 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:10:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603010745.k217iwBA018090@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Pete Bertine > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? ... > We absolutely do need a good 1 sheet definition of evolution so I can go > nail it to the door of the Vatican. Been several hundred years since my > ancestors nailed anything to the door of a Catholic church and I'm ready > to get my hammer. (Spike, it is OK to threaten the Catholic Church with a > hammer on the list, isn't it?) Pete, if you feel the mighty Catholic Church loses any holy papal sleep over our tiny insignificant transhumanist hammer, do go right ahead and threaten away. {8^D Why is it that I can make comments like this with regard to christianity, yet never worry a minute about a furious bloody reprisal? Too bad all religions do not work this way. spike From scerir at libero.it Wed Mar 1 09:40:18 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 10:40:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Quantum Interrogation Message-ID: Jozsa (below) had the idea of the so called 'counterfactual quantum computing', based on the so called 'negative observations' or 'interaction free measurements' invented by Renninger (circa 1960), Dicke (circa 1980), and Elitzur & Vaidman. [Jozsa] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907007 [Renninger] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504031 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504043 [Elitzur & Vaidman] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9305002 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9610033 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0006077 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102049 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103081 From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Mar 1 14:12:44 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 08:12:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? References: Message-ID: <003c01c63d3a$36065520$640fa8c0@kevin> >From what I understand lately, the Vatican is all in favor of evolution. It's human the "life begins at conception" problems that pose a problem for them. > > We absolutely do need a good 1 sheet definition of evolution so I can go > nail it to the door of the Vatican. Been several hundred years since my > ancestors nailed anything to the door of a Catholic church and I'm ready to > get my hammer. (Spike, it is OK to threaten the Catholic Church with a > hammer on the list, isn't it?) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 1 15:19:22 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 07:19:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <003c01c63d3a$36065520$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <200603011519.k21FJWVl004947@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 6:13 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? > > >From what I understand lately, the Vatican is all in favor of evolution. > It's human the "life begins at conception" problems that pose a problem > for them. When I meet with that life begins at conception notion, I point out that both the sperm and the egg are clearly alive before conception. They both fit every definition of life that I know of. spike http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/02/28/teaching.evolution.ap/index.html From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Mar 1 16:12:31 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:12:31 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ECON-ECO: Fruit and Free Soil Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060301100728.03000e38@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I like this project because it combines about global design and global interactions. November 28, 2005 How Well Do You Know Your Fruit? Discussions about urban gardening and local economies are becoming more and more common outside of their usual confines of urban planning and sustainability circles. As public concerns over energy production and natural disasters grow, there seems to be a parallel increase in desires to change how urban populations live. One aspect of everyday life in cities that is often overlooked is the procurement of food. FRUIT, a new project by the international art collective Free Soil, looks at one of the most basic food types, raw fruit, and challenges its audience to become engaged in knowing just where it comes from. Currently exhibited in the University of Chicago's Smart Museum exhibition, 'Beyond Green,' FRUIT is a multifaceted work that utilizes a website as a portal to distribute information about the global and local system of fruit production (specifically oranges) and to solicit participants in their online demonstration linking growers and consumers in the expanding! urban food chain. Among the juicy info visitors will find there is the fact that most food travels over 1,300 miles before it gets into someone's mouth. How do like them oranges? - Ryan Griffis http://www.free-soil.org/fruit/ Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston 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 wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Mar 1 16:48:55 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 08:48:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] lists.extropy.org mailing list memberships reminder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060301164855.16985.qmail@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Everyone should have just gotten the below. It is this email that I was talking about last week, which should also advertise the ability of list members to moderate the list (if we make it so that list members can moderate the list via a Web-based forum). --- mailman-owner at lists.extropy.org wrote: > This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your > lists.extropy.org mailing list memberships. It includes your > subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from > a > list. > > You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or > configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery > or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make > such > changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of > the list (for example, mailman-request at lists.extropy.org) containing > just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will > be > sent to you with instructions. > > If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to > mailman-owner at lists.extropy.org. Thanks! [password list snipped] From pkbertine at hotmail.com Wed Mar 1 19:24:44 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:24:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <003c01c63d3a$36065520$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: If the pope is now pro-evolution (doubt it, it's a papal trick. Get em in the church then bash them over the head with creationism) Then to whom do we send the 1 page evolution definition? I am very much in favor of: 1) Writing the definition and getting on list review/edit of a final copy 2) Actually doing something with it! Nail it to the White House door if necessary. Seriously, what if leading Transhumanists penned a one pager and tried to get it into the press with a challenge to school teachers to incorporate it into their curriculum? Or if an exciting debate between "The body freezers" v. "The Creationists" were waged online (Discovery Channel special?) with a hard line taken for evolution, if it was entertaining, if walking fish were blown up or driven over by Spike on an Orange County chopper, then people might wake up. Lets face it, Creationism is a meme that is in vogue. Just look at the top Google sites that are pro-evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/ http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ Boring. Evolution needs a better PR firm. www.talkorigins.org? How about www.creationismsucks.com and www.evolutionrocks.com or www.sexyevolution.com or www.donaldtrumptheevolution.com Something, anything that will get a 1 page evolution manifesto to the top of the Google page. A non academic website that has a stated (or top secret) agenda... Get evolution back on top of the food chain and toss creationism back into the Myth Pile. I mean, this is something that Transhumanism can publicly get behind 100% and not worry about being called head freezing geeks, it is a very worthy unselfish cause. And let's face it Transhumanism has a very shallow selfish public image... "I want to freeze my body, cause I'm so smart and have enough money and want to live forever." Could it be that Transhumanism could lend negative PR to the evolution battle? Baloney ! Come on people, get your heads out of your academic journals and fight! Take evolution to the streets, to the people! Let's win this war! Pete www.petebertine.com > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:13 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? > > >From what I understand lately, the Vatican is all in favor of evolution. > It's human the "life begins at conception" problems that pose a problem > for > them. > > > > > > > We absolutely do need a good 1 sheet definition of evolution so I can go > > nail it to the door of the Vatican. Been several hundred years since my > > ancestors nailed anything to the door of a Catholic church and I'm ready > to > > get my hammer. (Spike, it is OK to threaten the Catholic Church with a > > hammer on the list, isn't it?) > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pkbertine at hotmail.com Wed Mar 1 19:28:57 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:28:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fight for evolution Message-ID: The latest reason to fight for evolution http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501AP_Evolution_Nevada.html Pete Bertine www.petebertine.com "You are to live and to learn to laugh. You are to learn to listen to the cursed radio music of life and to reverence the spirit behind it and to laugh at its distortions. So there you are. More will not be asked of you." Mozart in Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Mar 1 22:40:06 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:40:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? Message-ID: Pete Bertine: >If the pope is now pro-evolution (doubt it, it's a papal trick I don't think you were on the list in November when we discussed it: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-November/022526.html I don't doubt it, mostly because I asked my Vatican astronomer friend when I visited the Vatican Observatory last November. He knows it from the source, so I can't do any better about factual references. The Pope's argument against ID is subtle, and, is useful to understand: http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=17691 >Seriously, what if leading Transhumanists penned a one pager and tried to >get it into the press with a challenge to school teachers to incorporate it >into their curriculum? _One_ pager ? > Or if an exciting debate between "The body freezers" >v. "The Creationists" were waged online (Discovery Channel special?) with a >hard line taken for evolution, if it was entertaining, if walking fish were >blown up or driven over by Spike on an Orange County chopper, then people >might wake up. I don't like aggressive approaches. Hammering people over their head with one's insistence is not usually very effective either. >Lets face it, Creationism is a meme that is in vogue. There's a phenomena taking place in one part of 6% of the world's population, that's true. >Evolution needs a better PR firm. I suggest to begin here: "Learning to Speak Science " by Chris Mooney http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/learning_to_speak_science.php ---------------- An excerpt: {begin quote} What the scientific community-not just scientists, mind you, but people who care about the role science plays in building a better society-is realizing is that scientific knowledge itself is politically vulnerable. We've seen the Bush administration's assaults on science on issues ranging from climate change to Plan B emergency contraception (the "morning after" pill); we're witnessing a newly resurgent anti-evolutionist movement that's spreading community-to-community and state-to-state. And we're frustrated with a national media that seeks to hear "both sides," even on subjects (like evolution) where no scientific debate actually exists. Coming to grips with science's newly exposed political and cultural vulnerability will require scientists to emphasize a rather different set of skills than they're used to privileging. Although it's not true of all scientists, too many have grown accustomed to the security of their labs and university communities, occasionally lamenting the American public's poor understanding of science but doing little in a concerted way to improve it. And small wonder: American science rewards the publication of peer-reviewed research, but offers little incentive for scientists to communicate and translate what they know to the public. So scientists in the US have little practice when it comes to crafting a message or winning a political debate, and their inexperience sometimes leads to ill-advised actions that have the tendency to backfire. Consider the scientific community's engagement (or lack thereof) with the anti-evolutionist Kansas State Board of Education. When the Board called hearings on evolution, the scientific community boycotted. When the Board began to rewrite state science standards, compromising biology education, the National Academy of Sciences denied the Kansas Board permission to use their copyrighted educational material. The scientific community's distrust of the Kansas Board is understandable. But such actions make scientists look like haughty snobs and elitists who simply refuse to engage with ordinary Americans-an already prevalent stereotype that hardly needs reinforcing. What we defenders of science must realize, if we want to combat political attacks effectively, is that we have much to learn about political communication and strategizing. Ideally, and in the best spirit of science, we should view the current political quandary as a problem to be addressed through trial and error-empirical attempts to determine what actually works when it comes to translating science for the general public. ... When it comes to defending evolution, another communications thinker-the celebrated Berkeley cognitive linguist George Lakoff-has other useful suggestions for the scientific community. The United States is, of course, a very religious country; one in which many fundamentalists attack evolution but also one in which many moderate Christians support it. In this context, Lakoff explains that scientists ought to be defending evolution by highlighting scientists who are able to reconcile evolution with religious faith. The ideal messengers to reach the public on this issue, then, would be evolutionary biologists who are also practicing Christians. People, in short, like Brown University evolution defender Kenneth R. Miller, a practicing Catholic and author of the book Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. {end quote} [me: Incidently, this last sentence highlights why I consider my Vatican astronomer friend a gem. He doesn't need to justify or explain himself to other astronomers because 1) all are more-or-less seeking the 'big picture', and 2) he is a world-class scientist himself. The precious bridge that he can provide is that he can explain to fundamentalists how valuable is science. If atheist scientists wish to gain the support of highly religious people, they will need people like him.] Similarly, Lakoff agrees that scientists did a poor job dealing with the Kansas Board of Education. What they should have done instead, he suggests, was to launch a comprehensive national campaign to explain evolution to the public, emphasizing how "converging evidence" from a wide range of areas-the fossil record, radioisotope dating, genetics, and many other disciplines-all independently confirm and strengthen the evolutionary account. In short, the scientific community should be promoting a positive message that teaches the public why evolution is such a powerful scientific theory, and about how scientists weigh evidence. (see the article for all, it's a nice article) ---------------- Amara From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Mar 2 01:00:35 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 20:00:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <200603010337.k213bafX004869@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20060228225754.84163.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> <200603010337.k213bafX004869@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <55213.72.236.103.102.1141261235.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Your > mission, should you decide to accept it, is to explain evolutionary theory > to the layman using the amount of text that would fit on one side of one > sheet of printer paper, using language not out of reach of the average > eighth grader. Ready set go. > > How about: The currently-accepted scientific model of evolution was first laid out in Darwin's book On The Origin of Species Through Natural Selection. The Darwinian theory of evolution can be summed up in a number of simple postulates: (1) The members of any particular biological population will differ from each other in minor ways, and will have slightly differing characteristics of construction and behavior. This is the principle of "variation". (2) These variations can be passed from one generation to the next, and the offspring of those possessing a particular type of variation will also tend to have that same variation. This is the principle of "heritability". (3) Certain of these variations will give their possessor an advantage in life (or avoid some disadvantage), allowing that organism to obtain more food, escape predators more efficiently, etc. Thus, those organisms that possess such a useful variation will tend to survive longer and produce more offspring than other members of that population. These offspring, through the principle of heritability, will also tend to possess this advantageous variation, and this will have the affect of increasing, over a number of generations, the proportion of organisms in the population which possess this variation. This is the principle of "natural selection". These principles are combined to form the core of the evolutionary model. The Darwinian outlook holds that small incremental changes in structure and behavior, brought about by the natural selection of variations, produce, after a long period of time, organisms that differ so greatly from their ancestors that they are no longer the same organism, and must be classified as a separate species. This process of speciation, repeated over the 3.5 billion year span of time since life first appeared on earth, explains the gradual production of all of life's diversity. (by Lenny Flank, as presented to middle-school kids, used with permission) Regards, MB From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 2 02:19:27 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:19:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603020219.k222JZ6X000523@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Pete Bertine > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:25 AM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? > > If the pope is now pro-evolution (doubt it, it's a papal trick. Get em in > the church then bash them over the head with creationism)... My take on this is that they realized by the 1800s what a terrible error had been made with Galileo. The RC church found itself in a morass, from which extrication was apparently impossible: to reverse poor Galileo's anathema would be to declare that a pope could err, even when speaking ex cathedra. The problem could only grow and grow, until it eventually became irrelevant, overtaken by the much larger problem of priests sexually abusing children. By the time Darwin showed up, the RCs were most eager to not repeat the blunder of condemning scientists to hell. ... > 2) Actually doing something with it! Nail it to the White House door if > necessary... ... > Pete > www.petebertine.com Careful Pete, this is unadvisable. One of the residents at that particular house has a shotgun, and he *will* use it. {8^D spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 2 02:34:52 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:34:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <55213.72.236.103.102.1141261235.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200603020253.k222rjOs013597@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of MB ... > How about: > > > The currently-accepted scientific model of evolution was first laid > out in Darwin's book On The Origin of Species Through Natural > Selection... explains the gradual > production of all of life's diversity. > > (by Lenny Flank, as presented to middle-school kids, used with permission) > > Regards, > MB Thanks MB, this is good. Since Miller's The Mating Mind came out recently, I have been interested in how mate selection plays a part in evolution. It seems to me to have perhaps an even greater influence on evolution than does natural selection, yet most simplified explanations of evolution downplay it or fail to mention that mechanism of change. It provides a powerful explanation for some really wacky three sigma features, such as the peacock's tail and the human's wildly distended bulbous head. Has everyone here seen the 10 minute section in Sagan's Cosmos on evolution? That was excellent. Perhaps we need a computer game or simulation. spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Mar 2 03:02:52 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 22:02:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <200603020253.k222rjOs013597@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <55213.72.236.103.102.1141261235.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200603020253.k222rjOs013597@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <55305.72.236.102.96.1141268572.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Perhaps we need a computer game or simulation. > > Ha! Now *that* sounds like it might really do something to reach the young. :) One might "evolve" into a different form of player or something. I wonder.... Regards, MB From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 06:43:16 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 01:43:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060227183158.02488f60@gmu.edu> References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu> <7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60602271529w53777d7tb750f64a38d6a0a9@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060227183158.02488f60@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7641ddc60603012243s7cd0ae55v62a2eda44a22df98@mail.gmail.com> On 2/27/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > At 06:29 PM 2/27/2006, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > > >> But you didn't answer my question. What do you think stopped people > > > > >> dying of those diseases, if it wasn't the vaccines? > > > > > > > > > > There are lots of logical possibilities, and my state of belief is > > > > > that I am very uncertain about which one it might be. > > > > > > > >Which is most consistent with the sum of our scientific knowledge > > > >about the the causes of various diseases? ... > > > > > > Here is one explanation that has a plausible mechanism and isn't clearly > > > contradicted by the data. Mammals invoke the stress response in > > situations > > > they consider stressful, which helps the devote energy to their muscles > > > at the expense of other systems such as the immune system. This reduces > > > long term health. As humans become richer they interpret fewer events as > > > being stressful and invoke the stress response less often, and so are > > > healthier. > > > There is a multiplier effect for contagious diseases, so that > > healthier people > > > living near each other benefit each other. So a theory is that > > our increasing > > > health is caused by our feeling less stress as we have gotten richer. > > > >### Are you saying that exposing rich people to infectious agents they > >have not been vaccinated against will not result in significant > >morbidity? > >This would be a very interesting claim... > > I would not make that claim; all this story needs is a reduced > susceptibility for > rich people, all else equal. ### Since the greatest gains in survival have been observed in small children, this story would also have to posit economic factors as primarily responsible for reduced susceptibility of children to infectious disease, as opposed to a combination healthcare factors, with a secondary contribution from lifestyle changes enabled by affluence. Do rich neonates feel sufficiently rich to have a "reduced susceptibility" to e.g. polio? Clearly, the likelihood of surviving an infectious illness depends on the level of stress you are under, and I mean something else than purely psychological stress. Under natural conditions most humans have to cope with substantial burdens of parasite infestations, coupled with frequent exposure to large inoculations of various microorganisms from injuries and contaminated food. Psychological stress, although it is the focus of our modern attention, is a relatively smaller component of overall stress in the EEA. I would expect that there is a nonlinear survival response to reduction of single infectious risk factors: if you vaccinate only against smallpox, children will still keep dying from a myriad of other causes. Yet, if you vaccinate against the top 10 diseases, eradicate fleas, intestinal roundworms, lice, trichinosis, and give much better nutrition, the gains will have a synergistic effect - at some tipping point the overall reduction of chronic stress will allow an effective response to challenges that would have killed you if you for example still had large (1- 1 1/2 foot long) worms feeding inside your gut. This effect is likely to explain the difficulty in measuring the impact of single healthcare interventions on survival and would obviate the need to seek explanations by a roundabout way, in economic factors affecting adults. I also find it important not give legitimacy to, for example, parents who deny vaccinations to their children. Theorizing about why you might not need basic medical care simply because you are feeling rich may be harmless in itself but sometimes may be taken over by people with unusual agendas. Rafal From amara at amara.com Thu Mar 2 08:23:27 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 09:23:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? Message-ID: MB mbb386 at main.nc.us : >> Perhaps we need a computer game or simulation. >Ha! Now *that* sounds like it might really do something to reach the >young. :) One might "evolve" into a different form of player or >something. I wonder.... SimLife: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimLife But Dawkins was earlier. My first meeting of Keith Henson was at his house for a social event where I remember him demonstrating Dawkins' game on his Apple Lisa (this was 1986 or so). 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 iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Mar 2 07:26:39 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:26:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? Message-ID: <20060302072639.27513.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> > http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060221_unertanfrm.htm It's claimed there the quadrupedal members of the family have a newly discovered syndrome. However, in a PubMed search I found a preexisting syndrome called "dysequilibrium syndrome" (DES) that prevented 11 mentally retarded members of a Hutterite community from walking unassisted until between 5 to 21 years of age. DES apparently goes back even further. The individuals in the recent case are also described as retarded. These syndromes may be the same and I suspect are not "reverse evolution" to prehuman primate neurology as suggested above. Am J Med Genet (1981): "We report a nonprogressive neurological disorder in at least 11 Hutterites with healthy but consanguineous parents. In several of the affected, hypotonia was noted at birth. Retarded motor and mental development became apparent during the first year of life. The age of unsupported walking varied from 5-21 years. [...] The disorder is probably the same as that described earlier under the heading, dysequilibrium syndrome." http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=7246619 Am J Med Genet (1985): "This is a preliminary note on the occurrence of the disequilibrium syndrome (DES) in the Dariusleut Hutterites of Montana. Previously the condition was reported in the Dariusleut of Alberta by Schurig et al [1981] as an autosomal recessive, non-progressive neurological disorder with congenital hypotonia, considerable psychomotor retardation, unsteady broadly based gait and stance, increased deep tendon reflexes, and mild to moderate mental retardation. Affected individuals were short. In the Montana family studied by us in 1981, a brother and three sisters are affected." http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=4061489 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110517046/ "DES is an autosomal recessive disorder with distinct clinical features including global developmental delay, late ambulation (after age 6 y), truncal ataxia, and a static clinical course." http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=16174313 ~Ian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Mar 2 07:35:51 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:35:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Personal Anthropic Principle Message-ID: I am reading Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape", a truly marvelous exposition on current cosmology. One focus of the book is on the Anthropic Principle, not too surprisingly. I haven't reached the end, and should not try to describe Susskind's final take. But I have become even more skeptical of use of the AP than formerly. We do not know why the physical constants have the values that they do, and it seems to me to be important that not only may we never know, but that perhaps there aren't explanations. For strong proponents of anthropic principles, I submit the PAP, the Personal Anthropic Principle. Here are a few choice applications. Don't know why your parents were attracted to each other? Well, the PAP provides an answer: if they weren't then you wouldn't be here! In like vein, I have found the PAP to be useful even in explaining facts of American history. Why did George Washington escape death in so many notable instances? Simple: I probably wouldn't be here if he hadn't. Of course, we could broaden that into a NAP, a National Anthropic Principle, which could be used to explain a great deal of a nation's history. Why, I can explain all sorts of things with the PAP or NAP! But their very silliness should serve as an additional warning against anthropic principles. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 08:49:48 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 08:49:48 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Personal Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0603020049y5020f6b8ocb00f2a8cb8b691c@mail.gmail.com> On 3/2/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Why, I can explain all sorts of things with the PAP or NAP! > But their very silliness should serve as an additional warning > against anthropic principles. > Our solar system contains one star, eight planets and an indeterminately large number of moons, asteroids, Kuiper belt objects etc. Of all these objects, how is it that we were lucky enough to find ourselves on just the one, the third planet from the sun, where conditions are suitable for life? Two possible answers: 1. There is no explanation, it's just a thing to contemplate and marvel at. 2. Of course we find ourselves living on an object where conditions are suitable for life, however small a percentage of the total such objects may be - we couldn't have evolved in a place where they aren't! Do you really think the first answer is better than the second? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Mar 1 16:05:13 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:05:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTS: Public Display of Attention Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060301100304.02f62cc8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> November 14, 2005 Public Display of Attention Michael Alstad has a thing about public space. Through strategic appropriations of storefronts and commercial billboards, Canada's favorite exhibitionist creates street-level installations that offer society a lens-mediated look at itself. Alstad is now back in our faces as co-curator of Transmedia: 29:59, a year-long exhibition on the pedestrian level video billboard at Toronto's Yonge-Dundas Square. Developed with artist Michelle Kasprzak, the project features one-minute videos that run every half hour, on the 29th and 59th minute. November's works explore the webcam--that ubiquitous little icon of public surveillance and private voyeurism. On the 29th minute, Toronto can watch Cheryl Sourkes's 'Live from the Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas,' a series of videos showing various Elvis impersonators marrying a variety of heterosexual couples, which Sourkes made by animating stills captured from a remote webcam. Minute 59 features BlueScreen's 'StreamScape,' a perpetually c! hanging video work made up of hybridized images from 13 webcams scattered throughout the world, all gathered on a server and incorporated into an on-line 'inhabited landscape.' Of course, you don't have to be in Toronto to experience these web works. Click on the Transmedia link to peep in on them from the comfort of your own screen. - Peggy MacKinnon http://www.year01.com/transmedia2959/ Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston 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 james.hughes at trincoll.edu Thu Mar 2 14:36:05 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 09:36:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Personal Anthropic Principle Message-ID: Out of complete cosmological naivety, it also seems to me less likely that the meta-verse contains all possible universes, separated by each possible quantum variation, than that there is some structural patterning that reduces the N of universes. Perhaps Robin's suggested mechanisms of adjacent universe-gobbling is one mechanism which reduces the infinitude of the metaverse. I found the ABC's piece on the anthropic principle very helpful: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1572643.htm J. Hughes From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Mar 2 14:58:48 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:58:48 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] MEDIA: Geldof documentary Air-Date Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060302083916.02db5e30@pop-server.austin.rr.com> A few months ago I mentioned That Peaches Geldorf came to Austin to visit with me about her current documentary on teenagers. We talked about so many things, but most pressingly about the future, living longer and transhumanity. Her film is airing on Monday, March, 27, 2006 at 10pm in the UK http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1469020,00.html Peaches, like many celebrity teenagers, gets a lot of press http://www.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,50001-1178841,00.html If she does in fact become a rock star or rap star, she told me that she will write an inspiring song about transhumans :-) Cheers - Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston 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 lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Mar 2 17:32:07 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 09:32:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Personal Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603020049y5020f6b8ocb00f2a8cb8b691c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell gives an example (thanks!) > Our solar system contains one star, eight planets and > an indeterminately large number of moons, asteroids, > Kuiper belt objects etc. Of all these objects, how is > it that we were lucky enough to find ourselves on just > the one, the third planet from the sun, where conditions > are suitable for life? > > Two possible answers: > 1. There is no explanation, it's just a thing to contemplate and marvel at. > 2. Of course we find ourselves living on an object where > conditions are suitable for life, however small a percentage > of the total such objects may be - we couldn't have evolved > in a place where they aren't! > > Do you really think the first answer is better than the second? I don't think that (2.) is any explanation at all! But that it is not a very good explanation, I'm sure you agree. But really, let's examine that question "How is it that we were lucky enough to find ourselves on just such a planet?" It's probably not a good question either, and to show why, consider a parallel situation. Say you bump into an long-lost friend in some strange city and ask "how is it that we were lucky enough to run into each other?" There may turn out to be an answer: he could have arranged it as a surprise, or you were both drawn to the same event, or something really far-fetched. But it could easily be that there is no explanation. Both your example and mine are predicated on pre-existence. Given that we exist, yes, as you say "Of course we find ourselves..." in such a situation. Another analogy could be to say to my long-lost friend "Well, of course we had to meet here or we wouldn't be having this conversation!" (which is predicated upon our being face-to-face). Lee From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 2 18:05:38 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:05:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Personal Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060302180538.576.qmail@web37515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And our existence isn't quite as marvelous as we'd like to think; we're still darwinist integers, so for every marvelous aspect of existence there is some aspect that is mundane, even disgusting. The human body is, to me, more or less disgusting. >...it's just a thing to contemplate and marvel at. > 2. Of course we find ourselves living on an object where > conditions are suitable for life, however small a percentage > of the total such objects may be - we couldn't have evolved > in a place where they aren't! > > Do you really think the first answer is better than the second? I don't think that (2.) is any explanation at all! But that it is not a very good explanation, I'm sure you agree. But really, let's examine that question "How is it that we were lucky enough to find ourselves on just such a planet?" It's probably not a good question either, and to show why, consider a parallel situation. Say you bump into an long-lost friend in some strange city and ask "how is it that we were lucky enough to run into each other?" There may turn out to be an answer: he could have arranged it as a surprise, or you were both drawn to the same event, or something really far-fetched. But it could easily be that there is no explanation. Both your example and mine are predicated on pre-existence. Given that we exist, yes, as you say "Of course we find ourselves..." in such a situation. Another analogy could be to say to my long-lost friend "Well, of course we had to meet here or we wouldn't be having this conversation!" (which is predicated upon our being face-to-face). Lee _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 19:24:58 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:24:58 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Personal Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0603020049y5020f6b8ocb00f2a8cb8b691c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603021124w7825b9ffu1e8fd230e247e6f2@mail.gmail.com> On 3/2/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > 2. Of course we find ourselves living on an object where > > conditions are suitable for life, however small a percentage > > of the total such objects may be - we couldn't have evolved > > in a place where they aren't! > > > > Do you really think the first answer is better than the second? > > I don't think that (2.) is any explanation at all! But that > it is not a very good explanation, I'm sure you agree. Not really - I think it's a complete and correct answer to the question, and simple and elegant too; what more can one ask from an explanation? But really, let's examine that question "How is it that we > were lucky enough to find ourselves on just such a planet?" > > It's probably not a good question either, and to show why, > consider a parallel situation. Say you bump into an > long-lost friend in some strange city and ask "how is > it that we were lucky enough to run into each other?" > There may turn out to be an answer: he could have arranged > it as a surprise, or you were both drawn to the same event, > or something really far-fetched. But it could easily be that > there is no explanation. I don't think it's a parallel situation though. We could not have found ourselves living on Mercury (at least not at our present stage of development!); we could not have found ourselves living in a region of the multiverse where the proton is more massive than the neutron; but we _could_ have concluded our business in the city and gone home without ever having run into each other. Both your example and mine are predicated on pre-existence. > Given that we exist, yes, as you say "Of course we find > ourselves..." in such a situation. Another analogy could be > to say to my long-lost friend "Well, of course we had to meet > here or we wouldn't be having this conversation!" (which is > predicated upon our being face-to-face). > It's true that my example, like most things, is predicated on our existence. The question I'm arguing the anthropic principle is a good explanation for is "how is it [given that we exist] that we find ourselves in a region of the multiverse where conditions are suitable for life?". Are you objecting that this leaves unanswered the larger question of "how is it that we find ourselves existing at all?" If so I can have a shot at that; but being a different question it will naturally have a slightly different answer. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pkbertine at hotmail.com Thu Mar 2 19:26:03 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:26:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amara: Very insightful! Thank you for referring me back to the archive. I speak for all my Huguenot ancestors, "Catholics are behaving much more civilized these days." I do not come from an academic background. I raise money. I have the uncanny ability to latch on to trends that will become popular 7 years in the future. I've done it with Netscape, finepoint.com and, now, Prefab Contemporary Architecture/Alternative energy. I seem to have a special meme gene that has made me sensitive to new trends. I have an extensive background in Advertising. And being successful at raising money quickly, I know how to clobber people properly until they open their wallets. I have carefully read your argument and the article you referred me to and I must disagree. Forget unfriendly AI, asteroid strikes, the Greenhouse Effect, or Pigeon Flue... The world is in danger of sliding into another Dark Ages, from which we will not be able to regain the heights of our current culture. The ignorance of today's "educated" person is staggering. I frequently ask people how they think cell phones work. A frequent reply (other than who cares) is that they "talk to satellites." A person in the middle of a concrete building thinks their phone goes straight to a satellite, bounces off it and "talks" to their friend's phone in the same room or around the world. Try it. Ask the cell phone question. Make up your own questions. Then go out and play Socrates for a few minutes every day. My point: Up until a very short time ago people could see and touch the technology around them. This is a very elementary point, no doubt brought up many times before on the list. But what has it led to? 1) Super powerful cults that use the media and legal system to spread pseudoscience and clone idiots, such as the Raelians. http://www.clonaid.com/news.php http://www.watchman.org/profile/raelianpro.htm http://skepdic.com/raelian.html My first post on this list was an attempt to dissuade Robert Bradbury from interacting with a Raelian. Robert has a great sense of humor, but I'm not sure he knew what he was dealing with unless he wanted to get invited to a Raelian orgy. 2) Detached and annoyed, intelligent and highly rational, "Sane" people who are marginalized from mainstream society. When I was recently invited to join a "Lost" DVD marathon and pointed out that the fat guy hasn't "Lost" any weight over the episodes, no one laughed. When I mentioned that "Gilligan's Island" was based on a far more plausible concept and was at least funny, people got mad and paused the DVD. "You're comparing "Lost" to "Gillian's Island?" it was demanded of me. "Why yes, isn't it obvious?" "Lost is *real* it could actually happen," came the reply from a high level advertising director. I won't go on. Very smart people in New York City think that a Jumbo Jet could go down somewhere in the world and not be found within 24 hours. 3) I'm not going to list more "evidence" of the evaporation of skepticism and the death of reason. My final point is that, much as I hate her, Ayn Rand wrote one decent book called Anthem (she should have stopped there). It's Science fiction really and makes the point that the idiots take over and the world returns to a candle lit society. The idiots are taking over. They control the media and they make the powerful memes. I suggest that science fight back with the same media that the idiots are using. Shows like Myth Busters are the grain around which a well organized "pearl" of professional PR driven media mediums need to be produced. There are powerful celebrities and very rich people who will support this effort. It is not philanthropy; it can be very profitable battling entropy. Amara, you wrote: I don't like aggressive approaches. Hammering people over their head with one's insistence is not usually very effective either. People are being hammered with nonsense; let us intelligently and strategically inject them with reason. Pete www.petebertine.com > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:40 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > > Pete Bertine: > >If the pope is now pro-evolution (doubt it, it's a papal trick > > I don't think you were on the list in November when we discussed it: > > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-November/022526.html > > I don't doubt it, mostly because I asked my Vatican astronomer friend > when I visited the Vatican Observatory last November. He knows it from > the source, so I can't do any better about factual references. > > The Pope's argument against ID is subtle, and, is useful to > understand: > > http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=17691 > > >Seriously, what if leading Transhumanists penned a one pager and tried to > >get it into the press with a challenge to school teachers to incorporate > it > >into their curriculum? > > _One_ pager ? > > > Or if an exciting debate between "The body freezers" > >v. "The Creationists" were waged online (Discovery Channel special?) with > a > >hard line taken for evolution, if it was entertaining, if walking fish > were > >blown up or driven over by Spike on an Orange County chopper, then people > >might wake up. > > I don't like aggressive approaches. Hammering people over their head > with one's insistence is not usually very effective either. > > >Lets face it, Creationism is a meme that is in vogue. > > There's a phenomena taking place in one part of 6% of the world's > population, that's true. > > >Evolution needs a better PR firm. > > I suggest to begin here: > > "Learning to Speak Science " > by Chris Mooney > > http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/learning_to_speak_science.php > > ---------------- > An excerpt: > > {begin quote} > What the scientific community-not just scientists, mind you, but > people who care about the role science plays in building a better > society-is realizing is that scientific knowledge itself is > politically vulnerable. We've seen the Bush administration's assaults > on science on issues ranging from climate change to Plan B emergency > contraception (the "morning after" pill); we're witnessing a newly > resurgent anti-evolutionist movement that's spreading > community-to-community and state-to-state. And we're frustrated with a > national media that seeks to hear "both sides," even on subjects (like > evolution) where no scientific debate actually exists. > > Coming to grips with science's newly exposed political and cultural > vulnerability will require scientists to emphasize a rather different > set of skills than they're used to privileging. Although it's not true > of all scientists, too many have grown accustomed to the security of > their labs and university communities, occasionally lamenting the > American public's poor understanding of science but doing little in a > concerted way to improve it. And small wonder: American science > rewards the publication of peer-reviewed research, but offers little > incentive for scientists to communicate and translate what they know > to the public. So scientists in the US have little practice when it > comes to crafting a message or winning a political debate, and their > inexperience sometimes leads to ill-advised actions that have the > tendency to backfire. > > Consider the scientific community's engagement (or lack thereof) with > the anti-evolutionist Kansas State Board of Education. When the Board > called hearings on evolution, the scientific community boycotted. When > the Board began to rewrite state science standards, compromising > biology education, the National Academy of Sciences denied the Kansas > Board permission to use their copyrighted educational material. The > scientific community's distrust of the Kansas Board is understandable. > But such actions make scientists look like haughty snobs and elitists > who simply refuse to engage with ordinary Americans-an already > prevalent stereotype that hardly needs reinforcing. > > What we defenders of science must realize, if we want to combat > political attacks effectively, is that we have much to learn about > political communication and strategizing. Ideally, and in the best > spirit of science, we should view the current political quandary as a > problem to be addressed through trial and error-empirical attempts to > determine what actually works when it comes to translating science for > the general public. > > ... > > When it comes to defending evolution, another communications > thinker-the celebrated Berkeley cognitive linguist George Lakoff-has > other useful suggestions for the scientific community. The United > States is, of course, a very religious country; one in which many > fundamentalists attack evolution but also one in which many moderate > Christians support it. In this context, Lakoff explains that > scientists ought to be defending evolution by highlighting scientists > who are able to reconcile evolution with religious faith. The ideal > messengers to reach the public on this issue, then, would be > evolutionary biologists who are also practicing Christians. People, in > short, like Brown University evolution defender Kenneth R. Miller, a > practicing Catholic and author of the book Finding Darwin's God: A > Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. > {end quote} > > [me: Incidently, this last sentence highlights why I consider my > Vatican astronomer friend a gem. He doesn't need to justify or explain > himself to other astronomers because 1) all are more-or-less seeking > the 'big picture', and 2) he is a world-class scientist himself. The > precious bridge that he can provide is that he can explain to > fundamentalists how valuable is science. If atheist scientists wish to > gain the support of highly religious people, they will need people > like him.] > > Similarly, Lakoff agrees that scientists did a poor job dealing with > the Kansas Board of Education. What they should have done instead, he > suggests, was to launch a comprehensive national campaign to explain > evolution to the public, emphasizing how "converging evidence" from a > wide range of areas-the fossil record, radioisotope dating, genetics, > and many other disciplines-all independently confirm and strengthen > the evolutionary account. In short, the scientific community should be > promoting a positive message that teaches the public why evolution is > such a powerful scientific theory, and about how scientists weigh > evidence. > > > (see the article for all, it's a nice article) > > ---------------- > > Amara > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 19:27:02 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:27:02 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Personal Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0603020049y5020f6b8ocb00f2a8cb8b691c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603021127v494468fdi69e66a03a93d07a7@mail.gmail.com> I'll add that the anthropic principle has at least one successful prediction under its belt - the future duration of complex life on Earth in the absence of technological intervention being on the order of hundreds of millions of years, rather than billions as previously thought - so it is not quite the trivial tautology it has sometimes been claimed to be. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pkbertine at hotmail.com Thu Mar 2 19:43:58 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:43:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <20060302072639.27513.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: English researchers found the subjects in Turkey to be far smarter than Dr Tan did, raising question as to whether they were actually retarded. (from article) *The British group portrayed the victims? language abilities more generously than did Tan, who wrote that they speak a ?primitive? language of a few hundred words. ?They can all speak and understand Kurdish well enough to communicate within their own family, and three of them also speak some Turkish,? Humphrey?s group wrote. ?But their articulation is poor, and it seems they have a restricted vocabulary? and problems with word arrangement. However, ?They interacted with us as visitors in a friendly and courteous way.?* * http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060225_syndromefrm.htm This suggests that they were acting like apes for Dr. Tan or that Tan just wanted to see ape people. After reading Tan's paper I found his scientific and reasoning method to be rather crude. The British Group's comments seem to convey that they met a group of 5 people with some serious problems, not 5 throwbacks in the chain of human evolution. pete > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:27 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? > > > > http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060221_unertanfrm.htm > > It's claimed there the quadrupedal members of the > family have a newly discovered syndrome. However, in a > PubMed search I found a preexisting syndrome called > "dysequilibrium syndrome" (DES) that prevented 11 > mentally retarded members of a Hutterite community > from walking unassisted until between 5 to 21 years of > age. DES apparently goes back even further. The > individuals in the recent case are also described as > retarded. These syndromes may be the same and I > suspect are not "reverse evolution" to prehuman > primate neurology as suggested above. > > Am J Med Genet (1981): "We report a nonprogressive > neurological disorder in at least 11 Hutterites with > healthy but consanguineous parents. In several of the > affected, hypotonia was noted at birth. Retarded motor > and mental development became apparent during the > first year of life. The age of unsupported walking > varied from 5-21 years. [...] The disorder is probably > the same as that described earlier under the heading, > dysequilibrium syndrome." > http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=7246619 > > Am J Med Genet (1985): "This is a preliminary note on > the occurrence of the disequilibrium syndrome (DES) in > the Dariusleut Hutterites of Montana. Previously the > condition was reported in the Dariusleut of Alberta by > Schurig et al [1981] as an autosomal recessive, > non-progressive neurological disorder with congenital > hypotonia, considerable psychomotor retardation, > unsteady broadly based gait and stance, increased deep > tendon reflexes, and mild to moderate mental > retardation. Affected individuals were short. In the > Montana family studied by us in 1981, a brother and > three sisters are affected." > http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=4061489 > http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110517046/ > > "DES is an autosomal recessive disorder with distinct > clinical features including global developmental > delay, late ambulation (after age 6 y), truncal > ataxia, and a static clinical course." > http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=16174313 > > ~Ian > > __________________________________________________ > 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 kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Mar 2 19:56:04 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:56:04 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? References: Message-ID: <023201c63e33$56de47e0$640fa8c0@kevin> I think you may be a little over concerned Pete. Part of what you are seeing is a simple matter of specialization. It may have made sense for a person 100 years ago to understand how the inside of their automobile worked since they could likely be stuck on the road and need to fix it. The same concepts that were in that auto were also contained in the factory machinery at the guy's job and the farm equipment in the field. They were very basic and didn't require any special knowledge. Today it is a bit different. A computer tech has enough trouble keeping up with the latest technology in computers, the latest security threats, hardware, etc to keep them busy 24/7. They do not have the luxury or the need for the knowledge of how a car works. Even if they did, they probably could not fix the car on the way to the office due to the special tools and parts needed to do the job. They pick up the cell phone and call a person specialized in car repair.......And this person probably hasn't a clue how the cell phone that made the call works, but his specialized knowledge in repairing cars makes him no less important to the overall knowledge of the human species. Of course you have your multi-talented pointy-head types (like most of the people here) who have a great interest in nearly everything. But I doubt that our numbers are decreasing. I also doubt that anyone here who knows how a cell phone works also knows each of the specific manufacturing processes that went into it, the processes that were used to gather the raw materials, an understaing of the infrastructure that brought all the parts into the plant to be made, the knowledge to work the machines as the phones are made in the line, and the various retail strategies that went into the sale of the phone and got it into the customer's hand. There may be a broad overview, but that's not enough to get the job done. There are people who are specialized all the way through the process that make that phone happen and without them, your dark ages would come to pass. As for "Lost", it's very inconsistent but I find it entertaining nonetheless. It's nice to take a break from reality and suspend disbelief sometimes. I also enjoyed the WIzard of Oz and I have no belief that the story line there is based in reality either. Some things are fun just because they are nuts - take Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. My advice is to lighte up just a bit and try to enjoy the marathon with t he specialized people around you. :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Bertine" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > Amara: > > Very insightful! Thank you for referring me back to the archive. I speak > for all my Huguenot ancestors, "Catholics are behaving much more civilized > these days." > > I do not come from an academic background. I raise money. I have the > uncanny ability to latch on to trends that will become popular 7 years in > the future. I've done it with Netscape, finepoint.com and, now, Prefab > Contemporary Architecture/Alternative energy. I seem to have a special meme > gene that has made me sensitive to new trends. > > I have an extensive background in Advertising. And being successful at > raising money quickly, I know how to clobber people properly until they open > their wallets. > > I have carefully read your argument and the article you referred me to and I > must disagree. > > Forget unfriendly AI, asteroid strikes, the Greenhouse Effect, or Pigeon > Flue... The world is in danger of sliding into another Dark Ages, from which > we will not be able to regain the heights of our current culture. > > The ignorance of today's "educated" person is staggering. I frequently ask > people how they think cell phones work. A frequent reply (other than who > cares) is that they "talk to satellites." A person in the middle of a > concrete building thinks their phone goes straight to a satellite, bounces > off it and "talks" to their friend's phone in the same room or around the > world. > > Try it. Ask the cell phone question. Make up your own questions. Then go > out and play Socrates for a few minutes every day. My point: Up until a > very short time ago people could see and touch the technology around them. > This is a very elementary point, no doubt brought up many times before on > the list. But what has it led to? > > 1) Super powerful cults that use the media and legal system to spread > pseudoscience and clone idiots, such as the Raelians. > http://www.clonaid.com/news.php > http://www.watchman.org/profile/raelianpro.htm > http://skepdic.com/raelian.html > > My first post on this list was an attempt to dissuade Robert Bradbury from > interacting with a Raelian. Robert has a great sense of humor, but I'm not > sure he knew what he was dealing with unless he wanted to get invited to a > Raelian orgy. > > 2) Detached and annoyed, intelligent and highly rational, "Sane" people who > are marginalized from mainstream society. When I was recently invited to > join a "Lost" DVD marathon and pointed out that the fat guy hasn't "Lost" > any weight over the episodes, no one laughed. When I mentioned that > "Gilligan's Island" was based on a far more plausible concept and was at > least funny, people got mad and paused the DVD. "You're comparing "Lost" to > "Gillian's Island?" it was demanded of me. "Why yes, isn't it obvious?" > "Lost is *real* it could actually happen," came the reply from a high level > advertising director. I won't go on. Very smart people in New York City > think that a Jumbo Jet could go down somewhere in the world and not be found > within 24 hours. > > 3) I'm not going to list more "evidence" of the evaporation of skepticism > and the death of reason. My final point is that, much as I hate her, Ayn > Rand wrote one decent book called Anthem (she should have stopped there). > It's Science fiction really and makes the point that the idiots take over > and the world returns to a candle lit society. The idiots are taking over. > They control the media and they make the powerful memes. > > I suggest that science fight back with the same media that the idiots are > using. Shows like Myth Busters are the grain around which a well organized > "pearl" of professional PR driven media mediums need to be produced. There > are powerful celebrities and very rich people who will support this effort. > It is not philanthropy; it can be very profitable battling entropy. > > Amara, you wrote: I don't like aggressive approaches. Hammering people over > their head with one's insistence is not usually very effective either. > > People are being hammered with nonsense; let us intelligently and > strategically inject them with reason. > > Pete > www.petebertine.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:40 PM > > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > > > > Pete Bertine: > > >If the pope is now pro-evolution (doubt it, it's a papal trick > > > > I don't think you were on the list in November when we discussed it: > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-November/022526.html > > > > I don't doubt it, mostly because I asked my Vatican astronomer friend > > when I visited the Vatican Observatory last November. He knows it from > > the source, so I can't do any better about factual references. > > > > The Pope's argument against ID is subtle, and, is useful to > > understand: > > > > http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=17691 > > > > >Seriously, what if leading Transhumanists penned a one pager and tried to > > >get it into the press with a challenge to school teachers to incorporate > > it > > >into their curriculum? > > > > _One_ pager ? > > > > > Or if an exciting debate between "The body freezers" > > >v. "The Creationists" were waged online (Discovery Channel special?) with > > a > > >hard line taken for evolution, if it was entertaining, if walking fish > > were > > >blown up or driven over by Spike on an Orange County chopper, then people > > >might wake up. > > > > I don't like aggressive approaches. Hammering people over their head > > with one's insistence is not usually very effective either. > > > > >Lets face it, Creationism is a meme that is in vogue. > > > > There's a phenomena taking place in one part of 6% of the world's > > population, that's true. > > > > >Evolution needs a better PR firm. > > > > I suggest to begin here: > > > > "Learning to Speak Science " > > by Chris Mooney > > > > http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/learning_to_speak_science.php > > > > ---------------- > > An excerpt: > > > > {begin quote} > > What the scientific community-not just scientists, mind you, but > > people who care about the role science plays in building a better > > society-is realizing is that scientific knowledge itself is > > politically vulnerable. We've seen the Bush administration's assaults > > on science on issues ranging from climate change to Plan B emergency > > contraception (the "morning after" pill); we're witnessing a newly > > resurgent anti-evolutionist movement that's spreading > > community-to-community and state-to-state. And we're frustrated with a > > national media that seeks to hear "both sides," even on subjects (like > > evolution) where no scientific debate actually exists. > > > > Coming to grips with science's newly exposed political and cultural > > vulnerability will require scientists to emphasize a rather different > > set of skills than they're used to privileging. Although it's not true > > of all scientists, too many have grown accustomed to the security of > > their labs and university communities, occasionally lamenting the > > American public's poor understanding of science but doing little in a > > concerted way to improve it. And small wonder: American science > > rewards the publication of peer-reviewed research, but offers little > > incentive for scientists to communicate and translate what they know > > to the public. So scientists in the US have little practice when it > > comes to crafting a message or winning a political debate, and their > > inexperience sometimes leads to ill-advised actions that have the > > tendency to backfire. > > > > Consider the scientific community's engagement (or lack thereof) with > > the anti-evolutionist Kansas State Board of Education. When the Board > > called hearings on evolution, the scientific community boycotted. When > > the Board began to rewrite state science standards, compromising > > biology education, the National Academy of Sciences denied the Kansas > > Board permission to use their copyrighted educational material. The > > scientific community's distrust of the Kansas Board is understandable. > > But such actions make scientists look like haughty snobs and elitists > > who simply refuse to engage with ordinary Americans-an already > > prevalent stereotype that hardly needs reinforcing. > > > > What we defenders of science must realize, if we want to combat > > political attacks effectively, is that we have much to learn about > > political communication and strategizing. Ideally, and in the best > > spirit of science, we should view the current political quandary as a > > problem to be addressed through trial and error-empirical attempts to > > determine what actually works when it comes to translating science for > > the general public. > > > > ... > > > > When it comes to defending evolution, another communications > > thinker-the celebrated Berkeley cognitive linguist George Lakoff-has > > other useful suggestions for the scientific community. The United > > States is, of course, a very religious country; one in which many > > fundamentalists attack evolution but also one in which many moderate > > Christians support it. In this context, Lakoff explains that > > scientists ought to be defending evolution by highlighting scientists > > who are able to reconcile evolution with religious faith. The ideal > > messengers to reach the public on this issue, then, would be > > evolutionary biologists who are also practicing Christians. People, in > > short, like Brown University evolution defender Kenneth R. Miller, a > > practicing Catholic and author of the book Finding Darwin's God: A > > Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. > > {end quote} > > > > [me: Incidently, this last sentence highlights why I consider my > > Vatican astronomer friend a gem. He doesn't need to justify or explain > > himself to other astronomers because 1) all are more-or-less seeking > > the 'big picture', and 2) he is a world-class scientist himself. The > > precious bridge that he can provide is that he can explain to > > fundamentalists how valuable is science. If atheist scientists wish to > > gain the support of highly religious people, they will need people > > like him.] > > > > Similarly, Lakoff agrees that scientists did a poor job dealing with > > the Kansas Board of Education. What they should have done instead, he > > suggests, was to launch a comprehensive national campaign to explain > > evolution to the public, emphasizing how "converging evidence" from a > > wide range of areas-the fossil record, radioisotope dating, genetics, > > and many other disciplines-all independently confirm and strengthen > > the evolutionary account. In short, the scientific community should be > > promoting a positive message that teaches the public why evolution is > > such a powerful scientific theory, and about how scientists weigh > > evidence. > > > > > > (see the article for all, it's a nice article) > > > > ---------------- > > > > Amara > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 2 20:22:49 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:22:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060302202249.42742.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Let's not be too dismissive of the Raelians and other cults. Religions are larger cults with political power. BTW you can ask an educated person why religion has worked for thousands of years, and you wont get a satisfactory answer either. What religion does is give meaning where there is no meaning; It all centers around the family; does a scientist hold his or her family together with true rationality, no, he necessarily cons himself into thinking his wife is some sort of earth goddess, and his children are ultraspecial creations of the cosmos-- when perhaps they are nothing but meat-puppets. Let's please not be so sure we're less deluded in our own way than Raelians. >1) Super powerful cults that use the media and legal system to spread >pseudoscience and clone idiots, such as the Raelians. >My first post on this list was an attempt to dissuade Robert Bradbury from >interacting with a Raelian. Robert has a great sense of humor, but I'm not >sure he knew what he was dealing with unless he wanted to get invited to a >Raelian orgy. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Mar 2 21:46:01 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:46:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? Message-ID: <380-2200634221461728@M2W097.mail2web.com> Please take disccussions about cults off list. Thank you. Natasha Original Message: ----------------- From: Ned Late nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 12:22:49 -0800 (PST) To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? Let's not be too dismissive of the Raelians and other cults. Religions are larger cults with political power. BTW you can ask an educated person why religion has worked for thousands of years, and you wont get a satisfactory answer either. What religion does is give meaning where there is no meaning; It all centers around the family; does a scientist hold his or her family together with true rationality, no, he necessarily cons himself into thinking his wife is some sort of earth goddess, and his children are ultraspecial creations of the cosmos-- when perhaps they are nothing but meat-puppets. Let's please not be so sure we're less deluded in our own way than Raelians. >1) Super powerful cults that use the media and legal system to spread >pseudoscience and clone idiots, such as the Raelians. >My first post on this list was an attempt to dissuade Robert Bradbury from >interacting with a Raelian. Robert has a great sense of humor, but I'm not >sure he knew what he was dealing with unless he wanted to get invited to a >Raelian orgy. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nanogirl at halcyon.com Thu Mar 2 21:21:08 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:21:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] MEDIA: Geldof documentary Air-Date References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060302083916.02db5e30@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <002701c63e3f$903daa60$0200a8c0@Nano> Very cool! Thanks for passing the torch along Natasha! And thank you for always working so hard on our behalf! Kind regards, 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." ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com Cc: wta-talk at transhumanism.org Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 6:58 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] MEDIA: Geldof documentary Air-Date A few months ago I mentioned That Peaches Geldorf came to Austin to visit with me about her current documentary on teenagers. We talked about so many things, but most pressingly about the future, living longer and transhumanity. Her film is airing on Monday, March, 27, 2006 at 10pm in the UK http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1469020,00.html Peaches, like many celebrity teenagers, gets a lot of press http://www.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,50001-1178841,00.html If she does in fact become a rock star or rap star, she told me that she will write an inspiring song about transhumans :-) Cheers - Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 23:36:32 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 23:36:32 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 3/2/06, Pete Bertine wrote: > The ignorance of today's "educated" person is staggering. I frequently ask > people how they think cell phones work. A frequent reply (other than who > cares) is that they "talk to satellites." A person in the middle of a > concrete building thinks their phone goes straight to a satellite, bounces > off it and "talks" to their friend's phone in the same room or around the > world. There's no need to know things like that when we have Back at school I liked physics because you got to work out problems. I hated chemistry because you just had to memorize the textbook and write it back down on the exam paper. Where's the intelligence in that? BillK From pkbertine at hotmail.com Fri Mar 3 00:08:10 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:08:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: <023201c63e33$56de47e0$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: > I think you may be a little over concerned Pete. Part of what you are > seeing > is a simple matter of specialization. It may have made sense for a person > 100 years ago to understand how the inside of their automobile worked > since > they could likely be stuck on the road and need to fix it. The same > concepts > that were in that auto were also contained in the factory machinery at the > guy's job and the farm equipment in the field. They were very basic and > didn't require any special knowledge. > [PB] Ah, the good old days when things were simple. I wish we knew what the ratio of non-neurotic people to neurotic people was 100 years ago v. today. There were probably far less rational numbers of folks then though. Still they were isolated idiots and it was much harder to organize groups of morons. And the idiots were bombarded by far simpler and much more *quaint* media manipulation. Today it is a bit different... > Today it is a bit different. A computer tech has enough trouble keeping up > with the latest technology in computers, the latest security threats, > hardware, etc to keep them busy 24/7. They do not have the luxury or the > need for the knowledge of how a car works. Even if they did, they probably > could not fix the car on the way to the office due to the special tools > and > parts needed to do the job. They pick up the cell phone and call a person > specialized in car repair.......And this person probably hasn't a clue how > the cell phone that made the call works, but his specialized knowledge in > repairing cars makes him no less important to the overall knowledge of the > Human species. [PB] Yes but the question is, "Are these overspecialized individuals less human than the people 100 years ago. The ponzi schemes of a last century still work with little variation, only now the scope is global and the $ figures in the billions. The popular delusions and madness of crowds hasn't changed a bit. Have we as a species gotten smarter, wiser more rational, do we question more what we see hear and read? No. I say as a whole, our species has lost touch, dumbed down, prefer Visa to Mastercard, think Coke is better than Pepsi. Only an elite few, the numbers may be growing, have critical thinking skills but the gulf between the thinking and the sleeping is growing wider every day. Just a hunch on my part. I can't point to the data yet. I'll get a team of coeds on it immediately. > > Of course you have your multi-talented pointy-head types (like most of > the > people here) who have a great interest in nearly everything. But I doubt > that our numbers are decreasing. I also doubt that anyone here who knows > how > a cell phone works also knows each of the specific manufacturing processes > that went into it, the processes that were used to gather the raw > materials, > an understaing of the infrastructure that brought all the parts into the > plant to be made, the knowledge to work the machines as the phones are > made > in the line, and the various retail strategies that went into the sale of > the phone and got it into the customer's hand. There may be a broad > overview, but that's not enough to get the job done. There are people who > are specialized all the way through the process that make that phone > happen > and without them, your dark ages would come to pass. [PB] The most important people are the ones who can creatively manage the specialized and they are getting harder and harder to find, they don't want to be a part of "it" any more. It is these effective and creative managers who are being marginalized more and more... again, no Harvard study to prove my point, just direct experience with how the souls of companies are crushed as they are thrown to the wolves of Wall Street, sucked up by global conglomerates and devoured by the P&L of the quarterly report. > > As for "Lost", it's very inconsistent but I find it entertaining > nonetheless. It's nice to take a break from reality and suspend disbelief > sometimes. [PB] My point is that smart folks think Jumbo Jets can disappear. I also enjoyed the WIzard of Oz and I have no belief that the > story line there is based in reality either. Some things are fun just > because they are nuts - take Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. My advice is > to lighte up just a bit and try to enjoy the marathon with t he > specialized > people around you. :-) > [PB] Douglas Adams was brilliant, his work was ironic, complex and he created elaborate social systems and physical realities that he worked within. He created a universe within which there were rules for how his hyper reality drive worked and his machine worked according to those rules. He created intricate thematic structures the way William Gibson and Arthur C. Clarke have. Lost is "nuts" and to mention it's sophomoric brain soothing power in the same paragraph as Hitchhiker has poor Douglas spinning in his grave. As for lightening up, I can out quote you line for line regarding Caddy Shack, Road Warrior or Wedding Crashers any day of the week. Plus, coeds still find me adorable and several have offered to have my children. Strippers give me lap dances for free. And a "marathon of specialized people" sounds like an aimless herd of sheep running for a cliff. Though I refuse to fiddle too much while Rome burns, I invite you anytime to NYC for a www.svn.org event where the wine flows free and the women are young and pretty. pete ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Bertine" > To: "'ExI chat list'" > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:26 PM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > > > > Amara: > > > > Very insightful! Thank you for referring me back to the archive. I > speak > > for all my Huguenot ancestors, "Catholics are behaving much more > civilized > > these days." > > > > I do not come from an academic background. I raise money. I have the > > uncanny ability to latch on to trends that will become popular 7 years > in > > the future. I've done it with Netscape, finepoint.com and, now, Prefab > > Contemporary Architecture/Alternative energy. I seem to have a special > meme > > gene that has made me sensitive to new trends. > > > > I have an extensive background in Advertising. And being successful at > > raising money quickly, I know how to clobber people properly until they > open > > their wallets. > > > > I have carefully read your argument and the article you referred me to > and > I > > must disagree. > > > > Forget unfriendly AI, asteroid strikes, the Greenhouse Effect, or Pigeon > > Flue... The world is in danger of sliding into another Dark Ages, from > which > > we will not be able to regain the heights of our current culture. > > > > The ignorance of today's "educated" person is staggering. I frequently > ask > > people how they think cell phones work. A frequent reply (other than > who > > cares) is that they "talk to satellites." A person in the middle of a > > concrete building thinks their phone goes straight to a satellite, > bounces > > off it and "talks" to their friend's phone in the same room or around > the > > world. > > > > Try it. Ask the cell phone question. Make up your own questions. Then > go > > out and play Socrates for a few minutes every day. My point: Up until a > > very short time ago people could see and touch the technology around > them. > > This is a very elementary point, no doubt brought up many times before > on > > the list. But what has it led to? > > > > 1) Super powerful cults that use the media and legal system to spread > > pseudoscience and clone idiots, such as the Raelians. > > http://www.clonaid.com/news.php > > http://www.watchman.org/profile/raelianpro.htm > > http://skepdic.com/raelian.html > > > > My first post on this list was an attempt to dissuade Robert Bradbury > from > > interacting with a Raelian. Robert has a great sense of humor, but I'm > not > > sure he knew what he was dealing with unless he wanted to get invited to > a > > Raelian orgy. > > > > 2) Detached and annoyed, intelligent and highly rational, "Sane" people > who > > are marginalized from mainstream society. When I was recently invited > to > > join a "Lost" DVD marathon and pointed out that the fat guy hasn't > "Lost" > > any weight over the episodes, no one laughed. When I mentioned that > > "Gilligan's Island" was based on a far more plausible concept and was at > > least funny, people got mad and paused the DVD. "You're comparing "Lost" > to > > "Gillian's Island?" it was demanded of me. "Why yes, isn't it obvious?" > > "Lost is *real* it could actually happen," came the reply from a high > level > > advertising director. I won't go on. Very smart people in New York > City > > think that a Jumbo Jet could go down somewhere in the world and not be > found > > within 24 hours. > > > > 3) I'm not going to list more "evidence" of the evaporation of > skepticism > > and the death of reason. My final point is that, much as I hate her, > Ayn > > Rand wrote one decent book called Anthem (she should have stopped > there). > > It's Science fiction really and makes the point that the idiots take > over > > and the world returns to a candle lit society. The idiots are taking > over. > > They control the media and they make the powerful memes. > > > > I suggest that science fight back with the same media that the idiots > are > > using. Shows like Myth Busters are the grain around which a well > organized > > "pearl" of professional PR driven media mediums need to be produced. > There > > are powerful celebrities and very rich people who will support this > effort. > > It is not philanthropy; it can be very profitable battling entropy. > > > > Amara, you wrote: I don't like aggressive approaches. Hammering people > over > > their head with one's insistence is not usually very effective either. > > > > People are being hammered with nonsense; let us intelligently and > > strategically inject them with reason. > > > > Pete > > www.petebertine.com > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:40 PM > > > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > > > > > > Pete Bertine: > > > >If the pope is now pro-evolution (doubt it, it's a papal trick > > > > > > I don't think you were on the list in November when we discussed it: > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-November/022526.html > > > > > > I don't doubt it, mostly because I asked my Vatican astronomer friend > > > when I visited the Vatican Observatory last November. He knows it from > > > the source, so I can't do any better about factual references. > > > > > > The Pope's argument against ID is subtle, and, is useful to > > > understand: > > > > > > http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=17691 > > > > > > >Seriously, what if leading Transhumanists penned a one pager and > tried > to > > > >get it into the press with a challenge to school teachers to > incorporate > > > it > > > >into their curriculum? > > > > > > _One_ pager ? > > > > > > > Or if an exciting debate between "The body freezers" > > > >v. "The Creationists" were waged online (Discovery Channel special?) > with > > > a > > > >hard line taken for evolution, if it was entertaining, if walking > fish > > > were > > > >blown up or driven over by Spike on an Orange County chopper, then > people > > > >might wake up. > > > > > > I don't like aggressive approaches. Hammering people over their head > > > with one's insistence is not usually very effective either. > > > > > > >Lets face it, Creationism is a meme that is in vogue. > > > > > > There's a phenomena taking place in one part of 6% of the world's > > > population, that's true. > > > > > > >Evolution needs a better PR firm. > > > > > > I suggest to begin here: > > > > > > "Learning to Speak Science " > > > by Chris Mooney > > > > > > http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/learning_to_speak_science.php > > > > > > ---------------- > > > An excerpt: > > > > > > {begin quote} > > > What the scientific community-not just scientists, mind you, but > > > people who care about the role science plays in building a better > > > society-is realizing is that scientific knowledge itself is > > > politically vulnerable. We've seen the Bush administration's assaults > > > on science on issues ranging from climate change to Plan B emergency > > > contraception (the "morning after" pill); we're witnessing a newly > > > resurgent anti-evolutionist movement that's spreading > > > community-to-community and state-to-state. And we're frustrated with a > > > national media that seeks to hear "both sides," even on subjects (like > > > evolution) where no scientific debate actually exists. > > > > > > Coming to grips with science's newly exposed political and cultural > > > vulnerability will require scientists to emphasize a rather different > > > set of skills than they're used to privileging. Although it's not true > > > of all scientists, too many have grown accustomed to the security of > > > their labs and university communities, occasionally lamenting the > > > American public's poor understanding of science but doing little in a > > > concerted way to improve it. And small wonder: American science > > > rewards the publication of peer-reviewed research, but offers little > > > incentive for scientists to communicate and translate what they know > > > to the public. So scientists in the US have little practice when it > > > comes to crafting a message or winning a political debate, and their > > > inexperience sometimes leads to ill-advised actions that have the > > > tendency to backfire. > > > > > > Consider the scientific community's engagement (or lack thereof) with > > > the anti-evolutionist Kansas State Board of Education. When the Board > > > called hearings on evolution, the scientific community boycotted. When > > > the Board began to rewrite state science standards, compromising > > > biology education, the National Academy of Sciences denied the Kansas > > > Board permission to use their copyrighted educational material. The > > > scientific community's distrust of the Kansas Board is understandable. > > > But such actions make scientists look like haughty snobs and elitists > > > who simply refuse to engage with ordinary Americans-an already > > > prevalent stereotype that hardly needs reinforcing. > > > > > > What we defenders of science must realize, if we want to combat > > > political attacks effectively, is that we have much to learn about > > > political communication and strategizing. Ideally, and in the best > > > spirit of science, we should view the current political quandary as a > > > problem to be addressed through trial and error-empirical attempts to > > > determine what actually works when it comes to translating science for > > > the general public. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > When it comes to defending evolution, another communications > > > thinker-the celebrated Berkeley cognitive linguist George Lakoff-has > > > other useful suggestions for the scientific community. The United > > > States is, of course, a very religious country; one in which many > > > fundamentalists attack evolution but also one in which many moderate > > > Christians support it. In this context, Lakoff explains that > > > scientists ought to be defending evolution by highlighting scientists > > > who are able to reconcile evolution with religious faith. The ideal > > > messengers to reach the public on this issue, then, would be > > > evolutionary biologists who are also practicing Christians. People, in > > > short, like Brown University evolution defender Kenneth R. Miller, a > > > practicing Catholic and author of the book Finding Darwin's God: A > > > Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. > > > {end quote} > > > > > > [me: Incidently, this last sentence highlights why I consider my > > > Vatican astronomer friend a gem. He doesn't need to justify or explain > > > himself to other astronomers because 1) all are more-or-less seeking > > > the 'big picture', and 2) he is a world-class scientist himself. The > > > precious bridge that he can provide is that he can explain to > > > fundamentalists how valuable is science. If atheist scientists wish to > > > gain the support of highly religious people, they will need people > > > like him.] > > > > > > Similarly, Lakoff agrees that scientists did a poor job dealing with > > > the Kansas Board of Education. What they should have done instead, he > > > suggests, was to launch a comprehensive national campaign to explain > > > evolution to the public, emphasizing how "converging evidence" from a > > > wide range of areas-the fossil record, radioisotope dating, genetics, > > > and many other disciplines-all independently confirm and strengthen > > > the evolutionary account. In short, the scientific community should be > > > promoting a positive message that teaches the public why evolution is > > > such a powerful scientific theory, and about how scientists weigh > > > evidence. > > > > > > > > > (see the article for all, it's a nice article) > > > > > > ---------------- > > > > > > Amara > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From HerbM at learnquick.com Fri Mar 3 00:09:51 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:09:51 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > On 3/2/06, Pete Bertine wrote: > > > The ignorance of today's "educated" person is staggering. I > frequently ask > > people how they think cell phones work. A frequent reply > (other than who > > cares) is that they "talk to satellites." A person in the > middle of a > > concrete building thinks their phone goes straight to a > satellite, bounces > > off it and "talks" to their friend's phone in the same room > or around the > > world. My students (computer networking) are usually surprised and a bit delighted to learn why their cell phones tend to run out of battery faster (when not being used or under roughly constant usage) depending on whether they are "out in the country" or "in the city" or even "down in a convention center basement". Hint: modern cell phones conserve battery life by adjusting power output to match conditions: the distance or required power to penetrate to the cell tower(s) in use. Old cell phones didn't have this capability since they lacked the modern microprocessors that do all of this calculation and adjustment. Battery have improved some, but much of the improvements in battery life, while actually reducing the SIZE and WEIGHT of the battery are due to such smart processing. I doubt you can find anyone (locally) who opposes the teaching of "evolution" who has actually READ "Origin of Species" or a modern textbook on "Natural Selection". Even evolutionary scientists frequently screw up the issue by overlooking that "evolution is just a set of facts" that is best explained by Darwin's Theory (with modifications) of Natural Selection. Much of the confusion comes from (typically) referring to the body of evidence AND the theory under the same name, i.e., "evolution". In Gravity we don't usually do this, but rather talk about "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity" and thus maintain clarity between the theory which best explains gravity and the set of facts which lead to that explanation. Another confusion the anti-science crowd loves to inject is that "evolution is not the only theory of how life begin" when in the most general sense evolution does not seriously attempt to explain the ORIGIN OF LIFE, but merely the origin of species through natural selection of differences. In theory a theory of natural selection may one day explain the origin of life, but the tools of natural selection are currently designed and tested to explain the evidence that we can trivially see that all life on earth is related and apparently descended from common ancestors. The key is the difference between the evidence of evolution, and a theory which explains that evidence (and is extremely well tested against that evidence.) Anyone who has bred dogs, pigeons (Darwin did), cats, or other animals for show can DEMONSTRATE evolution, but the mechanism is artificial rather than natural selection. -- Herb Martin From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Mar 2 23:27:25 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:27:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60603012243s7cd0ae55v62a2eda44a22df98@mail.gmail.co m> References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu> <7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60602271529w53777d7tb750f64a38d6a0a9@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060227183158.02488f60@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60603012243s7cd0ae55v62a2eda44a22df98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060302164603.02520888@gmu.edu> At 01:43 AM 3/2/2006, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > >But you didn't answer my question. What do you think stopped people > > > >dying of those diseases, if it wasn't the vaccines? > > > > > > There are lots of logical possibilities, and my state of belief is > > > that I am very uncertain about which one it might be. > > > ... > > Here is one explanation that has a plausible mechanism and isn't clearly > > contradicted by the data. ... feeling less stress as we have > gotten richer. > > ...There is a multiplier effect for contagious diseases, ... > >Since the greatest gains in survival have been observed in small >children, this story would also have to posit economic factors as >primarily responsible for reduced susceptibility of children to >infectious disease, as opposed to a combination healthcare factors, >with a secondary contribution from lifestyle changes enabled by >affluence. Do rich neonates feel sufficiently rich to have a "reduced >susceptibility" to e.g. polio? Healthier parents have healthier children. And as I said there is an externality benefit of being around healthier people. >I would expect that there is a nonlinear survival response ... if you >vaccinate against the top 10 diseases, ... and give >much better nutrition, the gains will have a synergistic effect ... >This effect is likely to explain the difficulty in measuring the >impact of single healthcare interventions on survival and would >obviate the need to seek explanations by a roundabout way, in >economic factors affecting adults. Such effects are indeed likely to spread the benefits out over time. Even so, the usual estimates of the relative benefits of the various vaccines doesn't suggest that their benefits would be spread uniformly over the entire twentieth century. But the mortality reductions have been pretty uniform. >I also find it important not give legitimacy to, for example, parents >who deny vaccinations to their children. Theorizing about why you >might not need basic medical care simply because you are feeling rich >may be harmless in itself but sometimes may be taken over by people >with unusual agendas. As my webpage says: >I have little patience with those whose thinking is sloppy, small, or >devoid of abstraction. And I'm not a joiner; I rebel against groups >with "our beliefs", especially when members must keep criticisms >private, so as not to give ammunition to "them". I will continue to call 'em as I see 'em, regardless of who that might give ammunition to. 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 pkbertine at hotmail.com Fri Mar 3 00:45:36 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:45:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We have incredible resources now; it takes a few minutes to learn about anything. But with all this at out finger tips where is the intellectual curiosity in people today and then the rational skills to reach a proper decision? Has it always been a constant variable? Or does 7% of the population have intellectual curiosity today v. 5% 100 years ago? Forget my cell phone analogy, take this one: Bombarded with hype about global warming does anyone look at the facts, the data and then make a choice about buying the Prius v. a Diesel VW, weighing the enormous toxicity of the batteries in the Prius against the fuel economy of the diesel and the availability of bio-diesel. No. They buy the Prius because it's a sexy meme. Because Leonardo de Caprio drove one to the Oscars, they like them because they are new and everyone wants the latest thing. You ever wonder what happens when a Prius gets in a major accident, what happens when the cells short out? I want survivability not sustainability in a car. Read this link. http://agebb.missouri.edu/news/ext/showall.asp?story_num=3610&iln=33 Would any rational person want emergency personel to "De-Energize" their car for 5 minutes before trying to extract them from a wreck. How about toxic fumes from water used to douse a fire. Or this analogy: Do we want a sustainable hydrogen economy or a methane economy when the oil economy becomes too expensive? Who's making these decisions, running the think tanks? Does anyone care? No, I don't think so. Not yet. Should they? Yes. BTW... I hated physics and chemistry, too much math. Words were so much more fun. Big mistake. Where was my intellectual curiosity? Pete Bertine www.petebertine.com > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 6:37 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > > On 3/2/06, Pete Bertine wrote: > > > The ignorance of today's "educated" person is staggering. I frequently > ask > > people how they think cell phones work. A frequent reply (other than > who > > cares) is that they "talk to satellites." A person in the middle of a > > concrete building thinks their phone goes straight to a satellite, > bounces > > off it and "talks" to their friend's phone in the same room or around > the > > world. > > > There's no need to know things like that when we have > > > Back at school I liked physics because you got to work out problems. > I hated chemistry because you just had to memorize the textbook and > write it back down on the exam paper. Where's the intelligence in > that? > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 3 02:00:48 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:00:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blind Watchmaker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060302205220.02c67ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:23 AM 3/2/2006 +0100, you wrote: >MB mbb386 at main.nc.us : > >> Perhaps we need a computer game or simulation. > > >Ha! Now *that* sounds like it might really do something to reach the > >young. :) One might "evolve" into a different form of player or > >something. I wonder.... > > >SimLife: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimLife > >But Dawkins was earlier. > >My first meeting of Keith Henson was at his house for a social event >where I remember him demonstrating Dawkins' game on his Apple Lisa >(this was 1986 or so). Ah yes. The game was Blind Watchmaker and is discussed in Dawkins' book of that name. There was also a BBC Horizon program of the same name featuring Dawkins explaining evolution. Normally the BBC Horizon programs became Nova programs in the US, but not that one which was judged too offensive to the religious right for US eyes to watch. I had a copy which I used to show groups of smart kids in the Silicon Valley area. I might even still have it. Keith Henson From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Mar 3 01:45:06 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:45:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? References: Message-ID: <04a101c63e64$19403d90$640fa8c0@kevin> > [PB] > Yes but the question is, "Are these overspecialized individuals less human > than the people 100 years ago. The ponzi schemes of a last century still > work with little variation, only now the scope is global and the $ figures > in the billions. The popular delusions and madness of crowds hasn't changed > a bit. Have we as a species gotten smarter, wiser more rational, do we > question more what we see hear and read? No. I say as a whole, our species > has lost touch, dumbed down, prefer Visa to Mastercard, think Coke is better > than Pepsi. Only an elite few, the numbers may be growing, have critical > thinking skills but the gulf between the thinking and the sleeping is > growing wider every day. Just a hunch on my part. I can't point to the > data yet. I'll get a team of coeds on it immediately. > [KF] I wouldn;t say the species has changed very much at all. We're a young species with a long way to go. I somehow doubt the numbers have changed too much over the years. This is probably a problem with perception. We are terrible at that. We always think the past was better than the present. We fear airplanes more than cars. And when we drive, we refer to everyone driving faster than us as idiots and slower ones as slowpokes. There is no research available for this, but my guess is that there has never been a shortage of ignorant people. > > > [PB] > The most important people are the ones who can creatively manage the > specialized and they are getting harder and harder to find, they don't want > to be a part of "it" any more. It is these effective and creative managers > who are being marginalized more and more... again, no Harvard study to > prove my point, just direct experience with how the souls of companies are > crushed as they are thrown to the wolves of Wall Street, sucked up by global > conglomerates and devoured by the P&L of the quarterly report. > > > [KF] Business is business. Always has been. Babylon was no different. Except now we pay people where before we enslaved them. Slavery is just not acceptable any more - all the way down to the most ignorant people. This is indeed progress. > > > [PB] > > Douglas Adams was brilliant, his work was ironic, complex and he created > elaborate social systems and physical realities that he worked within. He > created a universe within which there were rules for how his hyper reality > drive worked and his machine worked according to those rules. He created > intricate thematic structures the way William Gibson and Arthur C. Clarke > have. > > Lost is "nuts" and to mention it's sophomoric brain soothing power in the > same paragraph as Hitchhiker has poor Douglas spinning in his grave. [KF] While I agree his work was genius, I can hardly call it less nuts. It was the nuttiness that made it fun. > [PB]> As for lightening up, I can out quote you line for line regarding Caddy > Shack, Road Warrior or Wedding Crashers any day of the week. Plus, coeds > still find me adorable and several have offered to have my children. > Strippers give me lap dances for free. And a "marathon of specialized > people" sounds like an aimless herd of sheep running for a cliff. > > Though I refuse to fiddle too much while Rome burns, I invite you anytime to > NYC for a www.svn.org event where the wine flows free and the women are > young and pretty. > > [KF] I may have to take you up on that - or at least the part my GF doesn't mind. lol From transcend at extropica.com Fri Mar 3 01:58:02 2006 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:58:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603030254.k232s4CF023857@andromeda.ziaspace.com> >SimLife: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimLife There's a new game coming out next year from Will Wright that continues in the Sim Life vein. It's called "Spore" and simulates the evolution of a civilization from single celled life to interstellar conquest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_%28game%29 It won't be particularly detailed in terms of evolutionary science. It definitely isn't SimLife in that regard. It does, however, look to be a fun game that might have some educational merit. This game made big waves at E3 last year and is widely considered to be one of the more daring titles currently under development. Brandon Reinhart / GreenMarine Lead Designer Spacetime Studios, LLC From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Mar 3 02:56:06 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 02:56:06 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <200603010337.k213bafX004869@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20060228225754.84163.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> <200603010337.k213bafX004869@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603021856y676fe058qa622432c60d97c46@mail.gmail.com> On 3/1/06, spike wrote: > > A big part of the reason why so many report not believing in evolution is > that it is so widely misunderstood. This has been shown in surveys, where > test takers reported having learned more about evolution by taking the > survey than in any other exposure to the discipline. Evolution is widely > caricatured by fish crawling out on land, becoming an ape then a human, as > if evolution has a particular direction. Cartoon images can have enormous > impact, as we have seen. Stephen J. Gould has written extensively on this > misconception and its affect on the public. > I'm quite disappointed at the direction this conversation is taking here. I'm going to copy some paragraphs I wrote on another list: "Western civilization has followed Christianity for the last two thousand years, but lately many people are finding that religion no longer works for them, and are either formally leaving it or merely paying lip service. (I think this is at least in part because, while there is much that is good in Christianity, it is unfortunately often lumped in with belief in the literal truth of myths like the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark, which do not appear to be consistent with the way the world we live in works; but that's another matter.) Contrary to the hopes of some prominent atheists, this has not led to an era of enlightened rationalism, but to disaffectation, superstition and nihilism. Yet contrary to some cynics, I don't believe this is by and large due to stupidity (the average disaffected teenager effortlessly grasps social situations I was still struggling with in my 20s) or lack of education (we have a grinding surfeit of that, at least quantitatively). I think it's because the modern world view is presented so badly. There is plenty of beauty in real science and technology, and plenty of hope if they are employed by wise and rational ethics. There should be no need to resort to superstition as a psychological defense mechanism or resign oneself in despair to the idea that only what one can grasp for oneself at this moment is of any account; and there would not be, were the world described by science not so often wrongly portrayed as empty and meaningless." Of all the places I would have hoped to see the meaning and beauty in the real world remarked on, it would be extropy-chat, the mailing list of the philosophy of progress itself. Yet I see it said or implied that evolution has no direction, that humans are no better than chimpanzees, that Gould's empty nihilism corrects a misconception. Most people aren't specialists in science. (If they were, we'd all have starved to death long ago.) They reasonably rely on those of us who are, to tell them what science says and implies. If even Extropians claim that science describes a meaningless world, using evolution as the edge of the axe, is it any wonder that people who still want to believe in something worthwhile reject evolution? Can you really blame them? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Mar 3 03:17:15 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:17:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Personal Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: James writes > I found the ABC's piece on the anthropic principle very helpful: > > http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1572643.htm Yes, that is a good discussion. And it reminds me that I should have reserved my spleen for anything other than the "Weak Anthropic" principle. Quite a number of professions adopt only this milder form. From the link above, David Deutsch says: Another way to go is to say, oh well then, the reason why it seems fine tuned is that actually there are lots of universes and all possible values of these constants of nature, all possible laws of physics, all possible ways that the universe could be are actually instantiated in some universes. And the reason why we observe these particular values that seem fine tuned for our existence, is simply because in the other ones there's no one there to ask the question. And so we shouldn't be surprised that we're in one of the ones that has parameters such that someone's going to ask the question. And that idea, the idea that we should condition all our predictions on the assumption that we are here to ask the question, is called the weak anthropic principle. Lee > Out of complete cosmological naivety, it also seems to me less likely > that the meta-verse contains all possible universes, separated by each > possible quantum variation, than that there is some structural > patterning that reduces the N of universes. Perhaps Robin's suggested > mechanisms of adjacent universe-gobbling is one mechanism which reduces > the infinitude of the metaverse. From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 3 01:43:44 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:43:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <55213.72.236.103.102.1141261235.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <200603010337.k213bafX004869@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060228225754.84163.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> <200603010337.k213bafX004869@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060302203510.02c29ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:00 PM 3/1/2006 -0500, you wrote: > > Your > > mission, should you decide to accept it, is to explain evolutionary theory > > to the layman using the amount of text that would fit on one side of one > > sheet of printer paper, using language not out of reach of the average > > eighth grader. Ready set go. > > > > > > > >How about: > > >The currently-accepted scientific model of evolution was first laid >out in Darwin's book On The Origin of Species Through Natural >Selection. The Darwinian theory of evolution can be summed up in a >number of simple postulates: > >(1) The members of any particular biological population will differ >from each other in minor ways, and will have slightly differing >characteristics of construction and behavior. This is the principle >of "variation". > >(2) These variations can be passed from one generation to the next, >and the offspring of those possessing a particular type of variation >will also tend to have that same variation. This is the principle of >"heritability". > >(3) Certain of these variations will give their possessor an >advantage in life (or avoid some disadvantage), allowing that >organism to obtain more food, escape predators more efficiently, etc. >Thus, those organisms that possess such a useful variation will tend >to survive longer and produce more offspring than other members of >that population. These offspring, through the principle of >heritability, will also tend to possess this advantageous variation, >and this will have the affect of increasing, over a number of >generations, the proportion of organisms in the population which >possess this variation. This is the principle of "natural selection". > >These principles are combined to form the core of the evolutionary >model. The Darwinian outlook holds that small incremental changes in >structure and behavior, brought about by the natural selection of >variations, produce, after a long period of time, organisms that >differ so greatly from their ancestors that they are no longer the >same organism, and must be classified as a separate species. This >process of speciation, repeated over the 3.5 billion year span of >time since life first appeared on earth, explains the gradual >production of all of life's diversity. > >(by Lenny Flank, as presented to middle-school kids, used with permission) > >Regards, >MB It leaves out "inclusive fitness," work of Hamilton and Haldane. You really have to include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness to have the slightest chance of applying evolution to the subject of most interest to humans, namely humans. Keith Henson From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Mar 3 03:29:52 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 03:29:52 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Personal Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0603021929g1db719afgaffd7bb5b50af294@mail.gmail.com> On 3/3/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Yes, that is a good discussion. And it reminds me that I should > have reserved my spleen for anything other than the "Weak > Anthropic" principle. Ah, then we have no disagreement, because that is the only form I adhere to (or to be more exact, the only form I regard as having explanatory or predictive power, with the semi-exception of the Final Anthropic Principle in a region where it overlaps with quantum immortality; but I still don't regard that as having _practical_ explanatory or predictive power). - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Mar 3 03:35:23 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:35:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603021127v494468fdi69e66a03a93d07a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell wrote > > > 2. Of course we find ourselves living on an object where > > > conditions are suitable for life, however small a percentage > > > of the total such objects may be - we couldn't have evolved > > > in a place where they aren't! > > > > I don't think that (2.) is any explanation at all! But that > > it is not a very good explanation, I'm sure you agree. > > Not really - I think it's a complete and correct answer to the > question, and simple and elegant too; what more can one ask from > an explanation? It's clearly in lieu of a better explanation: observe how strenuously physicists attempt to account for the constants some other way. And we would all be delighted if it turned out that there was an Occam-simple theory (like string theory) that led to a unique answer. (For one thing, it would be extremely interesting.) And if someone ever found one, then the paucity of the current lack of explanation (if you'll forgive the expression) would be evident, and people would just start laughing at themselves. > I'll add that the anthropic principle has at least one successful > prediction under its belt - the future duration of complex life on > Earth in the absence of technological intervention being on the > order of hundreds of millions of years, rather than billions as > previously thought - so it is not quite the trivial tautology it > has sometimes been claimed to be. I don't understand how that's a prediction that's been verified. How could it be if it's about millions of years in the future? Ned wrote > And our existence isn't quite as marvelous as we'd like to think; > we're still darwinist integers, so for every marvelous aspect of > existence there is some aspect that is mundane, even disgusting. Tastes vary! As for me, I do find it quite marvelous. > The human body is, to me, more or less disgusting. Me, too. But I am sure that there is an EP explanation for this, no doubt having to do with religion (like me, you perhaps were raised in what the libertines call an "uptight society" :-) But we digress from the Anthropic Principle. Oh, and by the way, that article reminded me that "PAP" has already been taken as the Participatory Anthropic Principle. So I'm renaming my contributions to this thread. Lee From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Mar 3 03:34:21 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:34:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060303033421.51323.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> --- Pete Bertine wrote: > English researchers found the subjects in Turkey to > be far smarter than Dr Tan did, raising question as > to whether they were actually retarded. Good observation. Uner Tan says they have "severe mental retardation" [1] but the other description doesn't fit such a harsh assessment. I'd think of severe retardation as hardly able to communicate; yet it seems these folks communicated reasonably well and also understand social context. The Hutterite victims of disequilibrium syndrome were described as having "mild to moderate mental retardation," [2] which may be comparable to the so-called "UnerTan Syndrome" folks such that the two syndromes sound very similar to me. > The British Group's comments seem to convey that > they met a group of 5 people with some serious > problems, not 5 throwbacks in the chain of human > evolution. Right! The best that could hopefully come from all this is that these people get caring attention and help to learn to walk upright (assuming they want to) rather than being reduced to de facto specimens of "ape people." Imagine the horrendous impact such a conceptual paradigm could have on them and others with congenital ambulatory disabilities. ~Ian _____________________________________________________ [1] http://www.neuroquantology.com/2005/04/250.255.html [2] http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=4061489 & http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=7246619 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From HerbM at learnquick.com Fri Mar 3 03:40:23 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:40:23 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603021856y676fe058qa622432c60d97c46@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > If even Extropians claim that science describes a meaningless world, using evolution as the edge of the axe, is it any > wonder that people who still want to believe in something worthwhile reject evolution? Can you really blame them? No more than I would blame a drug addict for rejecting the obvious consequences of denying the reality of the continued use of drugs even when that use is obviously killing the person. (Notice drug usage does not necessarily imply addiction, but many people are not smart enough to see the difference when it applies to themselves.) Such a cry for 'meaning' is merely to blame the messenger (i.e., Science); if there is no meaning in life then this is not the fault of Science for showing reality -- just the facts, m'am. If reality doesn't supply the meaning you wish, then you must invent that meaning for yourself -- if you wish to do so honestly (i.e., intellectual honesty) then it is important to remember that YOU (or I) invented that meaning... To use wishful thinking to project meaning onto the inanimate and unintelligent is mere superstition or ignorance. Now it is surprising that the 'average person' is unable to understand and recognize the difference between self-determined 'meaning' and projecting that onto the world? No, since most people are very poorly trained in logic and scientific methods. We're this not so Lotteries could not exist (as currently constituted), being largely a tax upon the mathematically ignorant or the superstitiously illogical. -- Herb Martin _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:56 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? On 3/1/06, spike wrote: A big part of the reason why so many report not believing in evolution is that it is so widely misunderstood. This has been shown in surveys, where test takers reported having learned more about evolution by taking the survey than in any other exposure to the discipline. Evolution is widely caricatured by fish crawling out on land, becoming an ape then a human, as if evolution has a particular direction. Cartoon images can have enormous impact, as we have seen. Stephen J. Gould has written extensively on this misconception and its affect on the public. I'm quite disappointed at the direction this conversation is taking here. I'm going to copy some paragraphs I wrote on another list: "Western civilization has followed Christianity for the last two thousand years, but lately many people are finding that religion no longer works for them, and are either formally leaving it or merely paying lip service. (I think this is at least in part because, while there is much that is good in Christianity, it is unfortunately often lumped in with belief in the literal truth of myths like the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark, which do not appear to be consistent with the way the world we live in works; but that's another matter.) Contrary to the hopes of some prominent atheists, this has not led to an era of enlightened rationalism, but to disaffectation, superstition and nihilism. Yet contrary to some cynics, I don't believe this is by and large due to stupidity (the average disaffected teenager effortlessly grasps social situations I was still struggling with in my 20s) or lack of education (we have a grinding surfeit of that, at least quantitatively). I think it's because the modern world view is presented so badly. There is plenty of beauty in real science and technology, and plenty of hope if they are employed by wise and rational ethics. There should be no need to resort to superstition as a psychological defense mechanism or resign oneself in despair to the idea that only what one can grasp for oneself at this moment is of any account; and there would not be, were the world described by science not so often wrongly portrayed as empty and meaningless." Of all the places I would have hoped to see the meaning and beauty in the real world remarked on, it would be extropy-chat, the mailing list of the philosophy of progress itself. Yet I see it said or implied that evolution has no direction, that humans are no better than chimpanzees, that Gould's empty nihilism corrects a misconception. Most people aren't specialists in science. (If they were, we'd all have starved to death long ago.) They reasonably rely on those of us who are, to tell them what science says and implies. If even Extropians claim that science describes a meaningless world, using evolution as the edge of the axe, is it any wonder that people who still want to believe in something worthwhile reject evolution? Can you really blame them? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 3 03:19:09 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:19:09 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Personal Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603030353.k233rS9G009088@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > For strong proponents of anthropic principles, I submit the PAP, > the Personal Anthropic Principle. Here are a few choice applications. ... > Why, I can explain all sorts of things with the PAP or NAP! > But their very silliness should serve as an additional warning > against anthropic principles. Lee Lee this is great thinking. As TBD, I strictly forbid you from ever unsubscribing for any reason. {8-] spike From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Mar 3 04:08:44 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 04:08:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0603021127v494468fdi69e66a03a93d07a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603022008i5ceff9f8l45af8644e8a20cf2@mail.gmail.com> On 3/3/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > It's clearly in lieu of a better explanation: observe how strenuously > physicists attempt to account for the constants some other way. Of course. That's a methodological issue: we'd better look hard for other kinds of explanations, because they might be there and we'd miss them if we just sat back on the Weak Anthropic Principle. "We'd better look hard just in case" doesn't imply "we are likely to find something". And we > would all be delighted if it turned out that there was an Occam-simple > theory (like string theory) that led to a unique answer. I'd be somewhere between disconcerted and disgusted. Why would that mathematically unique answer happen to support the evolution of intelligent life? Consider an analogy: Suppose the first few thousand decimal digits of pi after the first couple of dozen, turned out to be just 0 and 1, and the length of the sequence turned out to be a product of two primes, and if you did the obvious raster display, the 1s spelled out the name "Lee Corbin". Wouldn't you feel just a bit disconcerted and/or disgusted? I was delighted when the Landscape started looking like it had 10^500 solutions rather than the paltry trillion or whatever before. 10^500 solutions is big enough that we should naturally expect there to be at least a few that support the evolution of intelligent life, without needing special explanations. > I'll add that the anthropic principle has at least one successful > > prediction under its belt - the future duration of complex life on > > Earth in the absence of technological intervention being on the > > order of hundreds of millions of years, rather than billions as > > previously thought - so it is not quite the trivial tautology it > > has sometimes been claimed to be. > > I don't understand how that's a prediction that's been verified. How > could it be if it's about millions of years in the future? The prediction has been verified in the sense that further data, more realistic models and more detailed calculations have shown that in the absence of technological intervention, complex life on Earth will cease to exist in a few hundred million years (or at least diminish sufficiently to preclude the evolution of intelligence); this result was not known when the prediction was made, but was established afterwards. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Mar 3 04:13:06 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 04:13:06 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0603021856y676fe058qa622432c60d97c46@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603022013y6563f978s15a157eca4d07bb5@mail.gmail.com> On 3/3/06, Herb Martin wrote: > > > If even Extropians claim that science describes a meaningless world, > using evolution as the edge of the axe, is it any > > wonder that people who still want to believe in something worthwhile > reject evolution? Can you really blame them? > *No more than I would blame a drug addict for rejecting the * > *obvious consequences of denying the reality of the continued* > *use of drugs even when that use is obviously killing the person.* > Killing? Ah, but it is secular Europe that is dying - check the birth rates. Religion is the only thing still binding human life to this world on a large scale. *Such a cry for 'meaning' is merely to blame the messenger (i.e., Science);* > *if there is no meaning in life then this is not the fault of Science for > * > *showing reality -- just the facts, m'am.* > Science does not say there is no meaning in life; it says nothing whatsoever on the matter. It is the greatest triumph of nihilism to have libelled science as the bearer of its message. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Mar 3 03:20:41 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 22:20:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] It's the truth..it's a fact Message-ID: <20060303032041.48553.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Active minds will grok evolution. But how do we introduce evolution to lazy >and indifferent minds? Is it necessary? Is it even possible? Evolution is a fact. It's the truth. That doesn't diminish the religious point of view. It makes it different. 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Mar 3 04:30:05 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 04:30:05 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] It's the truth..it's a fact In-Reply-To: <20060303032041.48553.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060303032041.48553.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603022030p4e4fdcbr96d5c5b19701d1f3@mail.gmail.com> On 3/3/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > >Active minds will grok evolution. But how do we introduce evolution to > lazy > >and indifferent minds? Is it necessary? Is it even possible? > > Evolution is a fact. It's the truth. That doesn't diminish the religious > point of view. It makes it different. > Agreed. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 3 03:00:02 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 22:00:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Goring a local ox--MetaMeta In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060228014249.02f84a00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060227183158.02488f60@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60602271529w53777d7tb750f64a38d6a0a9@mail.gmail.com> <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu> <7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60602271529w53777d7tb750f64a38d6a0a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:48 AM 2/28/2006 -0500, Keith wrote: >A while back I said if nobody objected, I would gore one of the local >oxen. Before I do, let me make it clear that I am a lower case snip Apparently this isn't going to provoke any discussion. Shot too high? Shot too low? Too long? Fear of flame wars? Keith Henson From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Mar 3 04:43:16 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 22:43:16 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] interesting article about human lifespans in the near future Message-ID: <003901c63e7c$fd78d860$640fa8c0@kevin> It looks like these articles about the coming increases in lifespans are starting to get a bit more common. Here's a short, but interesting one at PhysOrg.com http://www.physorg.com/news11372.html One statement I found interesting was: "An example of this inequality, Tuljapurkar said, is the lack of availability of AIDS antiretrovirals in Africa. Although these medications are widely available in the West, they are out of reach for many African patients, who make up more than 60 percent the world's AIDS cases. "If we can't deal with AIDS in Africa, the chance that we'll be able to deliver these anti-aging technologies to other nations is pretty slim," he said. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Mar 3 04:43:11 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 23:43:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] It's the truth..it's a fact In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603022030p4e4fdcbr96d5c5b19701d1f3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060303044311.23242.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Actually i'm really sorry, spike wrote: (most probably my mistake) >Active minds will grok evolution. But how do we introduce evolution to lazy >and indifferent minds? Is it necessary? Is it even possible? Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: Evolution is a fact. It's the truth. That doesn't diminish the religious point of view. It makes it different. Russell Wallace wrote: On 3/3/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: >Active minds will grok evolution. But how do we introduce evolution to lazy >and indifferent minds? Is it necessary? Is it even possible? Evolution is a fact. It's the truth. That doesn't diminish the religious point of view. It makes it different. Agreed. - Russell _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Enrich your life at Yahoo! Canada Finance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Fri Mar 3 05:49:59 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:49:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] interesting article about human lifespans in thenear future Message-ID: "An example of this inequality, Tuljapurkar said, is the lack of availability of AIDS antiretrovirals in Africa. Although these medications are widely available in the West, they are out of reach for many African patients, who make up more than 60 percent the world's AIDS cases. "If we can't deal with AIDS in Africa, the chance that we'll be able to deliver these anti-aging technologies to other nations is pretty slim," he said. " ----------- Ironic, since I always use the global campaign to provide antiretrovirals in Africa as an example of precisely the kind of politics we will need to ensure universal access to human enhancement tech. See The Global Fund: http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/ -------------------------------------------- James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director World Transhumanist Assoc. Inst. for Ethics & Emerging Tech. http://transhumanism.org http://ieet.org director at transhumanism.org director at ieet.org Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology http://jetpress.org Mailing Address: Box 128, Willington CT 06279 USA (office) 860-297-2376 From pkbertine at hotmail.com Fri Mar 3 06:15:42 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 01:15:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Goring a local ox--MetaMeta In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Sorry Keith, Please gore the ox. I know a Wiccan coven that could use the blood. pete > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 10:00 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Goring a local ox--MetaMeta > > At 01:48 AM 2/28/2006 -0500, Keith wrote: > >A while back I said if nobody objected, I would gore one of the local > >oxen. Before I do, let me make it clear that I am a lower case > > snip > > Apparently this isn't going to provoke any discussion. > > Shot too high? Shot too low? Too long? Fear of flame wars? > > Keith Henson > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From amara at amara.com Fri Mar 3 06:42:12 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 07:42:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blind Watchmaker Message-ID: Hi Keith, (me) >>But Dawkins was earlier. >> >My first meeting of Keith Henson was at his house for a social event >>where I remember him demonstrating Dawkins' game on his Apple Lisa >>(this was 1986 or so). (Keith) >Ah yes. The game was Blind Watchmaker and is discussed in Dawkins' >book of that name. The funny thing about that Mac software is the programmer managed badly the Macintosh resources, and I heard complaints that the biomorphs were messing with the operating system! (I think my friend needed to reinstall the OS after running it.) >There was also a BBC Horizon program of the same name featuring >Dawkins explaining evolution. Normally the BBC Horizon programs >became Nova programs in the US, but not that one which was judged too >offensive to the religious right for US eyes to watch. I had a copy >which I used to show groups of smart kids in the Silicon Valley area. >I might even still have it. (looking...) From Dawkins' web site, where a person can order the video: http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/videos.shtml Hmm. Even though BBC Horizons has some incredible programs available easily now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/index.shtml their 1987 Blind Watchmaker isn't listed, so it seems you must follow Dawkins' advice for a more lengthy and expensive procedure to order. 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 amara at amara.com Fri Mar 3 06:54:44 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 07:54:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? Message-ID: I don't think you are in a solid position to make this statement: Pete Bertine pkbertine at hotmail.com : >The ignorance of today's "educated" person is staggering. I frequently >ask people how they think cell phones work. A frequent reply (other >than who cares) is that they "talk to satellites." A person in the >middle of a concrete building thinks their phone goes straight to a >satellite, bounces off it and "talks" to their friend's phone in the >same room or around the world. Because later in another message, you say: >BTW... I hated physics and chemistry, too much math. Words were so >much more fun. Big mistake. Where was my intellectual curiosity? Did you do something about it? 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/ ******************************************************************** "Math is Hard." --Barbie From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 3 07:21:05 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 23:21:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Goring a local ox--MetaMeta In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200603030726.k237QKkT010254@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Hi Keith, While you were away, we kinda developed list fatigue on libertarianism. Discussion on this topic is allowed, but everyone keep it smart: post smart stuff and be the signal. {8-] spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:00 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Goring a local ox--MetaMeta > > At 01:48 AM 2/28/2006 -0500, Keith wrote: > >A while back I said if nobody objected, I would gore one of the local > >oxen. Before I do, let me make it clear that I am a lower case > > snip > > Apparently this isn't going to provoke any discussion. > > Shot too high? Shot too low? Too long? Fear of flame wars? > > Keith Henson > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pkbertine at hotmail.com Fri Mar 3 07:29:59 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 02:29:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amara, I think you took the BTW...A little out of context, I was having fun and chastising myself for hubris because I was accused of taking things too seriously. I was referring to high school and later in life I diligently tried to make up my deficiency in mathematics and embraced practical Physics and Chemistry, though, unfortunately, not beyond the basics. My love of reading and writing was all consuming and I poured over advanced theory in physics from an early age, trying to make sense of the math. Again, sadly, I possessed no aptitude for mathematics. Low SAT scores in math and no advanced study in Physics or Chemistry does not mean that I haven't developed a highly rational mind. Part of the function of a rational mind is a desire to understand and control the environment around it. I consider a man to be inferior if he doesn't know how many cylinders his car engine has and a woman quaint if she thinks her $100 cell phone can blast a signal up to a satellite. I judge people by some basic standards I have set up. I find very few people who reach those standards. Why doesn't my first statement stand alone on it's own merits? --pete > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 1:55 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > > I don't think you are in a solid position to make this statement: > > Pete Bertine pkbertine at hotmail.com : > >The ignorance of today's "educated" person is staggering. I frequently > >ask people how they think cell phones work. A frequent reply (other > >than who cares) is that they "talk to satellites." A person in the > >middle of a concrete building thinks their phone goes straight to a > >satellite, bounces off it and "talks" to their friend's phone in the > >same room or around the world. > > Because later in another message, you say: > > >BTW... I hated physics and chemistry, too much math. Words were so > >much more fun. Big mistake. Where was my intellectual curiosity? > > Did you do something about it? > > 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/ > ******************************************************************** > "Math is Hard." --Barbie > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 3 07:31:09 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 23:31:09 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603030731.k237VNjJ000948@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps ... > > Pete Bertine pkbertine at hotmail.com : ... > > >BTW... I hated physics and chemistry, too much math. Words were so > >much more fun. Big mistake. Where was my intellectual curiosity? > > Did you do something about it? > > Amara > -- Pete, I was your counterpart. I loooved physics and chemistry, no such thing as too much math. Words were not enough fun. When I graduated from college I realized that I was functionally illiterate from having focused on science and math exclusively. Regarding an education in the liberal arts, I was the left-behind poster child. So I did something: read a bunch of books, and now I have somewhat less illiterateness. I benefited from a policy of readacy. spike {8^D From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Mar 3 06:44:39 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 22:44:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Goring a local ox--MetaMeta In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060303064439.12105.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Keith Henson wrote: > Shot too high? Shot too low? Too long? Fear of flame wars? Probably too low/narrow. Yes, there are examples of even certain Libertarians reacting emotionally and non-rationally. We're all capable of it, as human beings. So? From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Mar 3 07:54:58 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 23:54:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603022008i5ceff9f8l45af8644e8a20cf2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > On 3/3/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > And we would all be delighted if it turned out > > that there was an Occam-simple theory (like > > string theory) that led to a unique answer. > > I'd be somewhere between disconcerted and disgusted. > Why would that mathematically unique answer happen > to support the evolution of intelligent life? Sounds like a value we share :-) I had not looked into the implications for "intelligent- life density" in the universe. But one could argue either way (typically of metaverse/Tegmarkish discussions). For example, if we take as given the existence of Everything That Is, then one could be disconcerted (in the way you are) because there are so few Tegmark islands. (See below.) > Consider an analogy: Suppose the first few thousand > decimal digits of pi after the first couple of dozen, > turned out to be just 0 and 1, and the length of the > sequence turned out to be a product of two primes, > and if you did the obvious raster display, the 1s > spelled out the name "Lee Corbin". Wouldn't you feel > just a bit disconcerted and/or disgusted? Yes, indeed! Back in my last incarnation on this list I used to go on and on about certain large integers which must exist that when decoded eloquently convince us that that they're conscious (so loaded with indexes and self-references and so on). Maybe Carl Sagan was the first to talk about the message in pi in his awful SF book? (Sorry, Sagan fans.) > I was delighted when the Landscape started looking > like it had 10^500 solutions rather than the paltry > trillion or whatever before. 10^500 solutions is > big enough that we should naturally expect there > to be at least a few that support the evolution of > intelligent life, without needing special explanations. If we *don't* start with the size of entirety as given (as I did above), then yes, more is better. I see your point. But remember, back when Earth was the only solid body under God, intelligent life enjoyed a near one-hundred percent penetration of mundane creation. > The prediction [that the future duration of complex > life on Earth in the absence of tech intervention] > has been verified in the sense that further data, > more realistic models and more detailed calculations > have shown that in the absence of technological > intervention, complex life on Earth will cease > to exist in a few hundred million years (or at > least diminish sufficiently to preclude the > evolution of intelligence); this result was not > known when the prediction was made, but was > established afterwards. I'll have to look that up; meanwhile, Susskind is claiming that Weinberg used the AP to predict something; maybe your example will be more persuasive. Meanwhile, I'm still keeping a skeptical eye out for the WPA being good for anything except very weak explanations. Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 3 08:21:02 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:21:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603022013y6563f978s15a157eca4d07bb5@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0603021856y676fe058qa622432c60d97c46@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0603022013y6563f978s15a157eca4d07bb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00A14F9F-3527-41E5-96E6-DCC553ACD9E2@mac.com> On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:13 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 3/3/06, Herb Martin wrote: > > Such a cry for 'meaning' is merely to blame the messenger (i.e., > Science); > if there is no meaning in life then this is not the fault of > Science for > showing reality -- just the facts, m'am. > > Science does not say there is no meaning in life; it says nothing > whatsoever on the matter. It is the greatest triumph of nihilism to > have libelled science as the bearer of its message. > Well said! - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From estropico at gmail.com Fri Mar 3 10:11:27 2006 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 10:11:27 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExtroBritannia's March event: James Hughes on The Politics of Human Enhancement Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90603030211p418e8572jc5efa326a1ee6dee@mail.gmail.com> ExtroBritannia's March event: James Hughes on "The Politics of Human Enhancement" This month, we'll look at "The Politics of Human Enhancement" with James Hughes, Executive Director of the World Transhumanist Association and its affiliated Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and author of Citizen Cyborg. "Religious conservatives are joining with Greens, feminists and the disabled to enact global bans on human enhancement technologies. Demographers are warning policy makers that life extension technologies will wreck pensions. Drug warriors scramble to keep up with the proliferation of new psychopharmaceuticals, while drug regulators try to figure out how to assure the safety of gene therapies and implantable devices. In this new biopolitical landscape what strategic course should transhumanists set? How can we unite our libertarians and leftists, our seculars and spirituals, our life extenders, wire-heads and Singularitarians, around a common agenda to defend everyone's rights to safe and universally accessible enhancement technologies? Dr. Hughes will lay out an agenda for transhumanist activism that can unite a broad, majoritarian coalition around the right to control our own bodies and minds, and achieve longer, happier, healthier lives for everyone." Friday the 17th of March 2006 starting at 7pm at Conway Hall (Club Room) in Holborn, London. The event is free and everyone is welcome. CONWAY HALL 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL tel 020 7242 8032 www.conwayhall.org.uk Nearest tube: Holborn Map: http://tinyurl.com/8syus --- The ExtroBritannia mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extrobritannia The ExtroBritannia Blog: http://www.extrobritannia.blogspot.com ExtroBritannia is part of the UK Transhumanist Association: http://www.transhumanist.org.uk From amara at amara.com Fri Mar 3 11:43:25 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 12:43:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? Message-ID: Pete Bertine pkbertine at hotmail.com : >My love of reading and writing was all consuming and I poured over >advanced theory in physics from an early age, trying to make sense of >the math. Again, sadly, I possessed no aptitude for mathematics. "aptitude.." ? Did you try? I failed calculus twice when I was 17 and 18. On the third time, with a good teacher, I got As and Bs. Again for differential equations and partial differential equations, I failed in the beginning. Again with hard work and a good teacher I got As. Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that one can't do math. You didn't try. Most of my Study Abroad students age 18-22 did not know how to manipulate powers, or understand trigonometry, or use the ln, exp functions on their calculators (and understand what it meant). Expressions that had more then two variables gave them big headaches. The first time I gave them a problem to calculate their weight on Mars, they got it wrong. The second time I gave them a problem to calculate their weight on Venus, 2/3 got it right. The third time I gave them a problem to calculate their weight on a neutron star, they all got it right. >Part of the function of a rational mind is a desire to understand and >control the environment around it. "control" the environment? >I consider a man to be inferior if he doesn't know how many cylinders >his car engine has and a woman quaint if she thinks her $100 cell >phone can blast a signal up to a satellite. I judge people by some >basic standards I have set up. I find very few people who reach those >standards. You are not going to convince people by insulting them. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi-roma.inaf.it From paul_illich at yahoo.com Fri Mar 3 10:53:31 2006 From: paul_illich at yahoo.com (paul illich) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 02:53:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Personal Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060303105331.42149.qmail@web52702.mail.yahoo.com> Is it just me, or does PAP sound frighteningly compatible with solipscism? Paul "One fundamental goal of any well-crafted indoctrination program is to direct attention elsewhere, away from effective power, its roots, and the disguises it assumes." Chomsky, 'Deterring Democracy', 1992 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 3 14:14:18 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:14:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Goring a local ox--MetaMeta In-Reply-To: <200603030726.k237QKkT010254@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:21 PM 3/2/2006 -0800, you wrote: >Hi Keith, > >While you were away, we kinda developed list fatigue on libertarianism. >Discussion on this topic is allowed, but everyone keep it smart: post smart >stuff and be the signal. Other than using it as an example, the post wasn't about a particular brand of partisanship. It was about human psychological traits that (had the discussion continued) would have tied into our origin as hunter gatherers. The consequences of our origin and these traits should be of interest to Extropians. These psychological mechanisms are the source of great social energy as evidenced by everything from cults to the cartoon riots. Extropians and related transhumanists may or may not be able to tap the traits (it may be impossible to be a fanatic when you understand the origin of the trait) but we darn sure need to know where they are leading just to stay out of the way. The subject is linked to the concerns some on this list have about the European population dying out. I wonder using an example so close to the Extropian meme set switched on some of Minsky's censor agents? Keith Henson From pkbertine at hotmail.com Fri Mar 3 14:55:29 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 09:55:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amara: I'm not sure if we should take this off list or not, but I'm certain that there are a few out there who enjoy me getting put in my place. I have, by the way, declared Crocker's Rules on sl4.org, so none should worry about hurting my feelings. My rough edges will only be honed but I won't go away. I knew you'd get me on the last paragraph. It was late and I was trying to sleep after an exciting www.svn.org meeting. I concede the point to you, I am an obnoxious little prick sometimes and in the end a person's worth isn't decided by their knowledge of cell phone technology or automotive experience but by how much money they make. However, I bristle when you say I didn't try. "Aptitude" is a quick way to say that I was a very difficult student. I began an obvious (by today's mental health standards) 6 month bipolar cycle in the seventh grade and had been hyperactive since birth; I should have been on Ritalin and lithium by age 12. In the seventh grade I experienced the first onset of hypomania followed by a deep clinical depression. During the few months of the year when I had a tenuous balance I excelled in school. Luckily my reading skills were such that I could devour books when I was depressed and socially withdrawn. Unfortunately, during the clinical depression I wasn't predisposed toward trigonometry, when I was hypomanic all I wanted to do was chase skirts. Mental health in the 1980's was primitive compared to the early and later 90's. I wasn't diagnosed with bipolar until I was 20. Unfortunately, I had been much influenced by Dianetics and popular UFO Cult mythology. I didn't become medicated until I was 24. Amara, if you think I'm annoying now, picture me back then. During rapid cycle bipolar one goes from a state of stuporific depression that can be misdiagnosed as retardation (not unlike what the Ape People in Turkey probably go through), to a state of euphoria that at first is very charming and a period of great creativity... followed by complete mental breakdown. To make a very long story shorter, a medication, Geodon, was finally released for use to treat bipolar in August 2004. This medicine cleared my mind. I was able to put the enormous energy that had been required to fight mood swings to actual use and I "remade" myself. Now at the age of 37, you would be able to teach me expressions that have more than 2 variables. At 27 or 17 you wouldn't want me anywhere near your daughter much less sitting in a classroom with you. However, it wasn't the magic pills that made me into a functioning human being, it was a constant desire to learn and make myself better. I was forever *trying* to excel, unfortunately, my body failed me. So, in a very real sense, I am Transhuman. I'm certainly heavily augmented by science and technology. 300 mg of Depakote, 75 mg of Effexor, 40 mg of Geodon, 1mg of Proscar, up to 3 mg of clonazepam (usually only 1mg) for anxiety, some wine and a beer every now and again... and with the help of my doctor I manage to stay in a steady state just below hypomania. This incredible cocktail has taken an enormous amount of *trying* and time. I have changed the environment of my mind so that I can successfully control the environment around me. I believe that it can be argued that humanity has become successful as a species because it learned to control the environment, to subdue nature. I see around me multitudes who have no idea how the artificial and natural environment around them works. I have no patience for them. *They* aren't trying. Pete > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 6:43 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > > > Pete Bertine pkbertine at hotmail.com : > >My love of reading and writing was all consuming and I poured over > >advanced theory in physics from an early age, trying to make sense of > >the math. Again, sadly, I possessed no aptitude for mathematics. > > "aptitude.." ? Did you try? > > I failed calculus twice when I was 17 and 18. On the third time, with > a good teacher, I got As and Bs. Again for differential equations and > partial differential equations, I failed in the beginning. Again with > hard work and a good teacher I got As. > > Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that one can't do math. > You didn't try. > > Most of my Study Abroad students age 18-22 did not know how to > manipulate powers, or understand trigonometry, or use the ln, exp > functions on their calculators (and understand what it meant). > Expressions that had more then two variables gave them big headaches. > > The first time I gave them a problem to calculate their weight on > Mars, they got it wrong. The second time I gave them a problem to > calculate their weight on Venus, 2/3 got it right. The third time I > gave them a problem to calculate their weight on a neutron star, they > all got it right. > > >Part of the function of a rational mind is a desire to understand and > >control the environment around it. > > "control" the environment? > > >I consider a man to be inferior if he doesn't know how many cylinders > >his car engine has and a woman quaint if she thinks her $100 cell > >phone can blast a signal up to a satellite. I judge people by some > >basic standards I have set up. I find very few people who reach those > >standards. > > You are not going to convince people by insulting them. > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD > Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) > Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), > Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, > Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi-roma.inaf.it > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 3 15:38:11 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 07:38:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Goring a local ox--MetaMeta In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200603031538.k23FcKxR001375@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson ... > > Other than using it as an example, the post wasn't about a particular > brand of partisanship... > > I wonder using an example so close to the Extropian meme set switched on > some of Minsky's censor agents? > > Keith Henson Sounds interesting. I mighta been away on a business trip when this came up and missed it. Or we were traumatized by the Raelian purge I had to commit. What was the local-ox thread? Feel free to repost in entirety the original post, see if we get any bites this time. spike From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Mar 3 15:47:39 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 07:47:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Participatory Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: <20060303105331.42149.qmail@web52702.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Paul writes > Is it just me, or does PAP sound frighteningly compatible > with solipsism? First of all the acronym PAP seriously refers to the "Participatory Anthropic Principle" pushed by Wheeler and others. My own device, "Personal Anthropic Principle", though everyone is invited to investigate it and publish their findings in prestigious journals, was really just a joke. You may realize that, but perhaps not everyone reading your post. But either way, in my opinion, your point does have some sting. Under the Participatory Anthropic Principle, it is as though the human race is conjecturing that their own semi-divine being was what *caused* the universe to come into existence. Think of how ridiculous we'd look if, contra-Fermi, the Galactic Council has to see our consideration of this belief as further evidence of immaturity, akin to that of a six-month old, and they keep on ignoring us. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Mar 3 16:05:44 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:05:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amara writes > Pete Bertine pkbertine at hotmail.com : > > My love of reading and writing was all consuming and I poured over > > advanced theory in physics from an early age, trying to make sense of > > the math. Again, sadly, I possessed no aptitude for mathematics. > > "aptitude.." ? Did you try? It's entirely possible that Pete is right about his aptitude, though usually folks are quite a bit more capable than they conclude---they just have to imagine what the right learning environment for them would have been. > I failed calculus twice when I was 17 and 18. On the third time, with > a good teacher, I got As and Bs. Seriously, if you had been all-interested at age 14 or 15, you may very well have just absorbed enough of it on pure faith to solve a lot of problems, feel quite successful, and in some real ways understand a great deal. Some people are so rational by the time they're 17 or 18 that they've become critical thinkers, and demand understanding too many details before they go ahead. "Just go on," said D'Alembert, "and the faith will soon return". > > Part of the function of a rational mind is a desire to understand and > > control the environment around it. > > "control" the environment? I too would demur at the use of "desire to control". Many people we'd want to hold up as exemplars of rationality don't happen to have this desire. But on a broader level, the human organism and perhaps even the human race is designed to want to control its environment. The bacteria in my kitchen sure know who's boss! I ruthlessly destroy them by the billions, and in this house it is indeed I who control the environment, and I wouldn't have it any other way :-) Lee From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 3 15:44:20 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 07:44:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603031620.k23GKFbD020532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Pete Bertine ... > unfortunately, my body failed me. > > So, in a very real sense, I am Transhuman. I'm certainly heavily > augmented > by science and technology. 300 mg of Depakote, 75 mg of Effexor, 40 mg of > Geodon, 1mg of Proscar, up to 3 mg of clonazepam (usually only 1mg) for > anxiety, some wine and a beer every now and again... and with the help of > my > doctor I manage to stay in a steady state just below hypomania. This > incredible cocktail has taken an enormous amount of *trying* and time. > ... > > Pete Pete, man, good for you bud. Thanks for the success story. I had some doubts about these medications, so it is encouraging to hear from someone who has made them work. Keep it up. {8-] spike From zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com Fri Mar 3 17:30:03 2006 From: zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com (Keith M. Elis) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 09:30:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060303173003.62045.qmail@web82212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Pete Bertine wrote: > I have changed the environment of my mind so that I can successfully > control > the environment around me... I see around me multitudes who have > no idea > how the artificial and natural environment around them works. My immediate reaction is, contrary to your claim in the first statement above, you haven't done enough to change 'environment of [your] mind'. Upon further reflection, you would probably agree that you can't claim to know what one, single *individual* knows, never mind pass judgement on the knowledge of a multitude. This tendency to see an outgroup 'multitude' as relatively homogenous in their inferiority is a blend of at least two cognitive biases, perhaps more. Add overconfidence and our tendency to think we know more about others than they do of us and you will continue to say embarassing things like this in public. > I have > no > patience for them. *They* aren't trying. Luckily for you, the group with which you have no patience probably doesn't even exist, at least as you describe them. My guess is that after really thinking about why you are impatient with the multitude, you will find that you've been wasting a lot of energy on impatience for nothing. Keith From amara at amara.com Fri Mar 3 19:10:16 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 20:10:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? Message-ID: Pete Bertine pkbertine at hotmail.com : >I knew you'd get me on the last paragraph. It was late and I was >trying to sleep after an exciting www.svn.org meeting. I concede the >point to you, I am an obnoxious little prick sometimes and in the end >a person's worth isn't decided by their knowledge of cell phone >technology or automotive experience but by how much money they make. I don't think highly of that measure either. Most of the world is not as "rich" (which begs a definition) as the U.S. and so to compare incomes you must factor in living expenses and incomes. For that reason, The Economist publishes periodically their Big Mac Index, in order to more easily compare prices between countries. http://www.economist.com/markets/Bigmac/index.cfm 2006 Big Mac Index http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5389856 Moreover, you are placing your highest life value on money, which is a shaky value. We've talked about that too, http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-February/025028.html From The Economist article: The Quality of Life Index --------------------------- "The role of income The aim is to supplement not supplant real GDP. We find that GDP per person explains more than 50% of the inter-country variation in life satisfaction, and the estimated relationship is linear. Surveys show that even in rich countries people with higher incomes are more satisfied with life than those with lower incomes. In 24 out of 28 countries surveyed by Eurobarometer, material wellbeing is identified as the most important criterion for life satisfaction. However, over several decades there has been only a very modest upward trend in average life-satisfaction scores in developed nations, whereas average income has grown substantially. There is no evidence for an explanation sometimes proffered for the apparent paradox of increasing incomes and stagnant life-satisfaction scores: the idea that an increase in someone's income causes envy and reduces the welfare and satisfaction of others. In our estimates, the level of income inequality had no impact on levels of life satisfaction. Life satisfaction is primarily determined by absolute, rather than relative, status (related to states of mind and aspirations). The explanation is that there are factors associated with modernisation that, in part, offset its positive impact. A concomitant breakdown of traditional institutions is manifested in the decline of religiosity and of trade unions; a marked rise in various social pathologies (crime, and drug and alcohol addiction); a decline in political participation and of trust in public authority; and the erosion of the institutions of family and marriage. In personal terms, this has also been manifested in increased general uncertainty and an obsession with personal risk. These phenomena have accompanied rising incomes and expanded individual choice (both of which are highly valued). However, stable family life and community are also highly valued and these have undergone a severe erosion." --------------------------- BTW, My income falls way below poverty level by US standards. By your measure, then, I would be an inferior person. That still sounds obnxious, and I maintain that you won't sell ideas to people by insulting them. >So, in a very real sense, I am Transhuman. I'm certainly heavily >augmented by science and technology. 300 mg of Depakote, 75 mg of >Effexor, 40 mg of Geodon, 1mg of Proscar, up to 3 mg of clonazepam >(usually only 1mg) for anxiety, some wine and a beer every now and >again... and with the help of my doctor I manage to stay in a steady >state just below hypomania. This incredible cocktail has taken an >enormous amount of *trying* and time. OK, I'm convinced about your trying. The word 'aptitude' is more often in colloquial usage for a fitness related to a willingness to try, rather than a physical fitness. I can understand that math is difficult for you from a physical fitness sense. >I have changed the environment of my mind so that I can successfully >control the environment around me. Sorry, control is an allusion. There are some things that humans can do, even more things if they try. But to successfully "control the environment" is impossible. >I see around me multitudes who have no idea how the artificial and >natural environment around them works. I have no patience for them. >*They* aren't trying. Do you *know* "the multitudes" ? Why should anyone have patience for you, when you have no patience "for the multitudes" ? 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/ *********************************************************************** "Treat people as if they are what they ought to be, and you will help them become what they are capable of being. --Ashleigh Brilliant From pkbertine at hotmail.com Fri Mar 3 19:31:41 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:31:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hold on! Hold ! On ! I hate smiley faces but there was a big tongue in cheek smiley face. I'm sorry it fell flat. A person's worth is based upon the effort they put into bettering themselves and those around them. It is in no way based upon money. Sorry. My bad joke. > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:10 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > > > Pete Bertine pkbertine at hotmail.com : > >I knew you'd get me on the last paragraph. It was late and I was > >trying to sleep after an exciting www.svn.org meeting. I concede the > >point to you, I am an obnoxious little prick sometimes and in the end > >a person's worth isn't decided by their knowledge of cell phone > >technology or automotive experience but by how much money they make. > > I don't think highly of that measure either. > > Most of the world is not as "rich" (which begs a definition) as the > U.S. and so to compare incomes you must factor in living expenses and > incomes. For that reason, The Economist publishes periodically their > Big Mac Index, in order to more easily compare prices between > countries. > > http://www.economist.com/markets/Bigmac/index.cfm > > 2006 Big Mac Index > http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5389856 > > Moreover, you are placing your highest life value on money, which is a > shaky value. We've talked about that too, > > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-February/025028.html > > > From The Economist article: The Quality of Life Index > > --------------------------- > "The role of income > The aim is to supplement not supplant real GDP. We find that GDP per > person explains more than 50% of the inter-country variation in life > satisfaction, and the estimated relationship is linear. Surveys show > that even in rich countries people with higher incomes are more > satisfied with life than those with lower incomes. In 24 out of 28 > countries surveyed by Eurobarometer, material wellbeing is identified > as the most important criterion for life satisfaction. > > However, over several decades there has been only a very modest > upward trend in average life-satisfaction scores in developed > nations, whereas average income has grown substantially. There is no > evidence for an explanation sometimes proffered for the apparent > paradox of increasing incomes and stagnant life-satisfaction scores: > the idea that an increase in someone's income causes envy and reduces > the welfare and satisfaction of others. In our estimates, the level > of income inequality had no impact on levels of life satisfaction. > Life satisfaction is primarily determined by absolute, rather than > relative, status (related to states of mind and aspirations). > > The explanation is that there are factors associated with > modernisation that, in part, offset its positive impact. A concomitant > breakdown of traditional institutions is manifested in the decline of > religiosity and of trade unions; a marked rise in various social > pathologies (crime, and drug and alcohol addiction); a decline in > political participation and of trust in public authority; and the > erosion of the institutions of family and marriage. In personal terms, > this has also been manifested in increased general uncertainty and an > obsession with personal risk. These phenomena have accompanied rising > incomes and expanded individual choice (both of which are highly > valued). However, stable family life and community are also highly > valued and these have undergone a severe erosion." > --------------------------- > > > BTW, My income falls way below poverty level by US standards. By your > measure, then, I would be an inferior person. That still sounds obnxious, > and I maintain that you won't sell ideas to people by insulting them. > > >So, in a very real sense, I am Transhuman. I'm certainly heavily > >augmented by science and technology. 300 mg of Depakote, 75 mg of > >Effexor, 40 mg of Geodon, 1mg of Proscar, up to 3 mg of clonazepam > >(usually only 1mg) for anxiety, some wine and a beer every now and > >again... and with the help of my doctor I manage to stay in a steady > >state just below hypomania. This incredible cocktail has taken an > >enormous amount of *trying* and time. > > OK, I'm convinced about your trying. The word 'aptitude' is more often > in colloquial usage for a fitness related to a willingness to try, > rather than a physical fitness. I can understand that math is > difficult for you from a physical fitness sense. > > >I have changed the environment of my mind so that I can successfully > >control the environment around me. > > Sorry, control is an allusion. There are some things that humans can > do, even more things if they try. But to successfully "control the > environment" is impossible. > > >I see around me multitudes who have no idea how the artificial and > >natural environment around them works. I have no patience for them. > >*They* aren't trying. > > Do you *know* "the multitudes" ? Why should anyone have patience for > you, when you have no patience "for the multitudes" ? > > > 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/ > *********************************************************************** > "Treat people as if they are what they ought to be, and you will help > them become what they are capable of being. --Ashleigh Brilliant > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From Alan_Baltis at progressive.com Fri Mar 3 20:50:14 2006 From: Alan_Baltis at progressive.com (Alan Baltis) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:50:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pete: I saw the smiley face that wasn't there. I thought it was hilarious! I nonetheless did enjoy the links and reference Amara supplied- I'd seen the Quality of Life Index before, but not the Big Mac one. Very interesting to see what real value income or wealth have in different parts of the world. I have several friends that have investigated retiring or emigrating to non-USA locations because "their money will last longer," but their evidence seemed largely anecdotal or focused on a single country (e.g. Costa Rica) rather than surveying the globe. - Al -- Another Pithy Nugget O' Wisdom from Al's Quote-A-Matic: "The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty--- and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. It is, indeed, only the exceptional man who can even stand it. The average man doesn't want to be free. He simply wants to be safe . . . . What the average man wants in this world is the simplest and most ignominious sort of peace--- the peace of a trusty in a humane penitentiary, of a hog in a comfortable sty." - H.L. Mencken "Pete Bertine" To Sent by: "'ExI chat list'" extropy-chat-boun ces at lists.extropy cc .org Subject Re: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for 03/03/2006 02:31 Evolution? PM Please respond to ExI chat list Hold on! Hold ! On ! I hate smiley faces but there was a big tongue in cheek smiley face. I'm sorry it fell flat. A person's worth is based upon the effort they put into bettering themselves and those around them. It is in no way based upon money. Sorry. My bad joke. > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:10 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > > > Pete Bertine pkbertine at hotmail.com : > >I knew you'd get me on the last paragraph. It was late and I was > >trying to sleep after an exciting www.svn.org meeting. I concede the > >point to you, I am an obnoxious little prick sometimes and in the end > >a person's worth isn't decided by their knowledge of cell phone > >technology or automotive experience but by how much money they make. > > I don't think highly of that measure either. > > Most of the world is not as "rich" (which begs a definition) as the > U.S. and so to compare incomes you must factor in living expenses and > incomes. For that reason, The Economist publishes periodically their > Big Mac Index, in order to more easily compare prices between > countries. > > http://www.economist.com/markets/Bigmac/index.cfm > > 2006 Big Mac Index > http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5389856 > > Moreover, you are placing your highest life value on money, which is a > shaky value. We've talked about that too, > > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-February/025028.html > > > From The Economist article: The Quality of Life Index > > --------------------------- > "The role of income > The aim is to supplement not supplant real GDP. We find that GDP per > person explains more than 50% of the inter-country variation in life > satisfaction, and the estimated relationship is linear. Surveys show > that even in rich countries people with higher incomes are more > satisfied with life than those with lower incomes. In 24 out of 28 > countries surveyed by Eurobarometer, material wellbeing is identified > as the most important criterion for life satisfaction. > > However, over several decades there has been only a very modest > upward trend in average life-satisfaction scores in developed > nations, whereas average income has grown substantially. There is no > evidence for an explanation sometimes proffered for the apparent > paradox of increasing incomes and stagnant life-satisfaction scores: > the idea that an increase in someone's income causes envy and reduces > the welfare and satisfaction of others. In our estimates, the level > of income inequality had no impact on levels of life satisfaction. > Life satisfaction is primarily determined by absolute, rather than > relative, status (related to states of mind and aspirations). > > The explanation is that there are factors associated with > modernisation that, in part, offset its positive impact. A concomitant > breakdown of traditional institutions is manifested in the decline of > religiosity and of trade unions; a marked rise in various social > pathologies (crime, and drug and alcohol addiction); a decline in > political participation and of trust in public authority; and the > erosion of the institutions of family and marriage. In personal terms, > this has also been manifested in increased general uncertainty and an > obsession with personal risk. These phenomena have accompanied rising > incomes and expanded individual choice (both of which are highly > valued). However, stable family life and community are also highly > valued and these have undergone a severe erosion." > --------------------------- > > > BTW, My income falls way below poverty level by US standards. By your > measure, then, I would be an inferior person. That still sounds obnxious, > and I maintain that you won't sell ideas to people by insulting them. > > >So, in a very real sense, I am Transhuman. I'm certainly heavily > >augmented by science and technology. 300 mg of Depakote, 75 mg of > >Effexor, 40 mg of Geodon, 1mg of Proscar, up to 3 mg of clonazepam > >(usually only 1mg) for anxiety, some wine and a beer every now and > >again... and with the help of my doctor I manage to stay in a steady > >state just below hypomania. This incredible cocktail has taken an > >enormous amount of *trying* and time. > > OK, I'm convinced about your trying. The word 'aptitude' is more often > in colloquial usage for a fitness related to a willingness to try, > rather than a physical fitness. I can understand that math is > difficult for you from a physical fitness sense. > > >I have changed the environment of my mind so that I can successfully > >control the environment around me. > > Sorry, control is an allusion. There are some things that humans can > do, even more things if they try. But to successfully "control the > environment" is impossible. > > >I see around me multitudes who have no idea how the artificial and > >natural environment around them works. I have no patience for them. > >*They* aren't trying. > > Do you *know* "the multitudes" ? Why should anyone have patience for > you, when you have no patience "for the multitudes" ? > > > 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/ > *********************************************************************** > "Treat people as if they are what they ought to be, and you will help > them become what they are capable of being. --Ashleigh Brilliant > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pkbertine at hotmail.com Fri Mar 3 20:58:02 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:58:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Flame for Evolution? In-Reply-To: <20060303173003.62045.qmail@web82212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I was going to take this off line directly to Keith Elis, probably should have (right spike), but I was over confident enough to embarrass myself again and decided to keep it public welcoming whomever wants to take a jab at me to do so directly to pete at petebertine.com I am not interesting enough to continue this thread on the list. > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith M. Elis > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 12:30 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > > --- Pete Bertine wrote: > > > I have changed the environment of my mind so that I can successfully > > control > > the environment around me... I see around me multitudes who have > > no idea > > how the artificial and natural environment around them works. > [PKB] Those are two indisputable sentences. Remove the ... , bad use of grammar in this context, and we get a fact: I have successfully changed the environment of my mind. The next sentence is also a fact: Multitudes around me have no idea, etc. I'm not going to bother citing examples as to how I what I know unless someone insists I make a blog about it. Thus your statement... > My immediate reaction is, contrary to your claim in the first statement > above, you haven't done enough to change 'environment of [your] mind'. [PKB] ...Is subjective and offers no proof and asks no questions about what my mind was like and what it is like now. It is, as you freely admit, a knee jerk reaction. > Upon further reflection, you would probably agree that you can't claim > to know what one, single *individual* knows, [PKB] I do not agree. I can *know* that an individual can have no idea how many watts they are using in their house at any given time. I ask and they say, "I don't know." I believe that we all need to know these things. Once it was vital to our survival that we had enough wood to make it through the winter. One had to take down a tree and split it and let it season and keep it dry and then use it in a way that they didn't run out in the middle of February. Today, we live in an unbalanced and unsustainable society, yet we act like our resources will never run out. Until, someone has managed a bank of batteries for a solar panel and run around the house shutting off lights behind everyone to make sure there is enough power to make it through the evening, not wanting to crank up the generator and waste fuel that costs double because I had to truck it in by boat, then, that person cannot really understand what it means to flick a switch and illuminate a room. That person cannot *know* the incredible infrastructure we have built up around us or really understand how fragile it is. Without that collective knowledge by the *multitude* I think we are all in danger. never mind pass judgement > on the knowledge of a multitude. [PKB] The Advertising Industry can assess the knowledge of a *multitude*, a demographic, and get a rather surprisingly accurate understanding of their knowledge. This tendency to see an outgroup > 'multitude' as relatively homogenous in their inferiority is a blend of > at least two cognitive biases, perhaps more. [PKB] Sorry, I missed the two cognitive biases you were referring to. Can't assume I *know* what you're talking about. Nor do I claim that they are inferior, just ignorant and in need of education, the way a 5 year old needs to be told to close a refrigerator door because it wastes electricity. Add overconfidence and our > tendency to think we know more about others than they do of us and you > will continue to say embarassing things like this in public. [PKB] Which of the two sentences at the beginning of this post are you calling embarrassing. My changing the environment of my mind? Or the Fact that there are multitudes who have no clue how the artificial and natural world work? > > > I have > > no > > patience for them. *They* aren't trying. > > Luckily for you, the group with which you have no patience probably > doesn't even exist, at least as you describe them. My guess is that > after really thinking about why you are impatient with the multitude, > you will find that you've been wasting a lot of energy on impatience > for nothing. [PKB] There are a *multitude* or "quite a bunch of people out there" who are taking no steps to make this world a better place. They live in homes that are too big for them and eat up resources that they don't need. THIS GROUP EXISTS EXACTLY AS I DESCRIBE THEM. We don't have the technology to even out the huge gap between 3rd world poverty and the comfortable people in the world. Terrorism, I believe, is caused by this huge gap. Until we have the nanomachines to make food enough for everyone and synthesize enough bio-diesel for all, steps must be taken to use current technology and our own flawed pre-singularity brains to change current trends. I am surrounded by people who went to work after 9/11 like nothing happened... FACT, FACT, FACT! My life changed forever, I built a log cabin in the woods and reasoned out how I was going to change my life and influence others to do the same. I am impatient because time may run out before nanotech and AI can save our primitive selfish butts. I am impatient because there are still atomic war heads aimed at one *multitude* toward another *multitude* and we can still blast ourselves into carbon. I am impatient, and the energy generated by the impatience goes directly into my work www.petebertine.com . I am arrogant enough, strong enough, brave enough to want to change the world. And I am sane enough to know where I can start and how I can make a positive difference. What are you doing? pete > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Mar 3 21:56:38 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:56:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? References: Message-ID: <02b901c63f0d$5b8c3d80$640fa8c0@kevin> > Hold on! Hold ! On ! I hate smiley faces but there was a big tongue in > cheek smiley face. I'm sorry it fell flat. A person's worth is based upon > the effort they put into bettering themselves and those around them. It is > in no way based upon money. Sorry. My bad joke. > You can't determine a person's worth that easily. In fact, I doubt you can determine it at all. For example, suppose a grandchild of someone like Stalin creates a way to save millions of people from malaria. I could give further examples, and probably better ones if I had time, but I think you can see the point. From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 3 23:07:38 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:07:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060303175734.02cb1f80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:10 PM 3/3/2006 +0100, Amara wrote: snip >Sorry, control is an allusion. There are some things that humans can >do, even more things if they try. But to successfully "control the >environment" is impossible. I am sure you mean this in some sense I didn't get, because the one thing humans are really good at is controlling the environment--back to the days we started building fires to keep warm. And one measure of wealth is how much control you have over your environment. The wealthy can avoid the worst parts of winter by going someplace warm. Keith Henson From pkbertine at hotmail.com Fri Mar 3 23:31:39 2006 From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 18:31:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Determining a person's worth In-Reply-To: <02b901c63f0d$5b8c3d80$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: It is funny how a misunderstood joke has become a serious topic of discussion, one that better minds than mine, "cough cough" under my breath (Keith Henson) "Cough Cough" have lead the charge on. Robin Hanson mentioned somewhere in his website (here exactly http://hanson.gmu.edu/ratlagent.html )something about "Rationality Agents" and I'd like to hire one to do all my posting from now on. What do you charge per post, Robin? Pete Bertine www.petebertine.com > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:57 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution? > > > > > Hold on! Hold ! On ! I hate smiley faces but there was a big tongue > in > > cheek smiley face. I'm sorry it fell flat. A person's worth is based > upon > > the effort they put into bettering themselves and those around them. It > is > > in no way based upon money. Sorry. My bad joke. > > > > You can't determine a person's worth that easily. In fact, I doubt you can > determine it at all. > For example, suppose a grandchild of someone like Stalin creates a way to > save millions of people from malaria. > > I could give further examples, and probably better ones if I had time, but > I > think you can see the point. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Mar 3 23:57:53 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 18:57:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060302203510.02c29ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200603010337.k213bafX004869@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060228225754.84163.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> <200603010337.k213bafX004869@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060302203510.02c29ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <56157.72.236.102.90.1141430273.squirrel@main.nc.us> > [...] snip [...] >>These principles are combined to form the core of the evolutionary >>model. The Darwinian outlook holds that small incremental changes in >>structure and behavior, brought about by the natural selection of >>variations, produce, after a long period of time, organisms that >>differ so greatly from their ancestors that they are no longer the >>same organism, and must be classified as a separate species. This >>process of speciation, repeated over the 3.5 billion year span of >>time since life first appeared on earth, explains the gradual >>production of all of life's diversity. >> >>(by Lenny Flank, as presented to middle-school kids, used with >> permission) > > It leaves out "inclusive fitness," work of Hamilton and Haldane. You > really have to include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness to > have the slightest chance of applying evolution to the subject of most > interest to humans, namely humans. > > Keith, indeed it is missing. The explanation I quoted is one offered in a presentation on reptiles, focussing mostly on snakes, not evolution. :) Regards, MB From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Mar 4 01:41:47 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 17:41:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Goring a local ox--MetaMeta In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: I don't remember what you are referring to. It is a bit strained to talk about some post or other after the fact that you think should have got more attention. Stuff happens and not everyone may see what you thought you were getting across. Please resend if you like. - samantha On Mar 3, 2006, at 6:14 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > At 11:21 PM 3/2/2006 -0800, you wrote: >> Hi Keith, >> >> While you were away, we kinda developed list fatigue on >> libertarianism. >> Discussion on this topic is allowed, but everyone keep it smart: >> post smart >> stuff and be the signal. > > Other than using it as an example, the post wasn't about a > particular brand > of partisanship. It was about human psychological traits that (had > the > discussion continued) would have tied into our origin as hunter > gatherers. > > The consequences of our origin and these traits should be of > interest to > Extropians. These psychological mechanisms are the source of great > social > energy as evidenced by everything from cults to the cartoon riots. > > Extropians and related transhumanists may or may not be able to tap > the > traits (it may be impossible to be a fanatic when you understand > the origin > of the trait) but we darn sure need to know where they are leading > just to > stay out of the way. > > The subject is linked to the concerns some on this list have about the > European population dying out. > > I wonder using an example so close to the Extropian meme set > switched on > some of Minsky's censor agents? > > Keith Henson > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Mar 3 16:30:24 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:30:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExtroBritannia's March event: James Hughes on The Politics of Human Enhancement In-Reply-To: <4eaaa0d90603030211p418e8572jc5efa326a1ee6dee@mail.gmail.co m> References: <4eaaa0d90603030211p418e8572jc5efa326a1ee6dee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060303102729.02e89670@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:11 AM 3/3/2006, estropico wrote: >ExtroBritannia's March event: > In this new biopolitical landscape >what strategic course should transhumanists set? How can we unite our >libertarians and leftists, our seculars and spirituals, our life >extenders, wire-heads and Singularitarians, around a common agenda to >defend everyone's rights to safe and universally accessible >enhancement technologies? I think this is a positive effort. Much better to join forces and be proactive. cheers! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston 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 benboc at lineone.net Sat Mar 4 11:41:50 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:41:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability (was: Fight for Evolution?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44097CFE.7070603@lineone.net> Amara Graps wrote: > Pete Bertine pkbertine at hotmail.com : >> My love of reading and writing was all consuming and I poured over >> advanced theory in physics from an early age, trying to make sense >> of the math. Again, sadly, I possessed no aptitude for mathematics. >> > "aptitude.." ? Did you try? > > I failed calculus twice when I was 17 and 18. On the third time, with > a good teacher, I got As and Bs. Again for differential equations > and partial differential equations, I failed in the beginning. Again > with hard work and a good teacher I got As. > > Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that one can't do math. You > didn't try. Amara, i'm a good example of someone with a low aptitude for maths. I *want* to understand it, and have tried on countless occasions, but i just don't seem to get it. i can work out percentages and even do a little trigonometry, but only by dint of memorising the procedures. I don't UNDERSTAND them, and you have no idea how much frustration that causes me sometimes. As a kid, it was differentiation that finally made me throw the towel in. Totally baffling. Believe me, i'd love to understand maths, it's not laziness, it's something else. As a kid i've been in tears of frustration at not understanding it. I regard this as my own personal disability, as i can see how easy it seems to many others, like yourself and Spike. You'll probably laugh (or cry) at this, but i still don't know the answer to (-1) - (-1). I can get several answers to this. I've been told the rules before, but i don't understand the why of it (if you subtract, is that going to the left, i.e. more negative, or is it going towards zero?). That's the kind of confusion that has held me back in maths. I assume it's a similar thing with others like Pete. Perhaps it's a result of bad early education (nobody actually told me what squared and cubed really mean, i just suddenly realised it one day. A real "DOH!" moment!), perhaps i'm just stupid, maybe it's a genetic thing, but i wish i could overcome it. It takes more than 'just trying' for some people, believe me, i know. Anyone can memorize a bunch of rules, sure, that's how i got through a maths exam - eventually, after realising that was the only strategy that was going to work (got a B, which is more an indictment of the exam system than a testament to my ability) - but that's not enough, is it? I can multiply any number by 11 in my head (any number at all, as long as its not too big to keep it in my head), but it's just a trick. I don't really understand the method. That's not maths, is it? Anyone can learn the tricks. It's the understanding that's important. But i haven't given up hope, and still try different learning strategies when i find time for it. One day, one day i will understand complex numbers. And what the hell they're for! It's just that i might need to re-wire my brain to do it. ben (PS, i'm chuckling at the image of Pete 'pouring' over physics. He's obviously been in tears as well) From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sat Mar 4 15:20:13 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 10:20:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Journal of Evolution and Technology 15(1) - Contents Message-ID: Journal of Evolution and Technology 15(1) - Feb 2006 A peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Articles William Kitchin "The Fundamental Right of Medical Necessity and Genetic Intervention for Substance Abuse" http://jetpress.org/volume15/kitchin.html http://jetpress.org/volume15/kitchin.pdf Gurjit Kaur, Neena Gupta "E-health: A New Perspective on Global Health" http://jetpress.org/volume15/kaur-gupta.html http://jetpress.org/volume15/kaur-gupta.pdf Melvin Barber "Abandoned Communities: The Malignant Social Consequences of Modern Technology on Communities" http://jetpress.org/volume15/barber.html http://jetpress.org/volume15/barber.pdf Philip Chaston "Bowling alone with Emile Durkheim (A reply to Barber)" http://jetpress.org/volume15/chaston.html http://jetpress.org/volume15/chaston.pdf Gregory Jordan "Apologia for Transhumanist Religion" http://jetpress.org/volume15/jordan2.html http://jetpress.org/volume15/jordan2.pdf Christopher Yorke, Lois Rowe "Malchronia: Cryonics and Bionics as Primitive Weapons in the War on Time" http://jetpress.org/volume15/yorke-rowe.html http://jetpress.org/volume15/yorke-rowe.pdf Reviews Jamais Cascio Review of Ramez Naam's More than Human and Joel Garreau's Radical Evolution http://jetpress.org/volume15/cascio.html http://jetpress.org/volume15/cascio.html Gregory Jordan Review of Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto by Simon Young http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/jordan.html http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/jordan.pdf Wrye Sententia Review of Rebuilt by Michael Chorost http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/sententia.html http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/sententia.pdf Brad Vest Review of Fantastic Voyage by Ray Kurweil http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/vest.html http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/vest.pdf Frank Forman Review of Radical Evolution by Joel Garreau http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/forman.html http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/forman.pdf Michael Latorra Review of The Golden Age trilogy by John C. Wright http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/latorra.html http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/latorra.pdf David Wood Review of Better Humans eds. Paul Miller and James Wilsdon http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/wood.html http://www.jetpress.org/volume15/wood.pdf ------------------------ Deadlines for Future Themes (See IEET programs for thematic topics of interest) 04/01/06 Relationships & Community http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/community 08/01/06 Consequences and Ethics of Emerging Technologies http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/technologies 12/01/06 Longer Healthy Lives http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/life Essays on other topics are welcome at any time. Please review our submission guidelines for more information. http://jetpress.org/authors.html ------------------------ James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies http://ieet.org Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology http://jetpress.org Williams 229B, Trinity College 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 (office) 860-297-2376 director at ieet.org From scerir at libero.it Sat Mar 4 15:49:32 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 16:49:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability (was: Fight for Evolution?) Message-ID: ben: [...] i still don't know the answer to (-1) - (-1). That seems to be easy. But there are several mysteries .... [1] http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4139/2366/1600/bild1.jpg [2] http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4139/2366/1600/bild2.jpg [3] http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4139/2366/1600/bild3.jpg Grothendieck invented his 'universes' to provide sets in which mathematics can be performed easily and consistently but, as you can see, .... :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grothendieck_universe From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Mar 4 16:14:39 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 08:14:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability (was: Fight for Evolution?) In-Reply-To: <44097CFE.7070603@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20060304161439.58850.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- ben wrote: > I regard this as my own personal disability, as i can see how easy it > seems to many others, like yourself and Spike. You'll probably laugh > (or > cry) at this, but i still don't know the answer to (-1) - (-1). I can > get several answers to this. I've been told the rules before, but > i don't understand the why of it (if you subtract, is that going to > the > left, i.e. more negative, or is it going towards zero?). Depends on what you're subtracting. In this case, you're "subtracting" a negative number, which means you're actually going to the right (more positive). (The next example uses x as a variable. This is so that you won't pay attention to x, because it doesn't matter what x is for this example. x is some number - any number.) Look at the equation. You've got two lines in x - (-1): the subtraction itself, and the dash in front of the -1. Put them together, and you can form a plus. In other words, x - (-1) = x + 1. (Likewise, x + (-1) = x - 1, because you've three lines, an odd number.) So, in short, the "why" of it is that negative numbers (on the right side) reverse the meaning of addition and subtraction, in a sense. Which is one of the reasons why they so often get treated specially. (They also do funky things to many other operations, like square roots. But best to understand their impact on adding and subtracting before trying to understand what they do to other things.) > That's the kind of confusion that has held me back in maths. I assume > it's a similar thing with others like Pete. Perhaps it's a result of > bad > early education (nobody actually told me what squared and cubed > really > mean, i just suddenly realised it one day. A real "DOH!" moment!), > perhaps i'm just stupid, maybe it's a genetic thing, but i wish i > could > overcome it. >From my own experiences, I suspect it's partly a matter of no one telling you what it truly means, in a form that you can understand. But here's a little trick that also (way too often, IMO) goes unstated: when you recognize that you have a knowledge deficiency of this form, you can look up other peoples' definitions of it. In a library, or these days online (hail Google ;) ), you can spend hours or days looking up various definitions and explanations until you find one that you can truly understand. You do this primarily on your own time, on your own initiative...and by making a habit of this whenever you recognize that you are in this situation (and by getting good at recognizing when you are in this situation with regards to some subject), many of your educational "disabilities" can soon evaporate. This is something that those who have been practicing it for years - decades, even - sometimes take for granted. We can be tempted to forget that other people don't know this at all. (Many other people? Even...most other people?) A personal anecdote: for most of my K-12 years, I never understood why high grades were at all important. No one told me outright, among other causes. My parents despaired at my mediocre GPA, right up until about half way through 11th grade...when I suddenly found out that high grades = better chance at good colleges (and better chance at scholarships - you can imagine what ~$10,000 range figures seemed like to a high school kid). With that understanding in mind, I finally bothered to try to get good grades...and you can guess the result. > I can multiply any number by 11 in my head (any number at all, as > long > as its not too big to keep it in my head), but it's just a trick. I > don't really understand the method. That's not maths, is it? Anyone > can > learn the tricks. It's the understanding that's important. Hate to break it to you, but sometimes it *is* the tricks. A whole lot of tricks. Of course, that depends on where exactly you draw the line between "tricks" and true understanding. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say, sometimes it seems like nothing more than a collection of tricks. From sentience at pobox.com Sat Mar 4 17:37:12 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:37:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: <44097CFE.7070603@lineone.net> References: <44097CFE.7070603@lineone.net> Message-ID: <4409D048.2010308@pobox.com> ben wrote: > > Amara, i'm a good example of someone with a low aptitude for maths. I > *want* to understand it, and have tried on countless occasions, but i > just don't seem to get it. i can work out percentages and even do a > little trigonometry, but only by dint of memorising the procedures. I > don't UNDERSTAND them, and you have no idea how much frustration that > causes me sometimes. As a kid, it was differentiation that finally made > me throw the towel in. Totally baffling. Believe me, i'd love to > understand maths, it's not laziness, it's something else. As a kid i've > been in tears of frustration at not understanding it. > > I regard this as my own personal disability, as i can see how easy it > seems to many others, like yourself and Spike. You'll probably laugh (or > cry) at this, but i still don't know the answer to (-1) - (-1). I can > get several answers to this. I've been told the rules before, but > i don't understand the why of it (if you subtract, is that going to the > left, i.e. more negative, or is it going towards zero?). > > But i haven't given up hope, and still try different learning strategies > when i find time for it. One day, one day i will understand complex > numbers. And what the hell they're for! It's just that i might need to > re-wire my brain to do it. I'm not laughing, Ben. I've met other people who, no matter how hard they truly and honestly try, will never be comfortable with algebra; who will never understand the fundamental theorem of integral calculus. I expect you'll get a lot of well-meaning advice from list members who simply can't conceive of what it's like to be bad at math. It is theoretically possible that, as they will helpfully tell you, you've just been doing it wrong. But in all probability, you're right about the brain rewiring. A fast, powerful nonhuman intelligence is going to have to do some gradual, subtle neural tinkering before your mind wakes up to complex numbers. (I would not advise that you try doing it to yourself.) When you're born richer than other people, you can, if that makes you feel guilty, give away the money. When you're born smart - well, you can't give one IQ point to fifty people. I'm glad I don't have that choice to make. It would be too cruel. You can use talent or waste it, but you can't give it away. The only thing I can offer you is that I'll go on using my own mathematical abilities to work toward the day when it all starts making sense to you. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From amara at amara.com Sat Mar 4 17:55:11 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 18:55:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability Message-ID: > I regard this as my own personal disability, as i can see how easy it > seems to many others, like yourself and Spike. No, you confused me and Spike. I'm the one that needed a few tries at calculus and above. Maybe I didn't have enough motivation, but I found a world of difference between teachers when I was a teenager, they either sparked my interest or they crippled me. I had a great biology teacher in high school, where we had to memorize phyla, the ATP cycle etc., but in another class, chemistry, where I had a lousy teacher and material which also required large quantities to memorize, I almost failed. I hated chemistry for a long time after that, and didn't feel motivated to do something about it until more recently, when I needed to learn about plasma physics. And perhaps my physics path now is part-way due to my high school physics teacher, who was amazingly good. Physics doesn't come naturally to me though. The most basic math when I was young was not difficult for me. Then in my later teens in junior college I hit the calculus barrier. After that, with mediocre teachers, I always needed several tries to understand the differential math ideas. With good teachers, life was good. My first question is: do you have a good teacher? Even better, a private tutor? The latter would be able to show you tricks and give examples and exercises so you can see how the ideas work. For study on your own, (I know, you've tried, but perhaps these explanations can offer something different that makes sense) here is something: http://www.mathpages.com/home/index.htm Amara From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Mar 4 18:35:59 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 10:35:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eliezer wrote > I'm not laughing, Ben. I've met other people who, no matter how hard > they truly and honestly try, will never be comfortable with algebra; who > will never understand the fundamental theorem of integral calculus. This is only a *slight* exaggeration. Unbelievable effort can accomplish relative miracles, but the gist of what Eliezer is saying is correct: > I expect you'll get a lot of well-meaning advice from list members who > simply can't conceive of what it's like to be bad at math. It is > theoretically possible that, as they will helpfully tell you, you've > just been doing it wrong. But in all probability, you're right about > the brain rewiring. Damn right. Me, every since I was a little kid, I had a "math line" that quickly, visually, and easily came to me that told me the answer to many problems. See "The Math Gene" by Keith Devlin. Adrian writes > A personal anecdote: for most of my K-12 years, I never understood why > high grades were at all important... Yeah? Well, I *knew* Adrian when he was 13 (he's forgotten it). Now I like teaching math to small groups of really smart kids. When I interviewed Adrian, he was so far ahead of anyone else I was working with that I never invited him back. It was simply effortless for him to manipulate great gobs of algebra with glee. > [Ben writes] > > I can multiply any number by 11 in my head (any number at all, as > > long as its not too big to keep it in my head), but it's just a > > trick. I don't really understand the method. That's not maths, is > > it? Anyone can learn the tricks. [No!] It's the understanding that's > > important. [Mostly] > Hate to break it to you, but sometimes it *is* the tricks. A whole lot > of tricks. But a lot of tricks were intuitively obvious to you when you were 13. You got really good math genes at least from your dad LeRoy (who was an acquaintance of mine). > Of course, that depends on where exactly you draw the line > between "tricks" and true understanding. Perhaps it might > be more accurate to say, sometimes it seems like nothing > more than a collection of tricks. With emphasis on *seems*, of course. Also, everyone keep in mind that there is of course a *correlation* between IQ and math ability, or chess ability (which I have studied all my life, some student of mine were masters and grandmasters). These *talents* are greatly helped by high IQ, but they're something definitely extra. Lee From neptune at superlink.net Sat Mar 4 20:01:57 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:01:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Implicit Association Test Message-ID: <006b01c63fc6$7ecee2c0$17893cd1@pavilion> https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ You might be surprised by the results. Regards, Dan From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Mar 4 20:13:37 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:13:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060304201337.65659.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Damn right. Me, every since I was a little kid, I had a "math line" > that quickly, visually, and easily came to me that told me the answer > to many problems. See "The Math Gene" by Keith Devlin. I've had this too - but I've made a point of trying to decipher how it works, so I can apply it to any areas where I have trouble. I've only partially succeeded. > Adrian writes > > A personal anecdote: for most of my K-12 years, I never understood > why > > high grades were at all important... > > Yeah? Well, I *knew* Adrian when he was 13 (he's forgotten it). > Now I like teaching math to small groups of really smart kids. When I > interviewed Adrian, he was so far ahead of anyone else I was working > with that I never invited him back. It was simply effortless for him > to manipulate great gobs of algebra with glee. ...I was trying to be humble about that. ^_^; > But a lot of tricks were intuitively obvious to you when you were 13. This is true. But now that I am 31, I know more about how they work. Besides, it doesn't change the fact that it is, sometimes, a bunch of tricks - which can be consciously learned if someone does not already know them subconsciously, until they become habit (and thus, subconscious). > You got really good math genes at least from your dad LeRoy (who was > an acquaintance of mine). La Roy, actually. And I'm not so sure that so much of the stuff was genetic as the training I got (which, granted, could also be considered inherited). By "training" I'm including play, non-school education, and similar things. > > Of course, that depends on where exactly you draw the line > > between "tricks" and true understanding. Perhaps it might > > be more accurate to say, sometimes it seems like nothing > > more than a collection of tricks. > > With emphasis on *seems*, of course. "Sufficient quantity often has a quality all its own." > Also, everyone keep in mind that there is of course a *correlation* > between IQ and math ability, or chess ability (which I have studied > all my life, some student of mine were masters and grandmasters). > These *talents* are greatly helped by high IQ, but they're something > definitely extra. Perhaps high IQ - especially the genetic component - makes it easier to pick up these talents, so of course these talents would be more often found among the high IQs. But it does not appear to be an absolute barrier towards learning those abilities. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Mar 4 21:37:46 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 16:37:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults 101 In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060304162556.02d19e30@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Some recent posts have suggested tapping into the psychological traits that provide the kind of dedication to a cause you see in cults. As most of you know, I have a low opinion of the idea. This is probably the result of my interactions with the scientology cult. Those made me a refugee for 4 1/2 years and now I am in a worse situation. However, there is a bright side. Scientology coming unglued at the top. http://www.xenu.net/archive/rtc/ Coupled with the revelation of "blownforgood" the situation is looking better every day. But if someone *really* wants to go into cult mode, this is practically an instruction manual. (They never bothered to replace the bag when my trash was stolen.) http://lermanet.com/patti-pieniadz/ Keith From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Mar 4 22:17:13 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 16:17:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults 101 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060304161638.02d93c68@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Please take cult discussions off list. Thank you, Natasha At 03:37 PM 3/4/2006, you wrote: >Some recent posts have suggested tapping into the psychological traits that >provide the kind of dedication to a cause you see in cults. > >As most of you know, I have a low opinion of the idea. This is probably >the result of my interactions with the scientology cult. Those made me a >refugee for 4 1/2 years and now I am in a worse situation. However, there >is a bright side. > >Scientology coming unglued at the top. > >http://www.xenu.net/archive/rtc/ > >Coupled with the revelation of "blownforgood" the situation is looking >better every day. > >But if someone *really* wants to go into cult mode, this is practically an >instruction manual. (They never bothered to replace the bag when my trash >was stolen.) > >http://lermanet.com/patti-pieniadz/ > >Keith > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sat Mar 4 22:15:07 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:15:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution questions Message-ID: <20060304221508.36191.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have a few questions regarding evolution between the Hadean eon to the Cenozoic eon. If anybody can help me out, it would be much appreciated. You can e-mail me offlist. Thanks Anna --------------------------------- Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sat Mar 4 22:15:07 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:15:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution questions Message-ID: <20060304221507.10867.qmail@web35507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have a few questions regarding evolution between the Hadean eon to the Cenozoic eon. If anybody can help me out, it would be much appreciated. You can e-mail me offlist. 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 hal at finney.org Sun Mar 5 01:55:02 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:55:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Goring a local ox--MetaMeta Message-ID: <20060305015502.78F7F57FAE@finney.org> I meant to reply to this but I was travelling last week and wasn't able to put together the time. Keith's original post can be found here: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-February/025367.html He writes about his essay which got rejected from both Reason and Liberty magazines: http://www.alamut.com/subj/evolution/misc/hensonMemes.html and the reportedly hostile response, and wonders why it triggered such negative feelings. I can only speculate, but I have a couple of ideas. Basically the essay does not say anything bad about libertarianism, and most of the belief systems that come in for criticisms are ones that libertarians would strongly oppose: Nazis and Communists including those in Russia, China and Cambodia. Nevertheless I can see a couple of ways that libertarians could respond negatively to it, one a general issue and one more specific to libertarianism. The general issue is that the essay could be read as characterizing all ideological beliefs as memes, which would imply that ideologies amount to infectious agents. This is something that ideologues of all stripes might oppose, because they prefer to believe that they hold their beliefs for good reasons, and not just because a meme evolved which was able to spread effectively, and it has now infected them. The specific issue is that many libertarians have a strong model of man as a purpose-driven, independent entity, man as the measure of all things. Memetic analysis tends to push people into the background, seeing them as a mere passive substrate in which memes compete with one another. This view would be diametrically opposite to that preferred by such libertarians, and they might see it as casting doubt on the primacy of the individual as an entity who takes charge and control of his own life. I remember reading Liberty magazine occasionally back in those days. As I recall, it seemed to be involved in some of the fractious in-fighting which often occupies political ideologies far from the centers of power. Libertarians then (and I presume now) were divided into competing camps, often organized around the views of some influential figure, and they directed as much or more of their energies at discrediting their libertarian rivals as at trying to spread their beliefs among the larger society. Liberty seemed to be hotly involved in such battles, and perhaps they saw your essay as a sneaky attack on their own position. Maybe they thought you were a representative of one of their rivals, and were trying to trap or trick them into running an ostensibly scientific article which could then be used to discredit their whole ideological structure. If so, that might explain some of the vehement negativity which your article apparently inspired. Hal From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 01:54:25 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 20:54:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: <4409D048.2010308@pobox.com> References: <44097CFE.7070603@lineone.net> <4409D048.2010308@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 3/4/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > ... It is theoretically possible that, as they will helpfully tell you, > you've > just been doing it wrong. But in all probability, you're right about > the brain rewiring. A fast, powerful nonhuman intelligence is going to > have to do some gradual, subtle neural tinkering before your mind wakes > up to complex numbers. (I would not advise that you try doing it to > yourself.) Of course, there are some, maybe including Ben, but almost certainly including myself, who would find it relatively worthless, if not completely repulsive, for a nonhuman "intelligence" to do such tinkering. Although you and others may find it unimaginable, having "the world, the universe and everything" handed to me on a "silver platter" is relatively worthless. I have personally experienced the middle road of the silver platter. I have a more than the average person's awareness of the benefits and costs involved in the gold ones. Having worked fairly hard to get my hands on a silver one for a while was immensely more satisfying than having a dozen, or even a million of them handed to me. Nor will it be of much interest if we reach the point in the development of humanity when silver platters will be available for one and all for "free" but getting them is made artificially hard in an attempt to fool people into believing that they actually accomplished something in getting their hands on one. The beauty of chopping wood is that I can look at the pile when I am done and say "I did that". The beauty of watching someone chop wood better than I is in admiring the skill that they demonstrate in doing so. There is little satisfaction involved in picking up the phone and requesting that a cord of finely chopped wood be dropped off in the driveway in the morning. Presumably in a world where intelligence can be engineered into matter by the F(?)AI the wood would have known enough to assemble itself as a finely chopped cord in the driveway before I even picked up the phone. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun Mar 5 01:27:25 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 20:27:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution questions In-Reply-To: <20060304221507.10867.qmail@web35507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060305012725.66564.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Again, sry, my fault, I just can't seem to get this posting thing right:) Anna Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: I have a few questions regarding evolution between the Hadean eon to the Cenozoic eon. If anybody can help me out, it would be much appreciated. You can e-mail me offlist. Thanks Anna --------------------------------- Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice_______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sun Mar 5 02:56:11 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:56:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: References: <44097CFE.7070603@lineone.net> <4409D048.2010308@pobox.com> Message-ID: <440A534B.6070006@pobox.com> Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 3/4/06, *Eliezer S. Yudkowsky* > ... It is theoretically possible that, as they will helpfully tell > you, you've > just been doing it wrong. But in all probability, you're right about > the brain rewiring. A fast, powerful nonhuman intelligence is going to > have to do some gradual, subtle neural tinkering before your mind wakes > up to complex numbers. (I would not advise that you try doing it to > yourself.) > > Of course, there are some, maybe including Ben, but almost certainly > including myself, who would find it relatively worthless, if not > completely repulsive, for a nonhuman "intelligence" to do such tinkering. > > Although you and others may find it unimaginable, having "the world, the > universe and everything" handed to me on a "silver platter" is > relatively worthless. I have personally experienced the middle road of > the silver platter. I have a more than the average person's awareness > of the benefits and costs involved in the gold ones. Having worked > fairly hard to get my hands on a silver one for a while was immensely > more satisfying than having a dozen, or even a million of them handed to > me. > > The beauty of chopping wood is that I can look at the pile when I am > done and say "I did that". The beauty of watching someone chop wood > better than I is in admiring the skill that they demonstrate in doing > so. There is little satisfaction involved in picking up the phone and > requesting that a cord of finely chopped wood be dropped off in the > driveway in the morning. Presumably in a world where intelligence can > be engineered into matter by the F(?)AI the wood would have known enough > to assemble itself as a finely chopped cord in the driveway before I > even picked up the phone. I didn't say Ben needed an FAI to slowly, subtly rewire his brain in such fashion as to contain predigested declarative knowledge of complex numbers. I meant that Ben needed the math talent, the *ability to learn*, and this would require rewiring his brain; or possibly just changing Ben's temporal dynamics, the way his brain changes over time, rather than surgically operating on his immediate data. People who are naturally good at math may not be able to conceive that someone could try hard, practice hard, and *never acquire the basic talent*. But I am afraid that it is so. This is the problem I want to fix. If people try hard to learn linear algebra, they deserve to make progress on it - not to stare blankly at the problem with tears in their eyes. And because Mother Nature is a vicious slut, people don't always get what they deserve. The human brain was never designed to be end-user-modifiable. Properly adjusting the dynamics will probably require a huge number of tiny tweaks that would be incredibly boring to a human surgeon, which tweaks require considerable domain-specific neurobiological knowledge and computational intelligence to make correctly, and which tweaks could have negative consequences if gotten wrong. Therefore the operation should be carried out by a fast, powerful intelligence incapable of boredom. Hence the "AI midwife" strategy of human intelligence enhancement. Humans, who are not end-user-modifiable, build an AI which is cleanly designed for safe stable self-improvement, which AI then takes on the far more complex task of upgrading biologically tangled humans. > Nor will it be of much interest if we reach the point in the > development of humanity when silver platters will be available for one > and all for "free" but getting them is made artificially hard in an > attempt to fool people into believing that they actually accomplished > something in getting their hands on one. Do you consider it "artificially hard" to do something for yourself that in theory a superintelligence could have done for you, but which it refuses to do directly for you or anyone, even though it did tweak your brain dynamics in such fashion as to make it newly possible for you to learn through sufficient effort to do it for yourself? If that is your philosophy, I fear you may quickly run out of Fun. Why is it that your ability to learn math in the first place, handed you on a silver platter by natural selection - an optimization process which you never chose, giving you gifts you could not create for yourself - doesn't detract from the fun of actually learning? What's the advantage of having your "natural" talents awarded in lottery by the vicious slut Dame Nature; versus operating under the general and fair Law that if you practice you *will* get better? If I stay at the piano *long enough*, I ought to surpass Bach or Mozart. But that's not the Law we live under, right now. Now it's a question of bloody talent. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun Mar 5 03:23:30 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:23:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution questions In-Reply-To: <20060305012725.66564.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Anna! All three of your posts came in loud and clear. I myself liked the first one best, which read I have a few questions regarding evolution between the Hadean eon to the Cenozoic eon. If anybody can help me out, it would be much appreciated. You can e-mail me offlist. Thanks Anna (There is a preference on this list for plain-text :-) If you've got no responses, you might check out the more specific scientific forums---wish I knew where they were, but someone here might. Your question was probably too specific for anyone's knowledge here. I never heard of the Hadean eon (or era, whatever). Lee From hal at finney.org Sun Mar 5 04:24:40 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 20:24:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution questions Message-ID: <20060305042440.8665957FAE@finney.org> Lee wrote: > I never heard of the Hadean eon (or era, whatever). Maybe that was when the earth froze over? :-)! Hal From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Mar 5 04:45:54 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 20:45:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603050446.k254kBjL028828@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > I have a few questions regarding evolution between the Hadean eon > to the Cenozoic eon... Anna Google is your friend. It has become one of my very best friends. The internet knows all. What did we do before we had it? http://www.palaeos.com/Hadean/Hadean.htm spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 05:00:32 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 00:00:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution questions In-Reply-To: <20060304221508.36191.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060304221508.36191.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: What are you looking for? According to Wikipedia, the Hadean era is before 3800 MYr ago while the Cenozoic eon is after the C-T extinction event 65.5Myr ago. That is a huge range and misses the Archean and Proterozoic eras as well as most of the Phanerozoic era. I'm not sure of the exact dates but I think there were at least to snowball earth's during that time frame. I'd suggest you start with the Wikipedia "Geologic timescale" entry and work your way into the "Extinction event" entry. As it discusses there may have been anywhere from 5 to 20 extiction events. Most of them are very poorly documented because they happened before hard shelled or bony fossils developed at the start of the Phanerozoic ~550 million years ago. What can be documented with really hard evidence is only the last 10-15% of the age of the Earth. Everything during the earlier years is a matter of rare geologic evidence, running computer simulations and "what if" analysis. Robert On 3/4/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > I have a few questions regarding evolution between the Hadean eon > to the Cenozoic eon. If anybody can help me out, it would be much > appreciated. You can e-mail me offlist. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 05:36:21 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 00:36:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution questions In-Reply-To: <200603050446.k254kBjL028828@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200603050446.k254kBjL028828@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 3/4/06, spike wrote: > Google is your friend. > Sometimes... It depends on how much one knows and how narrow the topic is. If you have precise keywords I think Wikipedia is a better place to start. If you hand "politics" to Google it gets you 900 million references. Even "artificial intelligence" gets you 90 million. In Wikipedia you get 1 entry for each or in some cases a page for disambiguation. Usually the entries have a set of references pointing you to the rest of the related "body of knowledge". With Google you are going to have to work to get those. Where Google may excel is when you have something which is at the intersection between one or more areas. For example (politics "artificial intelligence") gets you ~3.5 million pages (cutting things down by 1-2 orders of magnitude). That is still a lot to wade through but its a lot less than either topic alone. I also doubt that Wikipedia has an entry about the intersection between those two subjects. Google Scholar solves some of this if you are looking for the cutting edge research but this process is going to be problematic until you can request information based on your level of knowledge in an area (e.g. elementry, junior, high school, undergraduate, graduate, top 5 people in the world, etc.). Where it will become easier is when one can have topic-map displays of collections of information based on the concepts of "local attractors". This is similar to the "related articles" selection in PubMed but I think they had to use a supercomputer to do the groupings (on a database which only has something like 10 million short abstracts). I think I have seen it on one or more news sites as well (CNET perhaps?) but I think they confined it to their own news articles which is a small dataset. I don't think even Google has the computer power to map the document family intersections for all of the documents on the web. If anyone knows of sites which do a particularly good job on this, particularly if they display the information as a visual graph, please let me know. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Mar 5 08:03:46 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 03:03:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] C 101 Meta In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060304161638.02d93c68@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060305022035.02db6670@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:17 PM 3/4/2006 -0600, you wrote: >Please take _____ discussions off list. > >Thank you, > >Natasha Ok, but the consequences may be like a math list that can no longer mention the number 3 or Taylor's method. Part of the problem is that ____'s are a manifestation of M's. Do we need to drop mention of M as well? Correct me if I am wrong here, but Extropians hold a particular positive view of what they would like the future to be like. To get there, we will have to bootstrap to that future with what we have, that is social primates who evolved in hunter gatherer bands where most of the members were relatives. This evolution has left the social primates known as humans with at least a score and perhaps more psychological traits--some of which are switched on by very specific environment conditions. Capture bonding. Traits leading to wars and related social disruptions. Mothers bonding to infants. The side effects of brain chemistry known as drug addiction. And the manifestation known as ______s Taking an engineering view of the bootstrap, it is critical to understand the characteristics of the substance you are trying to work with, especially to know how it can fail or rot out right in front of you. To be specific, your cathedral building project can get derailed by the masons going off on a crusade. Now I surely understand a ban on advocating a particular cult, the list moderators rightly bounced the Raelian. But what I have written can hardly be called advocating, and using that ____ as a specific example should less, not more disturbing than my previous post. I admit it is offensive. So are sewers. But if you are going to build a city you better have one. Keith From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 14:30:47 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 09:30:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] C 101 Meta In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060305022035.02db6670@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060305022035.02db6670@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Keith's words are wise. Watching "Banned from the Bible" last night on the "History" channel (Verizon cable) [1-4] was educational. It becomes clear that "Christianity" is the result of collection of groups motiviated by being out of power (be it political or religious) and that it is clearly a "cult" having carefully selected the church "canon". And of course this leads to endless debate about the flaws in the Bible and how we should really be believing the Quran (because Islam is "The True Religion of GOD Almighty") [5,6]. And though my current favorite premise was that Christ, if he did indeed exist, was a product of an alien experiment in ID ("intelligent development"), it did occur to me ask the question of what if Christ was an "Autistic savant" [7] like Kim Peek [8] (the real life Raymond Babbitt) or Daniel Tammet [9] who were recently outlined in the The Discovery (Science) Channel program "Brainman" [10]? ("A Beautiful Mind" [11] about the life of John Nash was also on TV last night .) Such people are obviously rare but they presumably were born at various times in history (perhaps somewhat less frequently due to the smaller population). In our day and age we can have cameras document their abilities and put neuroscientists to work figuring out how the tremendous capacity of the brain ended up coming out a little bit "special" in their cases. (In Tammet's case it appears to be cross talk between the areas of the brain involved in manipulating numbers and images.) But in ancient times these people presumably became outcasts ("different" doesn't get handled well in many communities). Some might have become leaders and/or been put to death (Joan of Arc [12] comes to mind). They were several standard deviations away from the norm so in order to survive one probably had to learn how to "game" the prevailing system. That of course can lead to the formation of "cults" (aka "religions"). It does look like the Extropy Institute has avoided becoming a cult (perhaps because Max extracted himself as the figurehead) but it remains an open question in my mind as to whether "The Singularity Institute" will be as successful. However observing the list for the last few months one must wonder whether the selection of "The Canon" for the ExI participants is still quite an active process and who might be burned at the stake as a heretic next week? But getting back to Keith's perspective -- one is trying to overlay the rational construction of future(s) on top of biological and cultural systems that are ill-suited for it. You have 2+ billion people belonging to "cults" (a small fraction of which are extremely hard core believers) and The Singularity is coming straight down the track putting "rational thinking" into direct conflict with "self-direction" (even if its the "wrong" direction). Sounds to me like ExI is turning into a bunch of "moderates" who, as Sam Harris points out, refuse to confront the flaws in the foundations that the world around them is built upon. If we can't engage in "freedom of communication" and accept both "innovation" (e.g. "new" cults) which promote "questioning" and subequent "learning" then what really is the point of being here? Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Bible 2. http://www.mininova.org/tor/186368 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_History 4. http://www.answers.com/topic/the-bible-and-history (mostly from wikipedia) 5. http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm 6. http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_savant http://www.answers.com/topic/autistic-savant 8. Kim Peek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek 9. Daniel Paul Tammet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/308/5721/492c http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/danieltammet.html 10. The Science Channel: Brainman: http://science.discovery.com/convergence/brainman/brainman.html 11. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268978/ 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sun Mar 5 16:37:07 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:37:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Enhancement discussion on the BBC Message-ID: The Moral Maze(BBC Radio 4) looked at the morality of Human Enhancement. You can listen to it at the link below, right up to the end of the next show on Wednesday evening. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Mar 5 16:39:03 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 11:39:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] C 101 Meta In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060305022035.02db6670@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060305022035.02db6670@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060305101022.02d92940@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:30 AM 3/5/2006 -0500, Robert wrote: snip >And though my current favorite premise was that Christ, if he did indeed >exist, was a product of an alien experiment in ID ("intelligent development"), Tongue planted firmly in cheek I presume. :-) snip >But in ancient times these people presumably became outcasts ("different" >doesn't get handled well in many communities). Some might have become >leaders and/or been put to death (Joan of Arc [12] comes to mind). They >were several standard deviations away from the norm so in order to survive >one probably had to learn how to "game" the prevailing system. That of >course can lead to the formation of "cults" (aka "religions"). Two points. One of them is that while memetics does not entirely depreciate the person(s) involved in the formation of a ____ it makes the case that the times and near universal human psychological traits set off by environmental triggers are more important. I.e., Hitler would have stayed a painter if Germany had been experiencing good economic times. Second point, it has been my claim for almost 20 years that memes behind ____s evolve into less harmful forms--typically over about 300 years. (Or they die out--Shakers.) Since delving into the origin of wars, I am no longer confident about this. It might be just my narrow cultural view. Some time ago Robin Hanson sent me a paper "World Peace, Thanks To Old Men?" http://hanson.gmu.edu/worldpeace.html There is an association noted between the ratio of old men to young men that seems to be associated with lower war deaths. But how does a society get to a place where they have a lot of old me? Low birth rate of course, and while low population growth is not a sure thing for rising income per capita, population growth in excess of economic growth is a mathematically sure route to lower income per capita. If rising income per capita turns off "war mode," then while the percentage of old men is associated with fewer wars, it is not causal but a consequence of keeping war mode shut off. >It does look like the Extropy Institute has avoided becoming a cult >(perhaps because Max extracted himself as the figurehead) but it remains >an open question in my mind as to whether "The Singularity Institute" will >be as successful. Any time people are in a "save the world" mode they are in partisan mode, or ____ mode or war mode--which I have come to think are just manifestations of the same underlying psychology--which is rooted in our adaptation to periodic population limiting wars between hunter gatherer bands. People in this mode " twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope" till they can rationalize away information that does not fit their emotional commitment. >However observing the list for the last few months one must wonder whether >the selection of "The Canon" for the ExI participants is still quite an >active process and who might be burned at the stake as a heretic next week? Sigh. Extropians need to be rational thinkers *and* intensely committed people. Unfortunately it looks like human nature is such that you can only get one at a time. We need something to displace political parties and religions that is consistent with our evolutionary biology. *And* I have this bridge to sell you. >But getting back to Keith's perspective -- one is trying to overlay the >rational construction of future(s) on top of biological and cultural >systems that are ill-suited for it. You have 2+ billion people belonging >to "cults" (a small fraction of which are extremely hard core believers) >and The Singularity is coming straight down the track putting "rational >thinking" into direct conflict with "self-direction" (even if its the >"wrong" direction). > >Sounds to me like ExI is turning into a bunch of "moderates" who, as Sam >Harris points out, refuse to confront the flaws in the foundations that >the world around them is built upon. If we can't engage in "freedom of >communication" and accept both "innovation" ( e.g. "new" cults) which >promote "questioning" and subequent "learning" then what really is the >point of being here? Extropians have a better chance than Libertarians. Libertarians as we saw can't deal with the very concept of memes, I now understand they went into partisan mode as Drew Westen's fMRI work demonstrated. I think Extropians can deal with the concept of memes, even to the point of recognizing *they* have a set of memes. Now the question is can Extropians deal with the simply *awful* consequences of being evolved social primates whose psychological traits were shaped in the stone age? I don't know that understanding this gruesome fact is going to help, but it might keep us from wasting effort where it clearly isn't going to have effect and best case, lots of rational thinking based on the reality of what we have to work with might come up with good ideas. Just to toss one out, since external events eventually translate into brain chemistry, perhaps there are drugs that would raise the threshold on going into partisan-war-____ mode. Keith Henson From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Mar 5 17:47:49 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 11:47:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] PSYCH: "Seasons of Life" Documentary Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060305112906.041bf110@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I just watched a thoughtful and provoking documentary about aging. "Seasons of Life" is a collection of stories about people looking back over time. The stories are spoken by elderly people whose zestful words tell about what their lives have meant to them, the joys and the sorrows, hopes and dreams. http://www.learner.org/resources/series54.html "These intriguing programs are an excellent introduction to developmental psychology from conception through old age. This series explores the biological, psychological, and social "clocks" that are the essence of life-span education. Nearly 75 psychologists, sociologists, biologists, and anthropologists present theory, methods, and research. Over 100 real individuals from diverse backgrounds talk about the significant events in their lives. Produced by WQED/Pittsburgh and the University of Michigan. 1990." Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston 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 benboc at lineone.net Sun Mar 5 17:09:29 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 17:09:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440B1B49.9040508@lineone.net> Adrian Tymes wrote: > (Likewise, x + (-1) = x - 1, because you've three lines, an odd > number.) OK, i see what you're doing. But why should the geometry of the symbols used have any explanatory power for mathematics? I understand that this is an attempt to make it easy to memorise, but it doesn't help understanding. x + (-1) doesn't equal x -1 BECAUSE there are three lines in the symbols, does it. Nor is it because "a plus and a minus make a minus", although i think that's a lot closer to the actual reason. Well, maybe it IS the actual reason, but put in a way that isn't very clear to me. Excel says (-1) - (-1) = 0. But i still don't really understand why. "two minuses make a plus" isn't an explanation. > From my own experiences, I suspect it's partly a matter of no one > telling you what it truly means, in a form that you can understand. > But here's a little trick (hail Google ;) ) Indeed. Thanks for that. I never thought of taking that particular approach, even though i use Google all the time. I'll try it. Maybe i'll find a way to get a handle on concepts like adding or subtracting a negative to a negative (this gives me a headache! - What IS it, how do you SEE these things? I mean there's no such thing as "-6 oranges", is there?). I always visualised an infinitely long line, with 0 right in front of me, negative numbers to the left, positive to the right. So any calculation moves up and down the line. My problem is seeing what - and + are in these terms. Do they mean going towards and away from Zero, or do they mean going left and right? i.e.: + is: <-<-0->-> and - is: ->->0<-<- or + is: ->-> and - is: <-<- It's neither of those is it? >:( Maybe i need a different way of visualising it. > Hate to break it to you, but sometimes it *is* the tricks. Hmm. I know that maths is not a thing in it's own right, like rocks are, but an invented tool to help us understand the world. But all the same, it has an underlying unity (it does, doesn't it?!?) I want to understand the concepts. A collection of tricks is unsatisfying, and i feel that approach doesn't do justice to mathematics as a product of human ingenuity. And anyway, you don't have to worry about memorising something if you understand it. You can reinvent it if necessary. You can also use it properly in novel situations. --- Lee Corbin wrote: >> Damn right. Me, every since I was a little kid, I had a "math >> line" that quickly, visually, and easily came to me that told me >> the answer to many problems. See "The Math Gene" by Keith Devlin. What?! I'm not sure if i understand what you mean. Are you saying that you (and Adrian) have some kind of intuition about maths, and answers spring out at you in the way that, say, spelling mistakes in a sentence can? If so, i find that idea deeply wierd. Amara is right about teachers. When i was a kid (a long time ago), it was a really good science teacher who encouraged in me an interest in biology, and that's always been my favourite subject. Thanks for that link, Amara, i will check it out. Anyway, this is getting a little bit off track. My point was not to ask for help with maths (!) but to point out that 'try harder' is not really much use to someone who has difficulty with it. It's like telling a depressed person to just pull themselves together. Actually, it's quite possible that having people that are inherently innumerate could be a good thing. Diversity and all that. ben From exi at syzygy.com Sun Mar 5 17:57:20 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 5 Mar 2006 17:57:20 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] C 101 Meta In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060305022035.02db6670@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060305022035.02db6670@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060305175720.4472.qmail@syzygy.com> >>Please take _____ discussions off list. >> >>Thank you, >> >>Natasha > >Ok, but the consequences may be like a math list that can no longer mention >the number 3 or Taylor's method. > >Part of the problem is that ____'s are a manifestation of M's. Do we need >to drop mention of M as well? > >[...] > >Keith I think meta-level discussion of cults is important. I think details of specific cults would be best left as small examples of specific meta-points. Why is a discussion of cults important? As Keith points out, there is a strong relationship between cults and memes. We're moving away from genetic evolution towards memetic evolution. Surely a phase change like that is a good topic for extropians to be thinking about. Memes illuminate discussions about consciousness, which to me connects to uploading and cryonics. Cults and religions are strong memesets, and tie in to basic aspects of what it is to be human. If we want to break free of these constraints, we must understand what they are and where they are coming from. Refusing to look at cults promotes ignorance, rather than understanding. I'm not particularly interested in hearing discussions of specific beliefs of specific cults (where the ufo's come from, or what they're doing or whatever). I would like to see discussion of how cults and religions manage to exercise so much control over so many human minds. There, I think details of techniques are appropriate to discuss. -eric From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Mar 5 18:07:19 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 12:07:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] C 101 Meta In-Reply-To: <20060305175720.4472.qmail@syzygy.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060305022035.02db6670@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060305175720.4472.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060305120144.040b8c28@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 11:57 AM 3/5/2006, eric wrote: >I'm not particularly interested in hearing discussions of specific >beliefs of specific cults (where the ufo's come from, or what they're >doing or whatever). I would like to see discussion of how cults and >religions manage to exercise so much control over so many human >minds. There, I think details of techniques are appropriate to >discuss. Good point. I stand corrected. (Especially if ufo-type stuff is avoided.) Natasha >-eric >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston 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 Sun Mar 5 17:44:41 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 11:44:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] C 101 Meta References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060305022035.02db6670@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060302215339.02c30ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060303084928.02c93290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060305022035.02db6670@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060305113618.03097c48@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:39 AM 3/5/2006, Keith wrote: > >It does look like the Extropy Institute has avoided becoming a cult > >(perhaps because Max extracted himself as the figurehead) but it remains > >an open question in my mind as to whether "The Singularity Institute" will > >be as successful. This is insightful. Max got so much press and was really in the spot light as well as public hot seat, he was love by many and envied by some. People either thought he was a hero or they thought he was someone they had to climb on the shoulders of and then kick down and out of the way. > >Sounds to me like ExI is turning into a bunch of "moderates" who, as Sam > >Harris points out, refuse to confront the flaws in the foundations that > >the world around them is built upon. If we can't engage in "freedom of > >communication" and accept both "innovation" ( e.g. "new" cults) which > >promote "questioning" and subequent "learning" then what really is the > >point of being here? No, I think that list members are just tired of cult talks and that's what much of the complaints were about a few weeks ago. It might be more opportune to talk about "new" myths rather than new cults. Just a thought. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston 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 sentience at pobox.com Sun Mar 5 18:35:11 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:35:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: <440B1B49.9040508@lineone.net> References: <440B1B49.9040508@lineone.net> Message-ID: <440B2F5F.1060803@pobox.com> ben wrote: > > Excel says (-1) - (-1) = 0. But i still don't really understand why. > "two minuses make a plus" isn't an explanation. Argh, I can't resist: 3 - 3 = 0 4 - 4 = 0 0 - 0 = 0 20 - 20 = 0 generalize x - x = 0 let x equal -1 (-1) - (-1) = 0 Everything, minus itself, equals zero - when it meets its antiparticle it annihilates and nothing is left. This applies to both negative numbers and positive numbers. If you have one apple, and you take away one apple, you have no apples. If you have one anti-apple, and you take away one anti-apple, you have no anti-apples. > --- Lee Corbin wrote: > >>>Damn right. Me, every since I was a little kid, I had a "math >>>line" that quickly, visually, and easily came to me that told me >>>the answer to many problems. See "The Math Gene" by Keith Devlin. > > What?! > I'm not sure if i understand what you mean. Are you saying that you (and > Adrian) have some kind of intuition about maths, and answers spring out > at you in the way that, say, spelling mistakes in a sentence can? Yes, that's a good analogy. I'll look at something and instantly go, "That can't possibly be right" and then it takes me another minute to figure out where it's wrong. > If so, i find that idea deeply wierd. A dyslexic may feel the same way about your ability to spot spelling mistakes in a sentence. > Anyway, this is getting a little bit off track. My point was not to ask > for help with maths (!) but to point out that 'try harder' is not really > much use to someone who has difficulty with it. It's like telling a > depressed person to just pull themselves together. > > Actually, it's quite possible that having people that are inherently > innumerate could be a good thing. Diversity and all that. Watch out! This is the kind of thinking that leads people to decide that aging is good for you and smallpox is God's will. Math disability = BAD. Like death itself, math disability is pure downside without the slightest redeeming feature; not even the learning-value of resting your hand on a hot stove. That cloud has no silver lining. None whatsoever. Never forget, never forgive, never accept, never apologize; just solve the goddamn problem. Keep the bad thing squarely in your crosshairs and go on working toward the day when you can finally squeeze the trigger. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Mar 5 18:36:23 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 10:36:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: <440B1B49.9040508@lineone.net> References: <440B1B49.9040508@lineone.net> Message-ID: <22360fa10603051036g1b7477fdtaf9ede0ae7161c0f@mail.gmail.com> On 3/5/06, ben wrote: > What?! > I'm not sure if i understand what you mean. Are you saying that you (and > Adrian) have some kind of intuition about maths, and answers spring out > at you in the way that, say, spelling mistakes in a sentence can? > > If so, i find that idea deeply wierd. I'll jump in to say that I have strong mathematical intuition, but it's predominately geometrical (rather than numerical) and this same way of conceptualizing for me applies to math, logic, semantics, relatedness of concepts, degree of certainty, human relationships and actions, business strategy, and more. It's all graphs, shapes and vectors in my imagination. Even art, music, and emotion seem mostly geometrical to me. [Yes, I have feelings, but even while feeling intense sadness or joy I usually have a mental picture of the emotions as complex vectors interacting with my previous state.] If I try to explain this to others, most people think it is unimaginably strange and eerily inhuman. I would much rather extend this than give it up though. - Jef From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun Mar 5 18:49:23 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 10:49:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: <440B1B49.9040508@lineone.net> Message-ID: ben writes > --- Lee Corbin wrote: > > >> Damn right. Me, every since I was a little kid, I had a "math > >> line" that quickly, visually, and easily came to me that told me > >> the answer to many problems. See "The Math Gene" by Keith Devlin. > > What?! > I'm not sure if i understand what you mean. Are you saying that you (and > Adrian) have some kind of intuition about maths, and answers spring out > at you in the way that, say, spelling mistakes in a sentence can? Absolutely. Devlin probably has an on-line exegesis, or the reviews of his books probably do. What I am specifically referring to is a number-line or number-form. When you close your eyes can you "see" a line that perhaps goes from left to right with the numbers on it? There are so many interesting things about number forms I could go into, starting with my absolute shock at age 16 when I realized that I had them for days of the week, colors, history, the year (it's circular with January at the top and goes clockwise), and that other people did *not* have or need them. I can hardly think without 'em. If you ask me what 46 plus 9 is, I *must* see a region on a circle at about the 4 o'clock position where the numbers are laid out, and I just have a feel for about how big the answer should be. Fifty- something. Then in 3rd grade I learned verbally that the last digit should be a "5". If you tell me a day, or a date, I will not remember it unless I take the (very quick) moment to put it on the line. Now I have been studying since I was a teenager the difference between my friends who were good at chess but not at math and vice-versa, and those of us who were *naturally* good at both things. As I said at the time, I would swear that I use exactly the same neurons for both. See Devlin's writings for the most current info, or the book "The Number Sense" by Stanislas Dehaene. > If so, i find that idea deeply weird. I still do. > Anyway, this is getting a little bit off track. My point was not to ask > for help with maths (!) but to point out that 'try harder' is not really > much use to someone who has difficulty with it. It's like telling a > depressed person to just pull themselves together. It depends on how important it is to you. I'm pretty much convinced these days that anyone with above normal intelligence can do anything if they work long enough and hard enough, but then I have to say that I have some pretty draconian ideas in mind. If you *HAD* to become very good at doing definite integrals in math, you *could* do it. But I shudder to think of the work and the extremes you might have to go through. Short of that, I agree with you. > Actually, it's quite possible that having people that are inherently > innumerate could be a good thing. Diversity and all that. Most of call *for* diversity are bull; this is probably no exception :-) We all should and later will be vastly better at lots of things. Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Mar 6 02:50:32 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 18:50:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: <4409D048.2010308@pobox.com> References: <44097CFE.7070603@lineone.net> <4409D048.2010308@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6C98C8C6-F7C0-4513-8567-A985F8C316A6@mac.com> I could be wrong but I think there are times when kid's brains seize up over something new to learn that somehow goes against the grain. For me it was "imaginary numbers". I was really good at math (the more abstract the better) but my brain rebelled that any of my blessed numbers could be "imaginary". I had to do some serious on the spot meditation/psychological rewiring to get past this seizing up. I somehow knew that if I did not that I wouldn't trust math ever again or my ability to understand it. It was real work to get past that little brain glitch. I suspect that a lot of people hit those in various subjects and never get past them. - samantha On Mar 4, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > ben wrote: >> >> Amara, i'm a good example of someone with a low aptitude for maths. I >> *want* to understand it, and have tried on countless occasions, but i >> just don't seem to get it. i can work out percentages and even do a >> little trigonometry, but only by dint of memorising the procedures. I >> don't UNDERSTAND them, and you have no idea how much frustration that >> causes me sometimes. As a kid, it was differentiation that finally >> made >> me throw the towel in. Totally baffling. Believe me, i'd love to >> understand maths, it's not laziness, it's something else. As a kid >> i've >> been in tears of frustration at not understanding it. >> >> I regard this as my own personal disability, as i can see how easy it >> seems to many others, like yourself and Spike. You'll probably >> laugh (or >> cry) at this, but i still don't know the answer to (-1) - (-1). I can >> get several answers to this. I've been told the rules before, but >> i don't understand the why of it (if you subtract, is that going >> to the >> left, i.e. more negative, or is it going towards zero?). >> >> But i haven't given up hope, and still try different learning >> strategies >> when i find time for it. One day, one day i will understand complex >> numbers. And what the hell they're for! It's just that i might >> need to >> re-wire my brain to do it. > > I'm not laughing, Ben. I've met other people who, no matter how hard > they truly and honestly try, will never be comfortable with > algebra; who > will never understand the fundamental theorem of integral calculus. I > expect you'll get a lot of well-meaning advice from list members who > simply can't conceive of what it's like to be bad at math. It is > theoretically possible that, as they will helpfully tell you, you've > just been doing it wrong. But in all probability, you're right about > the brain rewiring. A fast, powerful nonhuman intelligence is > going to > have to do some gradual, subtle neural tinkering before your mind > wakes > up to complex numbers. (I would not advise that you try doing it to > yourself.) > > When you're born richer than other people, you can, if that makes you > feel guilty, give away the money. When you're born smart - well, you > can't give one IQ point to fifty people. I'm glad I don't have that > choice to make. It would be too cruel. You can use talent or > waste it, > but you can't give it away. The only thing I can offer you is that > I'll > go on using my own mathematical abilities to work toward the day > when it > all starts making sense to you. > > -- > 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 iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Mar 6 03:50:57 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:50:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Reverse Evolution" update Message-ID: <20060306035057.51973.qmail@web52615.mail.yahoo.com> RE: http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060221_unertanfrm.htm Last Friday I swung by the NIH and pulled a few studies in order to test my hypothesis that the UnerTan syndrome is the disequilibrium syndrome. [1] Most of the symptoms of the two line up with the biggest overlaps being mental retardation and an inability to walk upright. However, it seems each has a unique genetic origin: Unertan syndrome originates in chromosome 17p [2] and DES (in the Hutterite cases) in a deletion of the VLDLR gene at 9p24. [3,4] Study [2] examines the quadrupedals in the news report above and mentions their similarity to the Hutterite cases in [1]. Other common symptoms of the two syndromes include ataxia, intensional tremor, strabismus, and dysarthria. So a curious finding in my reading is that sometimes the same genetic defect manifests in individuals with few common symptoms, while in other cases like here different genetic defects can share almost all the same symptoms. Study [1] notes that the 11 Hutterite children used four-wheel strollers to maintain an upright position till ages 3 to 15 (the abstract says supported walking occurred up to age 21, but the full study does not cite that instance and delimits stroller-use to a maximum of age 15). But in the case of the Kurdish quadrupedals now in the news, the authors of [5] were told by a local doctor that "so far as he could tell there had never been any attempt at physiotherapy" to help the children learn to walk, and of course they just kept crawling. That suggests the possibility that the Hutterites learned to walk because they were given upright support while the Kurds never learned because they were not. But my bottom line regarding the "reverse evolution" claim is still that apes and monkeys are quadrupedal because their hind-limbs are not suited to sustained upright walking, whereas the Kurdish folks are quadrupedal because a neurological impairment and circumstance prevented them from achieving their potential. So their quadrupedality and that of apes originate from different causes. The Kurds also had other symptoms like ataxia, intensional tremor, strabismus, and dysarthria that differ from the physical state of apes indicating that one of their many symptoms just happens to look ape-like. Btw, the "reverse evolution" story seems to be devolving into an ugly battle: http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060301_wristfrm.htm ~Ian _____________________________________________________ [1] http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=7246619 [2] http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=16371500 [3] http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=16174313 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=192977 [5] http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000463/ http:///IanGoddard.net __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon Mar 6 04:15:42 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 21:15:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) Message-ID: <440BB76E.2060306@mindspring.com> set no mail From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Mar 6 04:24:03 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:24:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: <6C98C8C6-F7C0-4513-8567-A985F8C316A6@mac.com> References: <4409D048.2010308@pobox.com> <44097CFE.7070603@lineone.net> <4409D048.2010308@pobox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060305224901.02a37418@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:50 PM 3/5/2006 -0800, you wrote: >I could be wrong but I think there are times when kid's brains seize >up over something new to learn that somehow goes against the grain. >For me it was "imaginary numbers". I was really good at math (the >more abstract the better) but my brain rebelled that any of my >blessed numbers could be "imaginary". I had to do some serious on >the spot meditation/psychological rewiring to get past this seizing >up. snip If you got past this point you probably got to e(exp)i(pi) = -1 By the time you get to this gem, it is a trivial application of Euler's formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_formula Since sine pi is zero and cosine pi is -1. But to get there takes (typically) 650 pages of a calculous book. I think it is at least as difficult to understand all the evolutionary biology, including inclusive fitness and memetics you need to understand a trivial outcome about the root cause of war. Used this example about lots of complicated stuff leading up to a simple statement in an article. My wife made me take it out saying a comparison with 650 pages of math background would run off 99% of potential readers. :-) Keith Henson From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Mar 6 06:36:48 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:36:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: <440B1B49.9040508@lineone.net> References: <440B1B49.9040508@lineone.net> Message-ID: On Mar 5, 2006, at 9:09 AM, ben wrote: > Excel says (-1) - (-1) = 0. But i still don't really understand why. > "two minuses make a plus" isn't an explanation. > Think negation. Negating a negative yields a positive. > >> From my own experiences, I suspect it's partly a matter of no one >> telling you what it truly means, in a form that you can understand. > >> But here's a little trick (hail Google ;) ) > > Indeed. > > Thanks for that. I never thought of taking that particular approach, > even though i use Google all the time. I'll try it. Maybe i'll find a > way to get a handle on concepts like adding or subtracting a > negative to > a negative (this gives me a headache! - What IS it, how do you SEE > these > things? This is the seizing up thing perhaps for you. Why "see" it? It is just logic. You don't need to see it to be comfortable and competent with it. > I mean there's no such thing as "-6 oranges", is there?). > I always visualised an infinitely long line, with 0 right in front of > me, negative numbers to the left, positive to the right. So any > calculation moves up and down the line. My problem is seeing what - > and > + are in these terms. Do they mean going towards and away from > Zero, or > do they mean going left and right? i.e.: > They mean going toward the negative side (left in your model) or toward the positive side (right) in your model respectively. It has nothing to do with going toward or away from zero since that is merely one point out of many on the line. The problem you experience in part may be clinging to this sort of clunky limiting picture and getting lost in it. Teachers do kids a disservice when instilling some of these pictures. > + is: <-<-0->-> and - is: ->->0<-<- > or > + is: ->-> and - is: <-<- > > It's neither of those is it? >:( > > Maybe i need a different way of visualising it. > Or let go of visualizing it, at least in a way that isn't working for you. > >> Hate to break it to you, but sometimes it *is* the tricks. > > Hmm. I know that maths is not a thing in it's own right, like rocks > are, > but an invented tool to help us understand the world. But all the > same, > it has an underlying unity (it does, doesn't it?!?) > Sure. Depending on what you mean. Sometimes we try to read too much into things like "unity" and miss by "trying too hard" in unproductive ways. It is sort of like Zen. > I want to understand the concepts. A collection of tricks is > unsatisfying, and i feel that approach doesn't do justice to > mathematics > as a product of human ingenuity. It is certainly not just a collection of tricks. I think what was referred to is a set of "tricks" or ways brains process information and concepts which is required for really "getting" math. I think those "tricks" are learnable but they can be very difficult to tease out and teach or to let go of blocking habits of thought and expectation long enough to learn. > > What?! > I'm not sure if i understand what you mean. Are you saying that you > (and > Adrian) have some kind of intuition about maths, and answers spring > out > at you in the way that, say, spelling mistakes in a sentence can? > Not answers per se but ways of relating things in the mind. How some people get them and others don't is an interesting puzzle. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Mar 6 06:08:55 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:08:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: <22360fa10603051036g1b7477fdtaf9ede0ae7161c0f@mail.gmail.com> References: <440B1B49.9040508@lineone.net> <22360fa10603051036g1b7477fdtaf9ede0ae7161c0f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 5, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 3/5/06, ben wrote: >> What?! >> I'm not sure if i understand what you mean. Are you saying that >> you (and >> Adrian) have some kind of intuition about maths, and answers >> spring out >> at you in the way that, say, spelling mistakes in a sentence can? >> >> If so, i find that idea deeply wierd. > > I'll jump in to say that I have strong mathematical intuition, but > it's predominately geometrical (rather than numerical) and this same > way of conceptualizing for me applies to math, logic, semantics, > relatedness of concepts, degree of certainty, human relationships and > actions, business strategy, and more. It's all graphs, shapes and > vectors in my imagination. Yep. This stuff nearly got me killed in my teens when my math sense was at its strongest. I would get lost in the math and be literally in danger of wandering out into traffic oblivious to my "real world" surroundings. It receded with age. I miss it. For me it wasn't/isn't precisely visual though. More like a melange of various senses plus flying through complicated spaces/sensations alternated with snapping to the grokking of the whole. If you know what I mean. - samantha From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Mar 6 06:02:50 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:02:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: <440B1B49.9040508@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20060306060250.6614.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- ben wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > > (Likewise, x + (-1) = x - 1, because you've three lines, an odd > > number.) > > OK, i see what you're doing. But why should the geometry of the > symbols > used have any explanatory power for mathematics? I understand that > this > is an attempt to make it easy to memorise, but it doesn't help > understanding. x + (-1) doesn't equal x -1 BECAUSE there are three > lines > in the symbols, does it. Nor is it because "a plus and a minus make a > minus", although i think that's a lot closer to the actual reason. > Well, > maybe it IS the actual reason, but put in a way that isn't very clear > to > me. Ah. True. I did memorize it that way to memorize "a plus and a minus make a minus". As was pointed out, a closer-to-the-pure-truth version is that, in general, x - x = 0, no matter what x is. Understand that first - do not confuse yourself by assigning a given value to x, just come to grips with the fact that x - x = 0. (Or if you must have actual values for x: imagine it for 0, first, to appreciate the absurd, yet true, simplicity of 0 - 0 = 0. Then imagine it for positive numbers - say, 1 - 1 = 0. And so forth, until you're okay with x - x = 0 for *any* x.) Once you have that, then substitute -1 for x. > > But here's a little trick (hail Google ;) ) > > Indeed. > > Thanks for that. I never thought of taking that particular approach, > even though i use Google all the time. I'll try it. *nods* Far and away one of the most useful information coping tools available today! ^_^ > (this gives me a headache! - What IS it, how do you SEE > these > things? I mean there's no such thing as "-6 oranges", is there?). Well...if you stretch the concept of antimatter, you can think of an anti-orange as the equivalent of -1 orange. It helps that some video games these days actually have icons to show you negative quantities. (Like, shortfalls of food in your cities in Civilization.) 1 normal icon plus 1 negative icon cancel out, and the game shows you no icon. > + is: <-<-0->-> and - is: ->->0<-<- > or > + is: ->-> and - is: <-<- > > It's neither of those is it? >:( Well...perhaps it might help to think of negative numbers as "strange/perverse". As in, you know what *normally* happens, with zero and positive numbers; also know that negative numbers cause the opposite to happen (in certain cases, like addition and subtraction; in in others, like square roots, they just get wierd). Another possibility, if you're visualizing it kind of like a conveyor belt anyway: each -, be that the - of subtraction or the - of a negative number, reverses the direction of the conveyor. + doesn't do anything; it's kind of like empty air, or a null operator, or a different kind of 0. In other words... + (no reversals) is: ->-> - (one reversal) is: <-<- + - (one reversal) is: <-<- - - (two reversals) is: ->-> - - - (three reversals) is: <-<- (Yes, this is just visualization, not explanation. But that's what you're asking for here.) > > Hate to break it to you, but sometimes it *is* the tricks. > > Hmm. I know that maths is not a thing in it's own right, like rocks > are, > but an invented tool to help us understand the world. But all the > same, > it has an underlying unity (it does, doesn't it?!?) It does...but that's the thing. Thanks to the underlying unity, you can start from the tricks - if correctly applied - and get to most of the other concepts in math...eventually. (I recall a certain multi-page proof, starting from certain axioms far removed from basic addition and subtraction, that 1 - 1 = 0.) Knowing more tricks gives you more starting points to choose from...but if you're trying to trace a path to the "root"/"core" of mathematics, you can in theory start from any of them. > I want to understand the concepts. A collection of tricks is > unsatisfying, and i feel that approach doesn't do justice to > mathematics > as a product of human ingenuity. And anyway, you don't have to worry > about memorising something if you understand it. You can reinvent it > if > necessary. ...that's what a lot of people thought. But some of these tricks took thousands of years to invent, and are not easy to rediscover. Sometimes, the tricks themselves have to serve as bedrocks for understanding in practice, even if in theory there is a deeper understanding available. > --- Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Damn right. Me, every since I was a little kid, I had a "math > >> line" that quickly, visually, and easily came to me that told me > >> the answer to many problems. See "The Math Gene" by Keith Devlin. > > What?! > I'm not sure if i understand what you mean. Are you saying that you > (and > Adrian) have some kind of intuition about maths, and answers spring > out > at you in the way that, say, spelling mistakes in a sentence can? Yup, that's-a right. > If so, i find that idea deeply wierd. Imagine, if you will, a stereotype hillbilly redneck American. Bubba learned well, for the schooling that was available, but has had absolutely no exposure to foreign languages whatsoever. Bubba decides to move to Quebec...and finds that, while the official language may still be English, learning French (specifically, the Quebecois dialect) is a practical necessity. To Bubba, French is this strange, foreign, *alien* tongue. (Fortunately for Bubba's culture-shock-sensitive heart, Bubba's never heard any actual Chinese or Afrikaans.) Bubba makes friends with some locals, who grew up bilingual. These friends instinctively spot the spelling mistakes in Bubba's written French. Bubba, still getting used to this alien culture with its alien tongue, finds this deeply wierd: intellectually, Bubba can understand people growing up with it, but after so many years surrounded by nothing but English speakers, the whole concept of instinctive French almost feels just plain wrong. Which is not to say you're Bubba in any way. Just that this makes for a good analogy for people like Lee and myself: we've been steeped in math since we were young, and we understood it...so of course it's instinctive to us now. (Genetics might have helped us acquire an instinctive understanding at a young age.) Likewise, you have not yet had a deep understanding of math for long enough for it to become instinctive. (Indeed, as you say, you do not yet have a deep understanding of math at all.) Which is not to say that my intuition is 100%. I can and do still make simple errors from time to time. (I recall a certain post to this list about antpower - the horsepower a typical ant could put out. Someone copied it over to Wikipedia, before they had their "no original research" rule that disqualified articles on things like that - which lead to the article's eventual removal, though you can still find it on a bunch of Wikipedia's mirrors. The Wikipedia editors quickly corrected my calculations. I *did* disclaim that I wasn't very certain about my math in that case, but still...) > Anyway, this is getting a little bit off track. My point was not to > ask > for help with maths (!) but to point out that 'try harder' is not > really > much use to someone who has difficulty with it. It's like telling a > depressed person to just pull themselves together. In this, you are correct. If one does not know how to even approach a problem - as in your case with math, or a depressed person with overcoming depression - then, no matter how intuitively obvious the solution may seem to outsiders (and thus, no matter how little explanation said outsiders may think is warranted - one usually does not waste energy telling a fully functional adult how to walk, for example), the afflicted person genuinely needs to learn how to perform the desired task, and a fuller explanation than just "try harder" is usually required for that. > Actually, it's quite possible that having people that are inherently > innumerate could be a good thing. Diversity and all that. Uhh...no. Diversity for diversity's sake alone can be used to justify all sorts of evils as well as for good. For example, diversity of atmosphere in a metropolis: we've got the standard oxy/nitro, but of course we can't let that dominate the whole city, so we'll keep it over here in the rich peoples' neighborhood. The commercial district has extra-heavy carbon dioxide - good for fire suppression and plant growth, dontcha know? We've got to put the methane and smog *somewhere*, so we'll let it stay in the working class residential districts. And the industrial sector makes its own atmosphere...just so long as it keeps it over there... Besides, we're transhumanists. We're all about overcoming such natural limitations, aren't we? From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Mar 6 07:30:08 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 23:30:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Implicit Association Test In-Reply-To: <006b01c63fc6$7ecee2c0$17893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <20060306073009.38885.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ > > You might be surprised by the results. Some of the sections seem to be arranged to create a certain type of result. (For instance, Race-Weapons: practice with "Caucasian = safe object, African = weapon" in order to establish that association, and then switch...and then indicate a strong "Caucasian = safe object, African = weapon" association.) From HerbM at learnquick.com Mon Mar 6 09:31:43 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 03:31:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: <6C98C8C6-F7C0-4513-8567-A985F8C316A6@mac.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Samantha Atkins > Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 8:51 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Maths ability > > I could be wrong but I think there are times when kid's brains seize > up over something new to learn that somehow goes against the grain. > For me it was "imaginary numbers". I was really good at math (the > more abstract the better) but my brain rebelled that any of my > blessed numbers could be "imaginary". I had to do some serious on > the spot meditation/psychological rewiring to get past this seizing > up. I somehow knew that if I did not that I wouldn't trust > math ever > again or my ability to understand it. It was real work to get past > that little brain glitch. I know that the above is an example and not a direct request for sources on Complex Numbers, but since I am currently reading Penrose's "The Road to Reality:..." and preparing to take the GRE Mathematics subject exam I recently found a DELIGHTFUL book: "Visual Complex Analysis" This book is very readable by anyone who either wants to know about complex numbers, or who has ever learned about them and perhaps forgotten. It is readable due largely to several elements of the author's style: teaching through reference to pictures and using both geometric and complex analysis to explain both the pictures and the solutions, along with a goal to have a conversation with the reader -- to make the reader feel as if one were having a conversation with a friend who is knowledgable, patience, helpful, and somewhat delighted by the beauty of the math. > I suspect that a lot of people hit those > in various subjects and never get past them. You are certainly correct. The most common such glitch for young students is when they are 'taught' "long division" before being required to learn the multiplication tables. "Long division" is not really about division, so much as it is multiplication and subtraction: a guess is made, a multiplication is performed, followed by subtraction -- if the term is suitable the process continues, else a new guess is substituted and the previous step repeated. Children who don't KNOW those multiplication tables are constantly (until they give up) trying to guess where all these "magic numbers" originate. Generally this happens (in the US) in the 3-4 grade and those children who fall prey to such terrible teaching (by parents or teachers, but the fault lies with the adults not the students) typically believe themselves "bad at math" -- usually for life. There are certainly other points of failure, but this is likely the one that accounts for the largest group of people who honestly believe they are "bad at math." -- Herb Martin From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 09:45:14 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:45:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Planet Future merged h+ RSS news aggregator Message-ID: <470a3c520603060145i4ad56624p3832777b101d93a3@mail.gmail.com> I have set up this merged rss feed with news of h+ interest. It is very easy to integrate in a website (RSS or just include a php file): http://futuretag.net/index.php/Planet_Future This is a list of the feeds that I am combining, suggestions welcome. I wish to add some more feeds as it does not look balanced - Boing Boing alone is updated as frequently as the others combined. So what are the best of the best h+ and emerging tech feeds to include here? Tx for all suggestions. G. [http://science.slashdot.org/science.rss] name = Science at Slashdot [http://www.worldchanging.com/index.xml] name = World Changing [http://techreview.com/rss/main.aspx] name = Technology Review [http://techreview.com/rss/rss.aspx?z=314] name = Technology Review [http://techreview.com/rss/rss.aspx?z=316] mame = Technology Review [http://techreview.com/rss/rss.aspx?z=317] name = Technology Review [http://techreview.com/rss/rss.aspx?z=315] name = Technology Review [http://techreview.com/rss/rss.aspx?z=289] name = Technology Review [http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/index.rdf] name = CRN [http://feeds.feedburner.com/boingboing/iBag] name = Boing Boing [http://www.wmaker.net/tendencias/syndication.rss] name = Tendencias (Spanish) [http://slfuturesalon.blogs.com/second_life_future_salon/index.rdf] name = SL Future Salon [http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?feed=rss2] name = Accelerating Future [http://post-interesting.com/atom.xml] name = Post-Interesting [http://future.iftf.org/index.rdf] name = IFTF [http://www.radio4all.net/podcast.php/Changesurfer_Radio.xml?series=Changesurfer%20Radio] name = Changesurfer Radio [http://www.aleph.se/andart/index.rdf] name = Anders Sandberg [http://www.mondoglobo.net/neofiles/feed.xml] name = Neofiles [http://feeds.feedburner.com/BrainWaves] name = Brain Waves [http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-rss2.php] name = Foresight Institute [http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/rss.php] name = Rudy Rucker [http://www.newscientist.com/syndication/news.rdf] name = New Scientist [http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/feeds/rss2/] name = Wired News [http://betterhumans.com/news/tabid/56/feed/news/type/rss20/module/574/default.aspx] name = Betterhumans [http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/rss/] name = KurzweilAI [http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/RSS_2.0/] name = IEET [http://cyborgdemocracy.net/index.xml] name = Cyborg Democracy From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Mar 6 15:09:28 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 09:09:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [futuretag] Planet Future merged h+ RSS news aggregator In-Reply-To: <470a3c520603060145i4ad56624p3832777b101d93a3@mail.gmail.co m> References: <470a3c520603060145i4ad56624p3832777b101d93a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060306090630.0300bb20@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 03:45 AM 3/6/2006, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >I have set up this merged rss feed with news of h+ interest. It is >very easy to integrate in a website (RSS or just include a php file): >http://futuretag.net/index.php/Planet_Future What a great idea. Thanks. Here is a suggested site: http://www.transhumanist.biz Best wishes, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 17:39:08 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:39:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor (maybe) Message-ID: For those who haven't run into it... http://www.bornrich.org/category/katherine/ A few of my favorites... http://www.bornrich.org/entry/breaking-all-shopping-records/ http://www.bornrich.org/entry/katherine-gets-sick/ http://www.bornrich.org/entry/katherine-and-the-skycar/ R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Mar 6 18:31:34 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:31:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor (maybe) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22360fa10603061031h16647340paf6d62139f1e535e@mail.gmail.com> On 3/6/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > http://www.bornrich.org/entry/katherine-and-the-skycar/ A familiar occurrence in Second Life... - Jef From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Mar 6 19:42:23 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:42:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] [futuretag] Planet Future merged h+ RSS newsaggregator References: <470a3c520603060145i4ad56624p3832777b101d93a3@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060306090630.0300bb20@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <004b01c64156$92040e10$0200a8c0@Nano> It looks wonderful Natasha, thank you for all your hard work! 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." ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: futuretag at yahoogroups.com ; futuretag at yahoogroups.com ; World Transhumanist Association Discussion List ; ExI chat list ; sl4 at sl4.org ; extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [futuretag] Planet Future merged h+ RSS newsaggregator At 03:45 AM 3/6/2006, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: I have set up this merged rss feed with news of h+ interest. It is very easy to integrate in a website (RSS or just include a php file): http://futuretag.net/index.php/Planet_Future What a great idea. Thanks. Here is a suggested site: http://www.transhumanist.biz Best wishes, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Mar 6 20:32:40 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:32:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTS: Oscar Award comments re Gay and Transgender Films Message-ID: <380-22006316203240640@M2W142.mail2web.com> I watched the Oscars last night, away from LA and the parties on Sunset Strip. (I enjoyed time alone with the freedom to flick the channel when acceptance awards went on too long - just time enough to watch the latest designs on HGTV, and then back again.) I have been to the Grammy Awards and at the Oscar parties on the Strip. I loved it - fun, exciting and full of glamour and panache. Today is different. Things change. It is not so subdued and regal as it once was, now it is a bit brash. But change is a good thing, at least when it comes to the content of this year's films. I liked George Clooney's comment about changes in relationship of independent films' brewing content; as the studio majors search for talent. The independents have become story wise and the studios have become technology rich. Perhaps this is needed and they will marry more engaging and HD, VR and synthetic stories. I just read a short piece about the content this year. The gay and transgender storylines couldn't have a place in the sun without freedom from homosexuality: "Others weren't surprised that the gay-themed films found mixed success at the Oscars. "I think America sent a message to those in the industry that this isn't something that they're interested in, and hopefully this was something that weighed heavily on them as they voted for these pictures," said Alan Chambers, president of Orlando, Florida-based Exodus International, a Christian organization that promotes "freedom from homosexuality." http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/06/oscars.gay.films.ap/index.html As far as I am concerned, there was not a "mixed" success of gay-themed films at the Oscars. Not taking home a majority of awards does not mean there were not successful; it simply means that someone else's direction, acting, editing, etc. was a little bit better. Being nominated illustrates the strong sentiment of quality in filmmaking, especially independent films. I'd like a little freedom from the brashness and a little more of the subdued, gentle quality of Brokeback and the sternly elegant appearance of Felicity Huffman. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From acy.stapp at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 21:34:21 2006 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:34:21 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Implicit Association Test In-Reply-To: <20060306073009.38885.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <006b01c63fc6$7ecee2c0$17893cd1@pavilion> <20060306073009.38885.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The initial association is randomly determined. On 3/6/06, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Technotranscendence wrote: > > https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ > > > > You might be surprised by the results. > > Some of the sections seem to be arranged to create a certain type of > result. (For instance, Race-Weapons: practice with "Caucasian = safe > object, African = weapon" in order to establish that association, and > then switch...and then indicate a strong "Caucasian = safe object, > African = weapon" association.) -- 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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Mar 6 20:40:14 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:40:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTS: Oscar Award comments re Gay and Transgender Films Message-ID: <380-22006316204014104@M2W041.mail2web.com> I watched the Oscars last night, away from LA and the parties on Sunset Strip. (I enjoyed time alone with the freedom to flick the channel when acceptance awards went on too long - just time enough to watch the latest designs on HGTV, and then back again.) I have been to the Grammy Awards and at the Oscar parties on the Strip. I loved it - fun, exciting and full of glamour and panache. Today is different. It is not so subdued and regal as it once was. Now it is a bit brash and in your face. But change is a good thing, at least when it comes to the content of this year's films. I liked George Clooney's comment about changes regarding independent films' content and the studio major's technology. The independents have become story wise and the studios have become technology rich. Perhaps they will marry more engaging stories in 3D, VR, TP, and synthetic reality. But the gay and transgender storylines couldn't have a place in the sun for more than an evening without people being up in arms: "Others weren't surprised that the gay-themed films found mixed success at the Oscars. "I think America sent a message to those in the industry that this isn't something that they're interested in, and hopefully this was something that weighed heavily on them as they voted for these pictures," said Alan Chambers, president of Orlando, Florida-based Exodus International, a Christian organization that promotes "freedom from homosexuality." http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/06/oscars.gay.films.ap/index.html As far as I am concerned, there was not a "mixed" success of gay-themed films at the Oscars. Not taking home a majority of awards does not mean there were not successful; it simply means that someone else's direction, acting, editing, etc. was a little better. Being nominated illustrates the strong sentiment of quality in filmmaking, especially independent films. I'd like freedom from the brashness and a little more of that subdued, gentle quality of Brokeback and the sternly elegant appearance of Felicity Huffman. :- Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Mar 6 20:40:37 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:40:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTS: Oscar Award comments re Gay and Transgender Films Message-ID: <380-22006316204037867@M2W070.mail2web.com> I watched the Oscars last night, away from LA and the parties on Sunset Strip. (I enjoyed time alone with the freedom to flick the channel when acceptance awards went on too long - just time enough to watch the latest designs on HGTV, and then back again.) I have been to the Grammy Awards and at the Oscar parties on the Strip. I loved it - fun, exciting and full of glamour and panache. Today is different. It is not so subdued and regal as it once was. Now it is a bit brash and in your face. But change is a good thing, at least when it comes to the content of this year's films. I liked George Clooney's comment about changes regarding independent films' content and the studio major's technology. The independents have become story wise and the studios have become technology rich. Perhaps they will marry more engaging stories in 3D, VR, TP, and synthetic reality. But the gay and transgender storylines couldn't have a place in the sun for more than an evening without people being up in arms: "Others weren't surprised that the gay-themed films found mixed success at the Oscars. "I think America sent a message to those in the industry that this isn't something that they're interested in, and hopefully this was something that weighed heavily on them as they voted for these pictures," said Alan Chambers, president of Orlando, Florida-based Exodus International, a Christian organization that promotes "freedom from homosexuality." http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/06/oscars.gay.films.ap/index.html As far as I am concerned, there was not a "mixed" success of gay-themed films at the Oscars. Not taking home a majority of awards does not mean there were not successful; it simply means that someone else's direction, acting, editing, etc. was a little better. Being nominated illustrates the strong sentiment of quality in filmmaking, especially independent films. I'd like freedom from the brashness and a little more of that subdued, gentle quality of Brokeback and the sternly elegant appearance of Felicity Huffman. :- Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 22:05:48 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 14:05:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Project on "Facing the Challenge of Transhumanism: Religion, Science, and Technology" Message-ID: The following portion of a press release by the Metanexus Institute may be of interest: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060306/phm021a.html?.v=2 The Arizona State University initiative, based at the Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict, is headed by Dr. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, Professor of History. The project, entitled "Facing the Challenge of Transhumanism: Religion, Science, and Technology," will examine the development and convergence of genomics, stem-cell research, robotics, nanotechnology, and neuropharmacology in the transforming and enhancing of human nature, posing difficult religious and philosophical questions in what some refer to as our "posthuman" future. In addition to the Principal Investigator, the project involves nine faculty from a variety of academic disciplines at ASU as well as a number of research centers and institutes within ASU. "ASU is committed to addressing the most pertinent issues of our times," notes the historian Dr. Tirosh-Samuelson. "In this project we will examine and evaluate the claims of transhumanism, focusing on philosophical issues; social, legal, and political questions; environmental issues; and the religious aspects of transhumanism. This multi-faceted investigation will take into consideration the entire scope of human evolution and culturally specific conceptions of humanity. It will illustrate how the humanities can and should interface with the social and natural sciences, and how scientific discourses are culturally bound and historically situated." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Mon Mar 6 21:31:21 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:31:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maths ability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440CAA29.6010201@lineone.net> Eleizer wrote: > Argh, I can't resist: > > 3 - 3 = 0 > 4 - 4 = 0 > 0 - 0 = 0 > 20 - 20 = 0 > generalize > x - x = 0 let x equal -1 > (-1) - (-1) = 0 > > Everything, minus itself, equals zero Oooh. Yes, of course it does. Obvious, isn't it? Embarrassingly so. How wierd. I've struggled with this for years and years, on and off, yet it's so simple. Ok, now i'm even more convinced it's a matter of finding the right way of looking at things ('right' for the person in question, i mean, not in any 'absolute' sense). There must be loads of things that are just as 'obvious' as the above, but i'm not seeing them. Yet. My thanks to everyone who posted on this. It's given me a fresh impetus, and i'm now determined to find new ways of thinking about maths! Especially Lee's revelations about 'number line' I know what you mean now, and i have some of my own. Now i know i need to get some more, more variety, more ways of looking at it. Amara, i recant. I'm expanding my definition of 'trying', to include finding better ways of getting a boulder up a hill than just pushing it. ben (Daring to hope that one day, Bayes' theorem will actually make sense) From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 22:07:45 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 16:07:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? was Re: Failure of low-fat diet Message-ID: <7641ddc60603061407x25401316t6c98b5960b1b015e@mail.gmail.com> On 3/2/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > At 01:43 AM 3/2/2006, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > >I also find it important not give legitimacy to, for example, parents > >who deny vaccinations to their children. Theorizing about why you > >might not need basic medical care simply because you are feeling rich > >may be harmless in itself but sometimes may be taken over by people > >with unusual agendas. > > As my webpage says: > >I have little patience with those whose thinking is sloppy, small, or > >devoid of abstraction. And I'm not a joiner; I rebel against groups > >with "our beliefs", especially when members must keep criticisms > >private, so as not to give ammunition to "them". > > I will continue to call 'em as I see 'em, regardless of who that might give > ammunition to. > ### Actually, yes, I will admit that if you truly believe vaccinations are useless, disclosing it will be useful to your interlocutors. I also greatly dislike sloppy thinking, and arm-waving argumentation without numbers. Since so far you have made mostly quantitative statements (disease disappearing as a result of "reduced susceptibility" attributable in part to the positive psychological effects of affluence on the immune system), I have to ask you to be more specific: What is in your opinion the percent contribution of, for example, smallpox vaccinations to the currently observed reduction of lifetime prevalence of that disease? Please use the historical data on lifetime prevalence in e.g. Europe, compare with current numbers and tell me how much, if any, of the reduction is attributable to vaccinations. I hope this will make the discussion less sloppy and instead firmly ground abstractions in concretes. Rafal From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Mar 6 22:18:10 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 17:18:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Project onFacing the Challenge of Transhumanism: Religion, Science, and Technology Message-ID: <380-22006316221810276@M2W093.mail2web.com> From: Neil H. neuronexmachina at gmail.com >The following portion of a press release by the Metanexus Institute may be >of interest: >http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060306/phm021a.html?.v=2 >The Arizona State University initiative, based at the Center for the Study >of Religion and Conflict, is headed by Dr. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, Professor >of History. The project, entitled "Facing the Challenge of Transhumanism: >Religion, Science, and Technology," will examine the development and >convergence of genomics, stem-cell research, robotics, nanotechnology, and Thank you letting us know about the project. This may be a great place to introduce the The Proactionary Principle. I'll see if our research assistant can give them a call to find out more about this project and if we can get Max to speak with them. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 7 03:07:27 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 19:07:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news Message-ID: <20060307030727.BEDF357FB0@finney.org> As I have mentioned occasionally, I have been following the Peak Oil phenomenon for several months. There are many variants but the most interesting and common belief is that oil production rates are about to peak and from then on, oil production will decline. Predicted consequences range from a near-permanent recession to a global famine that will kill off most of the human race. Even if the premises of Peak Oil may seem unlikely at first, these outcomes are so serious that it is worth watching to see if anything comes of it. My favorite site for serious discussion of Peak Oil (PO) is . This uses a team-based weblog format with a number of knowledgeable contributors. One of their best people is a guy named Stuart Staniford, who is actually a computer security expert. He recently made a post summarizing the best evidence he could find for why PO is about now: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/1/3402/63420 I don't find it completely convincing (in fact I got into a big debate about some of the points) but it does bring together a lot of different lines of evidence. Also worth noting is their article quoting a New York Times editorial endorsing (some form of) the Peak Oil concept: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/1/1750/72342 Personally, I like to look at the markets to get an idea of the true consensus on an issue. Oil is expensive these days, about $64 a barrel. You can buy and sell futures contracts for oil delivery on up to the 2012 time frame, and generally those long-term oil contracts are priced about the same as today. Prices climb slightly up until mid 2007 and then decline to about today's levels. It's not clear how to interpret this, but on its face it doesn't seem to point to a particularly drastic Peak Oil scenario. OTOH if you look at options contracts they give you an idea of the range of prices the markets expect, and that turns out to be very wide. If you look at prices at the end of 2008, the one-sigma price range is $34-104, which corresponds to a 68% chance. The two-sigma range, corresponding to a 95% chance, is $20-180. So the markets are certainly not ruling out oil in the high $100's in the two to three year time frame. Such a high price would almost certainly cause a serious recession. Of course the markets aren't ruling out $20-30 oil either, in which case we can go back to bathing in the stuff. The financial markets not offering much guidance, we can look at the FX game. It has a number of Peak Oil claims although they are relatively thinly traded. The main one is pkyr20: http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=pkyr20 This is a scaled claim that basically predicts the year that oil production peaks. Peaking is defined as two consecutive years of drops of 3% or more in worldwide oil production. This is not a great definition; I'll say more below. But the bottom line is that this points to about 2009 for the year of the peak; not quite as soon as the doomsayers had it, but very uncomfortably close, much more than official estimates which have any peak out decades away. Unfortunately this FX definition could be subject to false positives or false negatives. A false positive would be where we had met the criteria but it wasn't a "real" production peak. For example, a serious recession lasting more than two years could cause demand to drop by enough to satisfy the claim. In fact, this actually did happen back in 1980 during the Iran-Iraq war, when oil prices spiked. But then they dropped back down, production increased and the economy boomed. More worrying is the false negative. Many Peak Oilers predict that the peak will be a "bumpy plateau". We won't hit some maximum and then find production heading straight down. We will have some up years and some down years, but the trend will be down. If this is true, we would probably not see the FX criteria satisfied for several years after the true peak. In this view, FX's prediction of a 2009 date could actually be consistent with the near-term peak foreseen by many Peak Oil believers. It may seem odd that I have not discussed the issues that most people would use to judge the accuracy of Peak Oil claims: the likely future course of oil production, the possibility of alternative fuels, etc. Frankly, I don't have much confidence in our ability to forecast these kinds of numbers. One thing I will say is that in the next five years or so, it is pretty clear that alternative fuels cannot ramp up to make a very significant contribution. So if conventional oil peaks soon, we will probably see at least several years of genuinely dropping production. Mostly my interest in Peak Oil is not really the question of whether or when it will happen, and what its effects will be, although as I said these are good questions. My interest is more "meta". I see the Peak Oil community as a relatively closed group of true believers. They believe that they are privy to important truths which the larger world is either ignorant of, or is intentionally being misled about. The question, then, is what methodologies we can use to evaluate whether belief systems like these, beliefs which are contradicted by those of the larger world, are correct or not. As I have commented before, I do not believe that attempting to evaluate these beliefs at the "micro" level is the right way to get at the truth. The situation is far too complex for that, and even experts have sharp disagreements. No doubt I could study the issue and eventually come down on one side or the other, but I don't see any particular reason to expect that my position would be correct. Rather, I hope to find "black box" methods of evaluation that could be of general utility in judging the accuracy of claims that come from relatively isolated communities. Maybe there's no such thing and I am wasting time with my relatively detached perspective. But it is the direction I am pursuing for now, and my results are those summarized above. Hal From HerbM at learnquick.com Sun Mar 5 07:49:39 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 01:49:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution questions Message-ID: _____ From: Robert Bradbury On 3/4/06, spike wrote: Google is your friend. Sometimes... It depends on how much one knows and how narrow the topic is. If you have precise keywords I think Wikipedia is a better place to start. If you hand "politics" to Google it gets you 900 million references. Even "artificial intelligence" gets you 90 million. ... I agree -- with both of you: Google IS your friend AND sometimes Wikipedia is a better place to start.... Google Scholar solves some of this ... Where it will become easier is when one can have topic-map displays of collections of information based on the concepts of "local attractors". This is similar to the "related articles" selection in PubMed but I think they had to use a supercomputer to do the groupings (on a database which only has something like 10 million short abstracts). I think I have seen it on one or more news sites as well (CNET perhaps?) but I think they confined it to their own news articles which is a small dataset. I don't think even Google has the computer power to map the document family intersections for all of the documents on the web. If anyone knows of sites which do a particularly good job on this, particularly if they display the information as a visual graph, please let me know. Google does have SOME tools ALONG these lines although they probably don't meet the requirements you had specifically in mind above: Both the [ Link:www.example.com ] and the [ related:www.example.com ] allow one to focus on related sites -- 'related' is obvious and 'link' finds pages with links to the site in question which is often useful when searching for a locus of related sites. Very few people know all (or even most of the very useful) Google search criteria (Google's cheat sheet is appended below) but when used in combination with modifiers such as '~' (synonyms or similar meaning, and '-' (NEGATE word in search, find pages without this word or not matching this search term) the searches can be refined quite nicely in many cases. Examples: [ link:www.absoluteastronomy.com ] But the above tends to return a lot of pages at the same site, so using the negation with the [ -site:absoluteastronomy.com ] term focuses on linked pages that are NOT AT a particular site: [ link:www.absoluteastronomy.com -site:absoluteastronomy.com ] BTW: I used AbsoluteAstronomy because for math and (some science) it may give better or comparable results to WikiPedia which I use frequently too. Also useful for math are Wolfram's (Mathematica) http://mathworld.wolfram.com and Maple's sites http://www.maplesoft.com/applications Oddly enough, it is usually better to use Google to search AbsoluteAstronomy.com -- since the site does anyway and browsing on the site is screwy unless you are following pages linked [profusely] to an article you have already found, i.e.: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/cenozoic I particularly like the [ site: ] keyword when looking for academic information since it can be as simple as: site:edu or as specific as you like (and combined with other terms of course), e.g.: [ site:uts.cc.utexas.edu cenozoic evolution human ] Very few people ever use the "inurl:" "intitle:" or similar and keywords even though they can tend to focus much more directly on pages relevant to your search terms (rather than those which just happen to use the terms in the text body.) Perhaps surprisingly using the "filetype:pdf" terms can help quite often as well, searching for pdf, xls, ppt, or doc (Word) files can often obtain more 'formal' (and sometimes more useless ) information, especially if combined with one of the other tricks such as only searching site:edu etc. The two search modifiers I use most often are actually the '|' (OR, but the word OR requires capitilization while the bar symbol is simpler), and using quoted phrases, e.g., [ "evolution during the cenozoic" ] -- this also illustrates a problem with quoted phrases in that you may not know the word 'between' your key ideas and therefore Google offers the '*' wildcard operator, e.g., compare results of: [ "evolution during the cenozoic" human ] [ "evolution during the * cenozoic" human ] (The latter matches phrases containing the longer phrases such as: "early", "late" and even "Mesozoic and" Cenozoic.) Sometimes Google ignores common and very short words, e.g., 'the', I (roman numeral or pronoun) and so putting a '+' (required, or exact) symbol in front of the +keyword OR in front of +"the quoted phrase" can help if you require matching common words or require an exact match. Most sources (including the excellent book "Google Hacks") claim that Google has a "ten word limit" on searches but I suspect that this restriction has been quietly removed or expanded as searches such as the following search (now) finds the terms listed at the end: [-enroll -enrolled -climate -three -four -five -six -seven -eight -nine -ten human evolution cenozoic ] Google even has "special collections" for topics such as [ microsoft: ] or [ linux: ] (ending ':' is required for these collections). Combining the [ microsoft: ] collection with the negated [ -site:microsoft.com ] can find information that is NOT located at the microsoft website but does pertain to 'Microsoft stuff'. [ microsoft: -site:microsoft.com DHCP | DNS ] Longer guides (than below): http://www.googleguide.com/advanced_operators.html http://www.googleguide.com/advanced_operators_reference.html -- Enjoy, Herb Martin Google Google Help : Cheat Sheet OPERATOR EXAMPLE FINDS PAGES CONTAINING... vacation hawaii the words vacation and Hawaii . Maui OR Hawaii either the word Maui or the word Hawaii "To each his own" the exact phrase to each his own virus -computer the word virus but NOT the word computer Star Wars Episode +I This movie title, including the roman numeral I ~auto loan loan info for both the word auto and its synonyms: truck, car, etc. define:computer definitions of the word computer from around the Web. red * blue the words red and blue separated by one or more words. CALCULATOR OPERATORS MEANING TYPE INTO SEARCH BOX + addition 45 + 39 - subtraction 45 - 39 * multiplication 45 * 39 / division 45 / 39 % of percentage of 45% of 39 ^ raise to a power 2^5 (2 to the 5th power) ADVANCED OPERATORS MEANING WHAT TO TYPE INTO SEARCH BOX (& DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS) site: Search only one website admission site:www.stanford.edu (Search Stanford Univ. site for admissions info.) [#].[#] Search within a range of numbers DVD player $100..150 (Search for DVD players between $100 and $150) date: Search only a range of months Olympics date: 3 (Search for Olympics references within past 3 months; 6 and 12-month date-restrict options also available) safesearch: Exclude adult-content safesearch: sex education (Search for sex education material without returning adult sites) link: linked pages link:www.stanford.edu (Find pages that link to the Stanford University website.) info: Info about a page info:www.stanford.edu (Find information about the Stanford University website.) related: Related pages related:www.stanford.edu (Find websites related to the Stanford University website.) GOOGLE SERVICES URL DESCRIPTION Google Images images.google.com Find images related to your search term. Google News news.google.com Read the most up-to-date news stories about your search term. Froogle www.froogle.com Find sites selling the exact product you're looking for. Google Groups groups.google.com Usenet discussion group archive dating back to 1981. Google Catalogs catalogs.google.com Search hundreds of online catalogs. Google Labs labs.google.com Test-drive potential future Google products and services. Blogger www.blogger.com Start your own online journal (or 'blog') with this free self-publishing service. C2005 Google -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: google_sm.gif Type: image/gif Size: 4204 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cleardot.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00896.txt URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 04:15:08 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:15:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <20060307030727.BEDF357FB0@finney.org> References: <20060307030727.BEDF357FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: On 3/6/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > > It's not clear how to interpret this, but on its face it doesn't seem > to point to a particularly drastic Peak Oil scenario. OTOH if you > look at options contracts they give you an idea of the range of prices > the markets expect, and that turns out to be very wide. If you look > at prices at the end of 2008, the one-sigma price range is $34-104, > which corresponds to a 68% chance. The two-sigma range, corresponding > to a 95% chance, is $20-180. So the markets are certainly not ruling > out oil in the high $100's in the two to three year time frame. Such a > high price would almost certainly cause a serious recession. Of course > the markets aren't ruling out $20-30 oil either, in which case we can > go back to bathing in the stuff. A slightly off-topic question: Is there a way to quickly plot the sigmas for futures markets? -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Mar 7 03:16:29 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 22:16:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? was Re: Failure of low-fat diet In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60603061407x25401316t6c98b5960b1b015e@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7641ddc60603061407x25401316t6c98b5960b1b015e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060306174613.024859b0@gmu.edu> At 05:07 PM 3/6/2006, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >What is in your opinion the percent contribution of, >for example, smallpox vaccinations to the currently observed reduction >of lifetime prevalence of that disease? Please use the historical data >on lifetime prevalence in e.g. Europe, compare with current numbers >and tell me how much, if any, of the reduction is attributable to >vaccinations. Start with this study as a reference point: Improving Health: Measuring Effects of Medical Care, by John P. Bunker, Howard S. Frazier, and Frederick Mosteller, Milbank Quarterly, 72(2), 1994. I don't think the authors are critical enough, in that they seem to give medicine the benefit of any doubts about medical effectiveness. But even they can only come up with a few years of life to credit to medicine. So even they must conclude that most improvements in lifespan have come from other causes. For smallpox they credit medicine with giving 3-6 mo. life per person on average, which I'd say is too high. To answer your exact question I'd guess 1 to 10% of the reduction is attributable to vaccination. 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 Tue Mar 7 08:18:54 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 00:18:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news Message-ID: <20060307081854.CD89657FAF@finney.org> Neil H. writes: > A slightly off-topic question: Is there a way to quickly plot the sigmas for > futures markets? There's an easy way and a harder way, so I'll tell you the easy way. According to this article by James D. Hamilton on his Econbrowser blog: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/02/oil_at_1530_a_b.html oil has had a volatility of 32% per year for many years. This means that we can compute the k-sigma range by the following formula. Let k be the number of standard deviations; let t be the number of years in the future; and let P be the price of oil futures for that date in the future. Then the k-sigma range is P / (1.32^(k*t)) to P * (1.32^(k*t)). Here, ^ means exponentiation. A good site for oil futures prices is: http://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/?r=NYMEX_CL For example, to get the 2-sigma range for the end of 2007, k = 2, t = 1.75 (roughly), and P from the page above is $67.85 (the sixth column on the row for December 2007). 1.32^(2*1.75) is 2.64, so the price range is 67.85/2.64 to 67.85*2.64, or 25.7 to 179. This is a 2-sigma range so we can say there is a 95% probability that oil price will be in that range at the end of 07. As I said, this is the easy way because we assumed the volatility as fixed. A more complex method involves first estimating the volatility using options prices. Hamilton has a posting that discusses how to do this, as well as much valuable information about futures market pricing, here: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/07/100_a_barrel_wh.html Hal From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 7 08:45:05 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 00:45:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? was Re: Failure of low-fat diet Message-ID: <20060307084505.63E9C57FAF@finney.org> I found an interesting debate on the efficacy of medicine online in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, from 1998: http://annals.org/cgi/content/full/129/5/419 This is an editorial introducing the issue, but the nice thing is that the two papers making their cases are available in full text form. The actual issue being debated is slightly different, it is how to reduce inequalities in health between different socioeconomic groups. Should we improve access to medicine? Well, not if access to medicine doesn't improve health! Quoting from the editorial: > The macro-level debate was triggered by the interest in accounting for > the impressive reductions in mortality that have been achieved in the > past century. Such reductions have benefited almost all countries of > the world and all social groups, although with enormous disparities in > the extent and pace of progress. The coincidence of this process with > the multiplication of efficacious medical technologies led to the almost > obvious conclusion that the latter had to be the cause of the reduction > in mortality, but this certainty was not to last long. > > In the 1950s, precisely when most countries were beginning to report > important decreases in mortality, several influential criticisms were > leveled against the conventional wisdom. In 1959, Rene Dubos published > his now-classic book Mirage of Health [3]. In it, he demonstrated that > mortality had begun to decline in the West much before the formulation > of the microbial theory of disease and the availability of "magic > bullets." Almost at the same time, physician and demographer Thomas > McKeown was beginning the series of studies that would make him one of > the most controversial critics of the role of medicine [4]. According > to McKeown, the main reasons for the decline of mortality were to be > found in better living conditions, especially nutrition, housing, and > environmental sanitation. This was certainly not the first time that the > effect of social conditions on health had been noted; this observation > goes back at least to the ancient Greeks and finds an eloquent exponent > in Rudolf Virchow. The important point was that both Dubos and McKeown > were specifically trying to refute the common notion that medical advances > were responsible for major gains in health. > > Medical intervention has always been accompanied by skepticism about its > value. But what began to be expressed in this debate were not doubts > about particular interventions but doubts about the entire medical > enterprise, leading to what Paul Starr has called a new "therapeutic > nihilism" [5]. This view implied a radical shift in public policy for > health. Whereas a common policy goal throughout the world had been to > achieve universal access to medical care, the notion of the relative > irrelevance of medical care undermined the rationale for such a goal. As > Starr [5] points out, if medical services make so little difference in > health and life expectancy, "why worry about the poor-or, for that matter, > anyone-not getting enough of them?" Ironically, therapeutic nihilism > began as a critique from the left but was subsequently incorporated > into the conservative justification for cutting health care budgets and > tolerating socioeconomic inequalities in access. I won't try to fill in the references, you can see them in the original article. Then at the bottom of the page it links to two articles which make opposing cases about whether we should try to increase medical access for the poor. I was amazed to learn that such extreme skepticism about the fundamental value of medicine goes back as far as the 1950s. Apparently it is widely known within the public health care field, but it certainly has not gotten through to the general public. Of course, it is understandable that it would hardly be in the self-interest of medical professionals to tell everyone that most of what they do is worthless! And I suppose that in truth, most people probably would not be eager to hear this bad news, prefering to believe in the near-miraculous healing powers of modern medicine, to provide comfort when they get sick. Hal From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Mar 7 10:35:40 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 02:35:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <20060307030727.BEDF357FB0@finney.org> References: <20060307030727.BEDF357FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <6BF11B29-EE2B-4791-BBCC-5739B60FF745@mac.com> On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:07 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > > Personally, I like to look at the markets to get an idea of the true > consensus on an issue. Oil is expensive these days, about $64 a > barrel. > You can buy and sell futures contracts for oil delivery on up to the > 2012 time frame, and generally those long-term oil contracts are > priced > about the same as today. Prices climb slightly up until mid 2007 and > then decline to about today's levels. > > It's not clear how to interpret this, but on its face it doesn't seem > to point to a particularly drastic Peak Oil scenario. OTOH if you > look at options contracts they give you an idea of the range of prices > the markets expect, and that turns out to be very wide. If you look > at prices at the end of 2008, the one-sigma price range is $34-104, > which corresponds to a 68% chance. The two-sigma range, corresponding > to a 95% chance, is $20-180. So the markets are certainly not ruling > out oil in the high $100's in the two to three year time frame. > Such a > high price would almost certainly cause a serious recession. Of > course > the markets aren't ruling out $20-30 oil either, in which case we can > go back to bathing in the stuff. > The markets, as anyone who plays them knows, are not altogether rational. So I find it unlikely that examining market price structures will give good evidence for or against Peak Oil. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Mar 7 10:37:43 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 02:37:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? was Re: Failure of low-fat diet In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060306174613.024859b0@gmu.edu> References: <7641ddc60603061407x25401316t6c98b5960b1b015e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060306174613.024859b0@gmu.edu> Message-ID: It would take a LOT of airtight evidence to avoid looking like a crank on this one. - samantha On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:16 PM, Robin Hanson wrote: > At 05:07 PM 3/6/2006, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> What is in your opinion the percent contribution of, >> for example, smallpox vaccinations to the currently observed >> reduction >> of lifetime prevalence of that disease? Please use the historical >> data >> on lifetime prevalence in e.g. Europe, compare with current numbers >> and tell me how much, if any, of the reduction is attributable to >> vaccinations. > > Start with this study as a reference point: > > Improving Health: Measuring > Effects of Medical Care, by John P. Bunker, Howard S. Frazier, and > Frederick Mosteller, Milbank Quarterly, 72(2), 1994. > > I don't think the authors are critical enough, in that they seem to > give medicine the benefit of any doubts about medical > effectiveness. But even they can only come up with a few years of > life to credit to medicine. So even they must conclude that most > improvements in lifespan have come from other causes. > > For smallpox they credit medicine with giving 3-6 mo. life per person > on average, which I'd say is too high. > To answer your exact question I'd guess 1 to 10% of the reduction is > attributable to vaccination. > > > Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu > Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Mar 7 14:51:15 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:51:15 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [futuretag] Planet Future merged h+ RSS newsaggregator In-Reply-To: <004b01c64156$92040e10$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <470a3c520603060145i4ad56624p3832777b101d93a3@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060306090630.0300bb20@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <004b01c64156$92040e10$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060307085000.042e0510@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 01:42 PM 3/6/2006, Gina wrote: >It looks wonderful Natasha, thank you for all your hard work! My pleasure :-) >At 03:45 AM 3/6/2006, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >>I have set up this merged rss feed with news of h+ interest. It is >>very easy to integrate in a website (RSS or just include a php file): >>http://futuretag.net/index.php/Planet_Future > >What a great idea. Thanks. Here is a suggested >site: http://www.transhumanist.biz > >Best wishes, >Natasha > >Natasha Vita-More >Cultural Strategist - Designer >Future Studies, University of Houston >President, Extropy Institute >Member, Association of Professional Futurists >Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > >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 hal at finney.org Tue Mar 7 20:31:51 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:31:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news Message-ID: <20060307203151.D415D57FAF@finney.org> Samantha Atkins writes: > The markets, as anyone who plays them knows, are not altogether > rational. So I find it unlikely that examining market price > structures will give good evidence for or against Peak Oil. Yes, the markets are the worst predictors around. Except for everything else. :-) The reason markets are a good source of information is so obvious that it never seems to be written down. Unlike other opinions, market opinions are backed up by the hard-earned cash of the people asserting them. Taking a position in the market forces you to think hard about your assumptions and to judge whether you are really as confident in your opinions as you think you are. The fact that someone is always there to bet against you is an ever-present warning that maybe he knows something you don't. It's easy to go out and say whatever you want, make whatever predictions you want. A few months ago I posted about this New Yorker review of a book on how bad a job "experts" do in predicting: http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/051205crbo_books1 One sample quote: > People who are not experts in the psychology of expertise are likely > (I predict) to find Tetlock's results a surprise and a matter > for concern. For psychologists, though, nothing could be less > surprising. "Expert Political Judgment" is just one of more than a > hundred studies that have pitted experts against statistical or actuarial > formulas, and in almost all of those studies the people either do no > better than the formulas or do worse... I seem to recall reading something about the theory of market consensus that is quite dramatic. I'm probably remembering it wrong at least in part, but I'll present it for your consideration. Suppose you have a belief about some future event, and then you are informed of the market consensus and it is very different from your belief. For example, many Peak Oilers agree with oil analyst Matthew Simmons that oil will be over $200 a barrel by 2010. Simmons made a famous public bet about this a few months ago. Now, the oil futures market price for 2010 oil is about $64, a big difference from $200. Once you find out about this discrepancy between the market consensus and your beliefs, you have two choices. One is to change your belief to match the market consensus. This is what I aim to do. The other is to accept that there are positions you could take in the market, bets you could make, that have a positive expectation. That is, you have to believe that the markets are giving away free money. And the more divergent your beliefs are from the market, the easier it is to find such positions and the greater the profits. Right now, for $5,000 you can buy a $100 call option that expires in 2010. This will be worth 1,000 * (oil price - $100). So if oil does in fact go to $200 as those people believe, their $5,000 option would be worth $100,000, 20 times their investment. And they'll actually make a profit as long as oil goes above $105. If they think that $200 is likely, presumably they think that $105 is a sure thing. So for almost no risk they have an investment that has a good chance of making them 20 times their money. That's a heck of a deal! It's like a lottery ticket where you're almost sure to win. That's how the world has to look to people who choose to disagree with markets. They are forced to believe that there are free lunches on every corner, i.e. that they can get 20 times their money risk-free. In a way, they're very lucky people, to live in such a world. Wouldn't you like to live in a world like that? Most people with these beliefs don't actually try to participate in the markets. I see this as irrational, to not take advantage of free money. Now, granted, there are some practical difficulties with opening commodities accounts, and not everyone has $5,000 to invest. But I don't think that is the real reason people aren't taking advantage of these offers. I suspect that people are fundamentally being irrational. In fact, I believe that at root, it is not rational to hold a different position from the market consensus. This is what I was referring to above, my dim understanding of an economic theorem. To disbelieve in the consensus is to believe in a world where money grows on trees, and yet (for most people) not to take it. There's something seriously inconsistent with this way of thinking. As I put it to the guy who believed in Simmons' $200/barrel, his belief implies a risk-free expectation of 20-fold profits. That sounds too good to be true. And as they say, when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. So I would not be too quick to disparage the market consensus. There is sound logic behind it, and few if any institutions apply the same discipline and motivation to people making forecasts. Hal From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 21:09:52 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 21:09:52 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <20060307203151.D415D57FAF@finney.org> References: <20060307203151.D415D57FAF@finney.org> Message-ID: On 3/7/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Lots of market ideology. > > So I would not be too quick to disparage the market consensus. There is > sound logic behind it, and few if any institutions apply the same > discipline and motivation to people making forecasts. > You do realise that what you are claiming for markets requires a degree of faith that is difficult to defend in the real world? For every economist supporting you, there will be another opposing your view. :) Markets in the real world are corrupt gambling vehicles for a few rich people to make a lot of money while ordinary folks lose their savings. They are manipulated by speculators, subject to speculative bubbles and crashes, fraudulent businesses, selective monopolies, distorted by taxation and get-rich-quick schemes. I've probably missed plenty of targets, but better people than me have written at length about market failures and distortions. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Mar 7 21:49:53 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:49:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <20060307203151.D415D57FAF@finney.org> References: <20060307203151.D415D57FAF@finney.org> Message-ID: <3AADEC7D-0E63-4D86-BDC4-645D25006334@mac.com> On Mar 7, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > Samantha Atkins writes: >> The markets, as anyone who plays them knows, are not altogether >> rational. So I find it unlikely that examining market price >> structures will give good evidence for or against Peak Oil. > > Yes, the markets are the worst predictors around. Except for > everything > else. :-) > > The reason markets are a good source of information is so obvious > that it > never seems to be written down. Unlike other opinions, market > opinions > are backed up by the hard-earned cash of the people asserting them. Yes obviously but also No. Markets are full of speculations not only about the underlying but about the actions and opinions of other persons and entities in the market. It is a dynamic attempt to model the likely future behavior of the other players as much as the actual merits of the underlying commodity. Speculation is rampant across multiple dimensions. > > > Suppose you have a belief about some future event, and then you are > informed of the market consensus and it is very different from your > belief. For example, many Peak Oilers agree with oil analyst Matthew > Simmons that oil will be over $200 a barrel by 2010. Simmons made a > famous public bet about this a few months ago. > Without some really good news in alternative energy it is imho certain we will at least see spikes this high. > Now, the oil futures market price for 2010 oil is about $64, a big > difference from $200. Once you find out about this discrepancy > between > the market consensus and your beliefs, you have two choices. There is no reason to place an extravagant bet that far out at this time, is there? > > One is to change your belief to match the market consensus. This is > what I aim to do. > I don't see any real compelling logic to this. > The other is to accept that there are positions you could take in the > market, bets you could make, that have a positive expectation. > That is, > you have to believe that the markets are giving away free money. And > the more divergent your beliefs are from the market, the easier it is > to find such positions and the greater the profits. > Right now, for $5,000 you can buy a $100 call option that expires > in 2010. > This will be worth 1,000 * (oil price - $100). So if oil does in fact > go to $200 as those people believe, their $5,000 option would be worth > $100,000, 20 times their investment. I would be tempted by that position if I had $5000 I didn't mind tying up for that long and if I could sufficiently discount the possibility of a good replacement energy technology in that timeframe. I would be placing a bet both about the availability versus demand for oil. Peak Oil does not actually entitle me to rule out new technology. I would rather trade the $5000 on shorter term positions. I suspect that many traders feel the same. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Mar 7 22:20:11 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:20:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <3AADEC7D-0E63-4D86-BDC4-645D25006334@mac.com> References: <20060307203151.D415D57FAF@finney.org> <3AADEC7D-0E63-4D86-BDC4-645D25006334@mac.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060307171511.023f9be8@gmu.edu> >On Mar 7, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Hal Finney wrote: >Yes, the markets are the worst predictors around. Except for everything >else. :-) >The reason markets are a good source of information is so obvious that it >never seems to be written down. Unlike other opinions, market opinions >are backed up by the hard-earned cash of the people asserting them. Samantha Atkins replied: >Yes obviously but also No. Markets are full of speculations not >only about the underlying but about the actions and opinions of >other persons and entities in the market. It is a dynamic attempt >to model the likely future behavior of the other players as much as >the actual merits of the underlying commodity. Speculation is >rampant across multiple dimensions. Bill K replied: >You do realise that what you are claiming for markets requires a >degree of faith that is difficult to defend in the real world? ... >Markets in the real world are corrupt gambling vehicles for a few rich >people to make a lot of money while ordinary folks lose their savings. >They are manipulated by speculators, subject to speculative bubbles >and crashes, fraudulent businesses, selective monopolies, distorted by >taxation and get-rich-quick schemes. The claims you both make could all be true, and yet Hal could still be right. If you dispute the claim that speculative markets are the best predictors available, please point to another available predictor you think does better. We have many years of data on speculative markets to evaluate their accuracy. How many years of data do we have evaluating your favored predictor? 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 Tue Mar 7 21:51:25 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 16:51:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy , Mass and my mother Message-ID: <20060307215125.72442.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >I've been trying to explain to mother (who is a diosis with the Protestant >Church) about science. (Forget about evolution, that's going to take a >lot more convincing) >I may be completely off, but i'm just trying to explain to her (she is very, very >old school, pray, be nice and don't think too much:) in easy terms, >the concept of e=mc2 using humans as the example. >Please let me know that i'm way off before I approach her with my idea:) >(And by the way, smileys are cute!) >If I quoted Albert Einstein with: (She likes him, thinks his smart:) >"The body's surface layer is penetrated by energy >quanta whose energy is converted at least partially >into kinetic energy of the electrons. The simplest >conception is that a light quamtum transfers it's >entire energy to a single electron..)" Then I will say: >If we are all energy that equals mass, to be attracted >to someone, you would need gravity. >Then, If energy equals mass times the speed of light, then >at certain times people meet for a specific reason. (Or if they >meet and exchange energy with someone that may be causing radiation, >they too may become contaminated.) >And if e=mc2, then couldn't it mean that their are >other energies that effect humans that may cause >electromagnetic fields based on the time. >(if you haven't already became radiation.) >Which in turn would lead to the need to understand >awareness in humans? (Knowing the right time) >Which Buddha describes: To becoming a full conscious human being. >(I won't tell her it was Buddha) >And just out of curiosity, have scientists measured awareness? >Any comments or suggestions are always welcome, >it makes me smarter >Thanks Anna --------------------------------- 7 bucks a month. This is Huge Yahoo! Music Unlimited -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Mar 7 22:54:58 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:54:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060307225455.GA27634@ofb.net> On a high-quality invitation-only list: I see no reason in principle it can't work. But I'd like to add my experience: some years ago I started a polymath list, inviation only, largely composed of extropians list members past and present I highly valued, and a few outsiders like David Brin. It had some pretty high-quality extropianish discussion, a few flamewars between some of the more touchy members, and then died out. To me it felt like we were perhaps too self-conscious of the desired purity, but I don't know. Maybe it was too small, or I didn't do enough to spark discussion. Anyway, figured I should add the data point about extropian-derived salons. As of my writing this e-mail, the archives are back up: http://ofb.net/~damien/polymath/ And Robin, the AltInst archives now live again as well: http://www.mindstalk.net/alt/ -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Mar 7 23:39:02 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:39:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future In-Reply-To: <20060307225455.GA27634@ofb.net> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20060307225455.GA27634@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060307233900.GA27294@ofb.net> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:54:58PM -0800, Damien Sullivan wrote: > desired purity, but I don't know. Maybe it was too small, or I didn't do > enough to spark discussion. Anyway, figured I should add the data point about > extropian-derived salons. Or maybe Perry Metzger's prediction of eventually staleness and outliving utility simply came true: http://www.mindstalk.net/polymath/polyarc/0003.html Last paragraph seems apropos to the discussion. Though I'm less certain that a large list has to have a lifecycle; organizations don't have to act like organisms. I don't think I ever did bring in "fresh blood". > As of my writing this e-mail, the archives are back up: > http://ofb.net/~damien/polymath/ Hey, that's not the URL I wanted. This is: http://www.mindstalk.net/polymath/ -xx- Damien X-) From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Mar 7 23:39:26 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:39:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060307171511.023f9be8@gmu.edu> References: <20060307203151.D415D57FAF@finney.org> <3AADEC7D-0E63-4D86-BDC4-645D25006334@mac.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060307171511.023f9be8@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Mar 7, 2006, at 2:20 PM, Robin Hanson wrote: > The claims you both make could all be true, and yet Hal could still > be right. > If you dispute the claim that speculative markets are the best > predictors > available, please point to another available predictor you think > does better. > We have many years of data on speculative markets to evaluate their > accuracy. > How many years of data do we have evaluating your favored predictor? Actually I don't need to do so in order to make the point I did make which is that the behavior of the market regarding oil futures is not at all adequate to judge whether Peak Oil theory is valid. - samantha From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 8 02:02:55 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 18:02:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news Message-ID: <20060308020255.B925C57FAF@finney.org> Samantha writes: > Actually I don't need to do so in order to make the point I did make > which is that the behavior of the market regarding oil futures is not > at all adequate to judge whether Peak Oil theory is valid. Actually, I basically agree with this as written. As I tried to show, the behavior of futures markets right now is not inconsistent with the possibility of near-term Peak Oil. Market volatility allows for a wide range of futures pricing, and prices could easily climb above $100 or even as high as $180 or so. Likewise the FX market sees a good chance of a substantial production decline in the 2010 time frame. Where I differ with the Peak Oil believers is that the markets are also saying that Peak Oil is not a sure thing. Prices could climb, yes; but they could also fall. Neither can be ruled out. And the most likely price by 2010 is about $65, suggesting that Peak Oil is not all that likely. Not many people are "on the fence" about near-term Peak Oil, oddly, even though that is how I read the market forecast. Most people either see it as very likely or very unlikely. I imagine this is part of the general human tendency to be over-confident in our beliefs. Back to Samantha's comment, I agree with it as written, that current market behavior is not sufficient to confirm or deny Peak Oil theory. However I disagree with what I think is her larger point, which is that markets in general are no good for evaluating this kind of theory. Markets do a good job of consolidating and synthesizing available information, both public and private. Market traders have an eternal hunger for the best available information, anything to give them an edge over the competition. If public information strongly implied the likelihood of a Peak Oil scenario (as suggested by true believers), oil markets would not ignore this public information since it would be a source of profits for investors. Even private and secret information affects prices. If oil industry insiders knew that Peak Oil was about to happen and prices would rise, they could take long positions in the futures market, and by these actions they would drive up futures prices. Many (even most!) Peak Oilers believe that markets are stupid and traders are blindly ignoring blatantly obvious facts that prove the reality of Peak Oil. This is inconsistent with the motivations of all parties involved. It is far more likely that Peak Oilers are deluding themselves, which does not cost them anything and in fact gives them a sense of importance and signficance, than that market traders are intentionally closing their eyes to valid information and giving away money as a result. Hal From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Mar 8 01:58:40 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 20:58:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. Message-ID: <20060308015840.75555.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi! I'm Anne-Marie Taylor a.k.a. Anne-Marie Taylor I have nothing to hide That's the new eulogy You don't need to be anything than what you are. It's a fact, but not yet proven... sry --------------------------------- Have a question? Yahoo! Canada Answers. Go to Yahoo! Canada Answers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed Mar 8 02:13:22 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 18:13:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <20060307030727.BEDF357FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060308021322.66148.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Mostly my interest in Peak Oil is not really the > question of whether or when it will happen, and > what its effects will be [...] My interest is > more "meta". I see the Peak Oil community as a > relatively closed group of true believers. [...] > The question, then, is what methodologies we can > use to evaluate whether belief systems like these, > beliefs which are contradicted by those of the > larger world, are correct or not. > > [...] I hope to find "black box" methods of > evaluation that could be of general utility in > judging the accuracy of claims that come from > relatively isolated communities. But wouldn't that imply that the popularity of a given set of statements should affect the evaluation procedures applied to them? My sense is that not only does keeping things meta entail excluding consideration of popularity, but even at a micro level the consideration of popularity runs the risk of systematically instantiating "socially correct," as opposed to ontologically accurate, conclusions, thereby defeating the whole project. An ideal example of applying a universal and thus 'meta' procedure to all empirical statements was your excellent critique on this list (years back) of the belief held by a relatively small group headed by some FLIR experts who opined that flashes on FLIR video taken during the final Waco siege show gunshots directed into the Mt Carmel center. Your analysis tested the veracity of claims on a micro case-by-case basis irrespective of who held them. You motivated me to second-guess the experts heading that belief cell, which I was in. Following your lead and with the full FLIR video and official report in hand I took to carefully examining each and every claim forming that cell at an ultra-micro level and found each falsified resulting in a wonderful example to behold in myself of total belief collapse. [*] ~Ian [*] http://users.erols.com/igoddard/wacoflir.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 8 04:08:18 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 20:08:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. In-Reply-To: <20060308015840.75555.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060308015840.75555.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10603072008j79e51d57i4389de68faa8e624@mail.gmail.com> Anne - Your words in this post and others are very similar to those of people I've known who have taken a lot of LSD. Might this be the case here? - Jef On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > Hi! I'm Anne-Marie Taylor > a.k.a. Anne-Marie Taylor > I have nothing to hide > That's the new eulogy > You don't need to be anything than what you are. > It's a fact, but not yet proven... sry > > > ------------------------------ > Have a question? Yahoo! Canada Answers. Go to *Yahoo! Canada Answers* > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 05:33:11 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 16:03:11 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future In-Reply-To: <20060307225455.GA27634@ofb.net> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20060307225455.GA27634@ofb.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0603072133k68117468y@mail.gmail.com> Over time I've oscillated between being a high volume poster and being a lurker, usually depending on my workload/motivation in meatspace. But I love this list; it's the only one I've stuck with for a really long time (hmm, maybe 7 or 8 years now? Good grief!) This quality issue has come up constantly as long as I've been subscribed, and we've always survived by riding it out, and maybe with a bit of heavy moderation at times (good one for doing this now Spike!) Personally, I think the list is a lot easier to take these days. I can say "Guns" without starting a 6 month all-of-list demolition derby. So I can't honestly see the problem. OTOH, I have barely been looking at the list for the last 6 months, so hey. I think problems of quality on this list, and the desire by Exi for a higher quality forum of some kind, are separate. I ask Natasha and Exi to consider solving them separately. Start a new by-invite-only group by all means, in whatever format is desired. But don't kill this list. If you don't want to host it any more, then set it free, just like the more enlightened companies in the software industry set their obsolete software free by open sourcing it. Hopefully someone will volunteer to host it, or it can go to the Yahoogroups ghetto if it has to, but don't just let it die. I'll stay subscribed, even if my involvement varies. I love this list. It might be unextropian of me, but I feel it's one of the things I personally hope wont change... a little point of constancy for me in a world that otherwise morphs beyond recognition on a periodic basis. I've always seen it as a little salon of likeminded individuals, where we can chat, rant, laugh, and commiserate as we all ride into the crazyness of the future. In my mind, the exi list has a sense of place, and it'd be sad to have that disconnected. Like losing your favourite watering hole. I like to think that one day I'll be part of some m-brain, controlling probes and sensors across near space, wandering around in virtual worlds, interacting and merging with other minds with ad-hoc ease, to as yet unknowable ends, but somewhere on a little node of my extended mentality, there'll be the far future equivalent of a pop client subscribing to the list, still yacking away, amongst old friends. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Mar 8 06:31:59 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 22:31:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10603072008j79e51d57i4389de68faa8e624@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060308015840.75555.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22360fa10603072008j79e51d57i4389de68faa8e624@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6D1FDF05-79C7-41C1-8E71-2F5C822B6D21@mac.com> Huh? Many of us over a certain age did our fair share (at least) of psychedelics. So what? This seems like a bit of a personal dig. Was that your intent? - samantha On Mar 7, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > Anne - > > Your words in this post and others are very similar to those of > people I've known who have taken a lot of LSD. > > Might this be the case here? > > - Jef > > > On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Hi! I'm Anne-Marie Taylor > a.k.a. Anne-Marie Taylor > I have nothing to hide > That's the new eulogy > You don't need to be anything than what you are. > It's a fact, but not yet proven... sry > > > Have a question? Yahoo! Canada Answers. Go to Yahoo! Canada Answers > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 8 06:30:36 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 22:30:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0603072133k68117468y@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200603080715.k287F95D026323@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn ... > Personally, I think the list is a lot easier to take these days. I can > say "Guns" without starting a 6 month all-of-list demolition derby... GUNS! You said GUNS! Alright everybody, lock and load! kidding, bygones. {8^D ... > I like to think that one day I'll be part of some m-brain, controlling > probes and sensors across near space, wandering around in virtual > worlds, interacting and merging with other minds with ad-hoc ease, to > as yet unknowable ends, but somewhere on a little node of my extended > mentality, there'll be the far future equivalent of a pop client > subscribing to the list, still yacking away, amongst old friends. > > -- > Emlyn Thanks for this Emlyn. Its eloquence rises to the level of poetry. {8-] spike From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 8 07:56:51 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 23:56:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news Message-ID: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> Ian Goddard writes: > But wouldn't that imply that the popularity of a > given set of statements should affect the evaluation > procedures applied to them? My sense is that not only > does keeping things meta entail excluding > consideration of popularity, but even at a micro level > the consideration of popularity runs the risk of > systematically instantiating "socially correct," as > opposed to ontologically accurate, conclusions, > thereby defeating the whole project. That's a good question. Should the conventional wisdom, the majority belief, be held to the same standards as a minority or fringe viewpoint? Look at the scientific establishment. Most observers find a large degree of conservatism and hostility to new ideas, which are forced to meet a much higher standard of evidence than results that conform to the accepted paradigm. Robin's original Idea Futures paper was "Could Gambling Save Science?", , and proposed to overcome this kind of problem by using betting markets. Maybe science could be improved by considering all evidence equally and not favoring consensus views. But maybe not! Science has been very successful in terms of its goals of advancing knowledge. It's not obvious a priori that its degree of conservatism is truly excessive. Maybe science is right to be skeptical of evidence that contravenes the conventional wisdom, even when the evidence looks good on its own. Here's an amusing example that I ran into today by accident: gasresources.net. This is a site about the "abiogenic oil" theory, that oil does not come from the decay of biological material, but rather is a chemical resource that comes from deep within the earth. This theory is often associated in the West with the late Thomas Gold but actually originated in Russia and is relatively accepted there. This site's a real piece of work. Reading it you get the impression that only cranks and lunatics hold to the opposing view, that oil is biological in origin. They even have a whole section on sociological issues, including Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" talk and examinations of the kinds of cognitive errors that could let supposed "junk science" like biological oil become accepted. It's a real "through the looking glass" experience because the truth is just the opposite: conventional wisdom in the geological community is that abiogenic oil is a fringe theory that has little evidence in its favor. Yet this site writes as though the biological origin theory has been totally discredited. Just to make sure I wasn't going crazy I checked one site that recites some of the evidence I thought I remembered, . It's not particularly authoritative but after reading gasresources.net I was starting to wonder if everything I knew was wrong. The point is that in many of these disputed and fringe theories, it is easy to come up with a very convincing-looking case for why they are true. But that doesn't mean they really are true. If you investigated every theory for which there exists a credible-looking story, it would take up all your time. So we have a maxim: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even then, it's sometimes hard to know what is an extraordinary claim. Robin says that medicine provides almost no quantitative benefit, and that sounds extraordinary, compared to what most people believe. Yet apparently it is the conventional wisdom in the relevant academic communities. My conclusion is that it does make sense to treat fringe views differently from widely accepted ones. The strategy I am following is to find institutions for getting at the truth that seem like they work. Markets are one, and science is another. If and when those ever disagree, as Robin's paper anticipated, then I don't know what to do! There are a few cases like that on FX, and I'm not sure what to make of them. > An ideal example of applying a universal and thus > 'meta' procedure to all empirical statements was your > excellent critique on this list (years back) of the > belief held by a relatively small group headed by some > FLIR experts who opined that flashes on FLIR video > taken during the final Waco siege show gunshots > directed into the Mt Carmel center. Your analysis > tested the veracity of claims on a micro case-by-case > basis irrespective of who held them. You motivated me > to second-guess the experts heading that belief cell, > which I was in. Following your lead and with the full > FLIR video and official report in hand I took to > carefully examining each and every claim forming that > cell at an ultra-micro level and found each falsified > resulting in a wonderful example to behold in myself > of total belief collapse. [*] ~Ian > [*] http://users.erols.com/igoddard/wacoflir.htm Well, you deserve all the credit for that. The truth is that my theory was wrong. You came up with the idea about material on the ground fluttering in the wind to make things flash, which explained all the data. Today I wouldn't even try to get into it. This kind of fringe stuff is too far off the radar to even be credible enough to pay attention to. I'm sure that was already the case for most people even back then. And after all, they were right, at a considerably lower cost than I went through, and enormously lower than what you had to go through to get to essentially the same conclusion. Hal From amara at amara.com Wed Mar 8 09:38:24 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:38:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future Message-ID: What a time capsule!! >http://www.mindstalk.net/polymath/ >-xx- Damien X-) Three or four of my lifetimes ago. That was in the middle of what was one of the most intense periods of my life. Seeing it again and remembering those messages brought me back memories. Thanks for that. 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/ ******************************************************************** "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." --Anais Nin From amara at amara.com Wed Mar 8 10:05:58 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:05:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Crazy Wealthy Space Enthusiasts? Message-ID: To follow up an idea by Perry Metzger. In a rather nasty cancellation(*), NASA has dropped one of my working group's main projects, Dawn (**) about 9 months from launch, we had only about 5% of the spacecraft left to finish (all instruments are finished and part-way integrated on the spacecraft). The Dawn scientists will fight the cancellation, but I don't think the project head has a strategy yet. Perry's suggestion is to find private funding for the remaining 40 million dollars to finish the mission. This is a radical idea for planetary scientists generally, but to take his suggestion seriously, I should first learn who are the 'crazy' space enthusiasts today who are also wealthy? I am a bit isolated here, and am not in a good position to know, except that I know they are rare (!). Paul Allen is one. Can anyone here suggest others? Amara (*) http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19838 http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000475/ http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=tus&q=Dawn+mission+cancellation&btnG=Search+News (**) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Mission -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "A million here, a million there, sooner or later it is real money." -- U.S. Senator Dirksen From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Mar 8 13:10:02 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:10:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: Hal's written some very fine pieces that clearly explain one very good way to come to tentative conclusions about issues that interest you. "Prudence", like "virtue" aren't terms that you hear much of these days, but prudence was very high on the list of desirable virtues in classical times, and you simply must rate pretty highly the Hanson/Finney formula in terms of prudence, and "Peak Oil" is a great esxample. It even gets a little funny to anticipate how uncomfortable these claims must make some people. One bottom line, "if you are so sure, then put your money where your mouth is" naturally provokes outrage. Of course, given that one does hold strong beliefs one way or another that are at variance with the market, there can be prudent reasons that he or she may find it too risky to gamble anyway: we all have our utility curves, after all. But surely, I would think, you'd be at least a little more inclined to be *less* certain in your own mind about conclusions you've reached if so many others with good "credentials" disagree with you: your immediate mission, whether you choose to accept it or not, is to explain how it is that they all could be so wrong. Like others who demur a bit, I too subscribe to some beliefs about this that may conflict a little with the market. I've read---along with my book group, which is composed of folks I respect a good deal---Thomas Gold's "The Deep Hot Biosphere". We were convinced! Concretely: at the end of the evening we discussed the book, most of us thought that the odds were eighty percent that he was right about the abiotic theory (we also thought that he had about a fifty percent chance of being right about life itself first arising deep within the earth. I venture to say that anyone who's studied Gold's fine book will significantly change his odds more towards the abiotic theory, (even if he retains probability at less than fifty percent). Lee > Maybe science could be improved by considering all evidence equally and > not favoring consensus views. But maybe not! Science has been very > successful in terms of its goals of advancing knowledge. It's not > obvious a priori that its degree of conservatism is truly excessive. > Maybe science is right to be skeptical of evidence that contravenes the > conventional wisdom, even when the evidence looks good on its own. > > Here's an amusing example that I ran into today by accident: > gasresources.net. This is a site about the "abiogenic oil" theory, > that oil does not come from the decay of biological material, but > rather is a chemical resource that comes from deep within the earth. > This theory is often associated in the West with the late Thomas Gold > but actually originated in Russia and is relatively accepted there. > > This site's a real piece of work. Reading it you get the impression > that only cranks and lunatics hold to the opposing view, that oil is > biological in origin. They even have a whole section on sociological > issues, including Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" talk and examinations > of the kinds of cognitive errors that could let supposed "junk science" > like biological oil become accepted. > > It's a real "through the looking glass" experience because the truth is > just the opposite: conventional wisdom in the geological community is that > abiogenic oil is a fringe theory that has little evidence in its favor. > Yet this site writes as though the biological origin theory has been > totally discredited. > > ... > > My conclusion is that it does make sense to treat fringe views > differently from widely accepted ones. The strategy I am following is > to find institutions for getting at the truth that seem like they work. > Markets are one, and science is another. If and when those ever disagree, > as Robin's paper anticipated, then I don't know what to do! There are > a few cases like that on FX, and I'm not sure what to make of them. > ... From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Mar 8 13:46:16 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:46:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical Thinking Message-ID: This month's Skeptical Inquirer has a very fine article titled "Critical Thinking, What is it good for?, What is it?" by Howard Gabennesch. He makes many excellent points, although to me a bit politically biased. (Actually, the biases, I must admit, are *towards* my positions not against them. Now how often do you see someone complaining about that? :-) He finally comes around to The Claim, to wit, that we must be better at teaching critical thinking. But I very seriously doubt that it can be taught! By their natures, it seems (speaking in the identical twin sense), some people are more judicious than others, that is, capable of more carefully and objectively weighing evidence. And some people are much more reluctant to admit mistakes than are others; some are simply much better at "remaining confused" and not venturing an opinion until they've had a great deal of exposure to a new claim or idea than are others. (Claiming that critical thinking can be taught reminds me very much of the arrogant believe that *we* are so superior that *we* can rehabilitate criminals, but not they, us.) I strongly suspect that a more successful society--- given our current IQ range and limitations---has a role for all types, and is seriously weakened when one manner of thinking and behaving gains too much ascendancy over the others. The proper trade off, I say, between too little steadfastness and too much can *not* be easily formulated in all too fashionable formulas one hears nowadays. Railing against "irrationality" (as does the author) strikes me as a little empty and a lot silly. Want to know the truth, or would you rather change the world? Sometimes there may be a tradeoff! And yet surely it's going to be on a case by case basis: on one class of items a given person will adopt a strong position quickly realized by intuition, and will be most reluctant to even be able to *see* another point of view; the same person on other issues may be much more judicial. Yes---I know that if I'm right we're a little more powerless to DO SOMETHING, and it could be that I just don't have the urge to tilt at... deserving targets. By all means, most of us here believe, as do I, that for the roots of religion, for example, tend to lie in darkness and non-rational thought. But it's one thing to criticize beliefs and quite another (if you ask me) to criticize most believers. And if one more time I hear religionists or nonbelievers denouncing each other as "irrational" I may lose my supper. *Beliefs* may be irrational; but we need to reserve the criticism of being irrational for people who should be locked up for their own good. Lee From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 13:48:27 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:48:27 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: References: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: On 3/8/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > It even gets a little funny to anticipate how uncomfortable > these claims must make some people. One bottom line, "if you > are so sure, then put your money where your mouth is" > naturally provokes outrage. > Well, obviously. People are happy to put their money where their mouth is when they select lottery numbers, decide which horse to bet on, which boxer to bet on, which snail to bet on in snail races, etc, etc. People will bet on *anything*. And even though they don't don't know about all the bribes, fixes, insider agreements, etc., that still won't stop them. It doesn't incline me to give any more credence to their beliefs if they place bigger bets. It just increases their level of stupidity. Betting is a tax on stupidity. BillK From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Mar 8 13:37:13 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:37:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Concerning Virtual Reality Message-ID: Many confusions exist concerning virtual reality. The most widespread, probably, is that anyone who is uploaded and has subsequent experiences is ipso facto experiencing them in VR. This isn't so! Consider two examples: One, it may be that we're all uploaded now along with the exact physics we measure, yet it would be inappropriate to call this "virtual reality" because it *is* the reality that we experience (as oppose to perceive). Another example: the mistaken claim that our brains are right now creating a virtual reality because of the representations of our physical reality taking place within them. Just because the maps are not one-hundred percent faithful is no reason to call this VR! That *entirely* misses the important meaning of virtual reality. Definition: a virtual reality is an *appearance* of a physical reality in just the case that the calculations resulting in subsequent brain states of an experiencer do not take place on the same level as calculations of his or her perceptions. (This definition presumes an information theory of identity, and that one's experience after being uploaded can be in principle completely indistinguishable from mundane experience. I'm making some other assumptions here that are familiar to readers of this forum, but it would be dull to enumerate them.) In other words, the "physics" that compute your next brain state are *not* the same "physics" (which importantly, may even be lacking entirely) that compute your next perceptions. To remain sane, we better keep firm the boundary between you and the source of your perceptions. To dramatically illustrate one aspect: you awaken on an airless planetoid and discover that you've become a 200 foot tall robot capable of picking up small objects like Volkswagens in one hand, crushing them, and discarding them hundreds of feet away. Evidently powered by a nuclear reactor, you also discover an immunity to cosmic rays. As a puerile reading of the situation, yes, you "are" where your focus of perceptions are. Yet one day when perusing the contents of an immense warehouse, you discover a tiny pink form resting horizontally on a nondescript shelf a couple of hundred feet from the floor. It looks quite familiar on close inspection, and you suddenly realize just where you *really* are: wire leads from the body's brain travel to radio wave generators that control what up to now you had believed to be "your" body. So you see that you are *not* where your focus of perception is. You have to face the reality that you really are in the brain of that little pink form. (That was actually, back in the late eighties, was the first inkling I had that a number of people simply were not grasping the situation; they really believed that you *were* where it seemed to you you were. Remember? Anyway, the above was my retort.) Recently, it's gotten worse. I'm seeing more science fiction that shows that a lot of us in the 90's nurtured our own intuitive beliefs about what VR is, and I now see that we don't all have exactly the same notions about it. More later---but it is nice that the Wikipedia page on Virtual Reality begins by noting Damien Broderick's first coining of the famous term. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 14:02:46 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:02:46 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: References: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603080602j5af78fe6nb9ac0a755e10e575@mail.gmail.com> On 3/8/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Hal's written some very fine pieces that clearly explain one > very good way to come to tentative conclusions about issues > that interest you. "Prudence", like "virtue" aren't terms that > you hear much of these days, but prudence was very high on the > list of desirable virtues in classical times, and you simply > must rate pretty highly the Hanson/Finney formula in terms of > prudence, and "Peak Oil" is a great esxample. > > It even gets a little funny to anticipate how uncomfortable > these claims must make some people. One bottom line, "if you > are so sure, then put your money where your mouth is" > naturally provokes outrage. I tried that awhile ago, someone in my gaming group started talking about peak oil so I said "well then, buy oil futures and get rich in a few years!", which was met with some vague mumbling and a change of subject :) Of course, given that one does hold strong beliefs one way > or another that are at variance with the market, there can > be prudent reasons that he or she may find it too risky to > gamble anyway: we all have our utility curves, after all. > But surely, I would think, you'd be at least a little more > inclined to be *less* certain in your own mind about > conclusions you've reached if so many others with good > "credentials" disagree with you: your immediate mission, > whether you choose to accept it or not, is to explain > how it is that they all could be so wrong. Yep. Like others who demur a bit, I too subscribe to some beliefs > about this that may conflict a little with the market. I've > read---along with my book group, which is composed of folks > I respect a good deal---Thomas Gold's "The Deep Hot Biosphere". > > We were convinced! Concretely: at the end of the evening we > discussed the book, most of us thought that the odds were > eighty percent that he was right about the abiotic theory > (we also thought that he had about a fifty percent chance > of being right about life itself first arising deep within > the earth. > > I venture to say that anyone who's studied Gold's fine book > will significantly change his odds more towards the abiotic > theory, (even if he retains probability at less than > fifty percent). *nods* Excellent book. What I did was this: having read Gold's arguments against the prevailing view, before I made up my mind I wanted to hear the prevailing view's arguments against Gold. So what I did was, I went to a newsgroup - sci.geology or somesuch - and said, hey, I've read Gold's book, are there flaws in his arguments and if so where? The conclusion I came to as the result of the discussion was: Gold can't be right about the net flow of reducing elements being up rather than down, because the Earth's surface has become more rather than less oxidizing over geological time (and the rate of hydrogen loss to space is nowhere near enough to make up the difference). So the conventional view that the C and H in fossil fuels ultimately originates from buried biotic material must be correct. However, the conventional view ignores the fact that there's no depth limit! There's nothing to keep buried material at shallow depths, and much of it could be expected to be subducted into the mantle to emerge much later. So Gold is probably right about the total reserves being much larger and deeper than currently known. (This accounts for his discovery of oil under igneous rock, and for the fact that known reserves are nowhere near enough to match the oxygen content of the atmosphere.) Separately, I think he must also be right about the origin of life either within the crust or in what he calls the borderlands - hydrothermal vent regions - since these are where a continuous flow of chemical (rather than light or electrical) energy is present. The general technique that I think is a good one is: when you've read a convincing argument against the conventional view, ask a bunch of experts for their arguments against the maverick view and compare the two. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Mar 8 14:41:56 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 06:41:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060308085216.024a27c8@gmu.edu> Message-ID: Robin writes > At 08:10 AM 3/8/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I venture to say that anyone who's studied Gold's fine book > > will significantly change his odds more towards the abiotic > > theory, (even if he retains probability at less than > > fifty percent). > > This can only be true on average for rational people if they do not believe > your claim. Well, I suppose that we can dismiss them out of hand at once. > If I believed you [that's more like it] that my odds > would go up after reading the book, I would just raise > my odds in anticipation of that, even if I never read > the book. Then, having read my note, you must consider yourself therefore more enlightened. You are welcome. > If I am rational, I must expect that reading a book arguing > for a position on some subject will be as likely to move me > away from that position as to move me closer. Another big if :-) No. Surely in all seriousness you must admit that the credibility that you extend me might prove to be quite a bit lower than the credibility that you extend someone like Gold after having read a book you can't help but find extremely impressive. > (More precisely my expected value of my future > expectation must equal my current expectation.) While that is quite right, it might be interpreted by many to mean that you shouldn't bother consulting original sources at all. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Mar 8 14:52:10 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 06:52:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: Message-ID: BillK writes > On 3/8/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > It even gets a little funny to anticipate how uncomfortable > > these claims must make some people. One bottom line, "if you > > are so sure, then put your money where your mouth is" > > naturally provokes outrage. > > Well, obviously. People are happy to put their money where their > mouth is when they select lottery numbers, decide which horse to bet > on, which boxer to bet on, which snail to bet on in snail races, etc, > etc. People will bet on *anything*. Perhaps you miss my point: I (and others) were complaining that people *don't* bet on Peak Oil who rationally *should* be betting. Your examples are of a lot of loons, or people just having fun. As Hal implied, those betting on oil futures are most often professionals. > It doesn't incline me to give any more credence to their beliefs if > they place bigger bets. It just increases their level of stupidity. > Betting is a tax on stupidity. I totally agree that lotteries tend to be just a tax on stupidity, (although I'm open to the idea that perhaps some poor people have weird preferences regarding their fantasy-driven entertainment.) This is not the same thing: folks buying stocks are much, much more serious. Russell writes > someone in my gaming group started talking about peak oil > so I said "well then, buy oil futures and get rich in a > few years!", which was met with some vague mumbling and > a change of subject :) Heh, heh. Exactly. > What I did was this: having read Gold's arguments against > the prevailing view, before I made up my mind I wanted to > hear the prevailing view's arguments against Gold. So what > I did was, I went to a newsgroup - sci.geology or somesuch > - and said, hey, I've read Gold's book, are there flaws > in his arguments and if so where? > The general technique that I think is a good one is: when > you've read a convincing argument against the conventional > view, ask a bunch of experts for their arguments against > the maverick view and compare the two. Thanks! Now all I have to do is remember your advice. :-( Lee From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Mar 8 13:55:57 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:55:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: References: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060308085216.024a27c8@gmu.edu> At 08:10 AM 3/8/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: >I venture to say that anyone who's studied Gold's fine book >will significantly change his odds more towards the abiotic >theory, (even if he retains probability at less than >fifty percent). This can only be true on average for rational people if they do not believe your claim. If I believed you that my odds would go up after reading the book, I would just raise my odds in anticipation of that, even if I never read the book. If I am rational, I must expect that reading a book arguing for a position on some subject will be as likely to move me away from that position as to move me closer. (More precisely my expected value of my future expectation must equal my current expectation.) 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 Mar 8 15:04:16 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:04:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Crazy Wealthy Space Enthusiasts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 3/8/06, Amara Graps wrote: > > > I am a bit isolated here, and am not in a good > position to know, except that I know they are rare (!). Paul Allen is > one. Can anyone here suggest others? Jeff Bezos and Mark Shuttleworth are two. Then there is the hotel guy in Vegas (and now Houston I think). There are at least 3, maybe 4 companies working on cheap access to space. Somebody (wikipedia?) must have a page listing all of them. Paul Allen doesn't really qualify as he is to the best of my knowledge only supporting the SETI project (:-(...) and doesn't have an active effort related to space "access" to the best of my knowledge. One place to start would be the Forbes lists of the richest people in the U.S. and the World (they are two distinct lists). They publish the reshuffled lists every year I think. Obviously a company could get some great press by launching a satellite that "NASA left behind..." Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 8 15:05:18 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 07:05:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. In-Reply-To: <6D1FDF05-79C7-41C1-8E71-2F5C822B6D21@mac.com> References: <20060308015840.75555.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22360fa10603072008j79e51d57i4389de68faa8e624@mail.gmail.com> <6D1FDF05-79C7-41C1-8E71-2F5C822B6D21@mac.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10603080705s480bc0a5o20ec9ee7a85106ea@mail.gmail.com> Samantha - My comment and question to Anne-Marie was not kind, but neither was it intended to be unkind. I've noticed and known some people who appear to share two two attributes: (1) They tend to spew words in a kind of disjointed, stream of consciousness way, making connections and asserting significance while lacking much semblance to critical thinking. (2) They have used LSD for significant periods of their life. It's only my personal observation, and I don't know whether it is more likely that people who already tend to think in this mode are attracted to LSD, or whether taking LSD potentiates such a tendency over long terms (it certainly does while under its immediate influence.) In my opinion and experience, altered states of consciousness, whether induced by meditation, medication, intoxication, or psychotropic substances, can be sometimes useful for helping people break out of a rut in their current mode of thinking, and can be useful for experiencing how illusory ones sense of self, perceptions and values can be. Such experiences can also be a driver of creativity after, but not usually during, the altered state. Likewise, since such altered states are highly subjective and thus of little direct value to others it would be discourteous to post to most public forums in such a mode. In the case of this poster on our list I have seen multiple examples of (what seem to me) incoherent thought with the kind of ecstatic mystical and erratic emotional attributes characteristic of such drug influence. I don't know whether my observation and hunch is correct, but I'm bringing it up because I think it affects the health of our home on this list and should therefore be identified, rather than ignored, denied, protected or enabled in the manner of dysfunctional families. On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: >If I quoted Albert Einstein with: (She likes him, thinks his smart:) >"The body's surface layer is penetrated by energy >quanta whose energy is converted at least partially >into kinetic energy of the electrons. The simplest >conception is that a light quamtum transfers ! it's >entire energy to a single electron..)" Then I will say: >If we are all energy that equals mass, to be attracted >to someone, you would need gravity. >Then, If energy equals mass times the speed of light, then >at certain times people meet for a specific reason. (Or if they >meet and exchange energy with someone that may be causing radiation, >they too may become contaminated.) >And if e=mc2, then couldn't it mean that their are >other energies that effect humans that may cause >electromagnetic fields based on the time. >(if you haven't already became radiation.) >Which in turn would lead to the need to understand >awareness in humans? (Knowing the right time) >Which Buddha describes: To becoming a full conscious human being.! >(I won't tell her it was Buddha) >And just out of curiosity, have scientists measured awareness? >Any comments or suggestions are always welcome, >it makes me smarter >Thanks Anna On 3/7/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Huh? Many of us over a certain age did our fair share (at least) of psychedelics. So what? This seems like a bit of a personal dig. Was that your intent? > > > - samantha > > > On Mar 7, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > Anne - > > Your words in this post and others are very similar to those of people I've known who have taken a lot of LSD. > > Might this be the case here? > > - Jef > > > > On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > > > > > Hi! I'm Anne-Marie Taylor > > a.k.a. Anne-Marie Taylor > > I have nothing to hide > > That's the new eulogy > > You don't need to be anything than what you are. > > It's a fact, but not yet proven... sry > > > > > From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 15:20:59 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:20:59 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 3/8/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I totally agree that lotteries tend to be just a tax on stupidity, > (although I'm open to the idea that perhaps some poor people have > weird preferences regarding their fantasy-driven entertainment.) > > This is not the same thing: folks buying stocks are much, much > more serious. > No, *really*, they're not. It is just a better educated, slightly higher IQ gamble. Pick your stocks by throwing darts at the stock list. You will do better than half the professionals around. And of the professionals that beat the average this year, most won't next year. That is why the advice is to never buy into last year's stock winners. They have the record and the good forecasts, but top performance rarely carries forward into the following year. Top performance is mostly luck, with too many unpredictable random factors. Careful detailed analysis is good for the steady and sure investor, but will not lead to top performance. You might as well just buy into one of the 'tracker' mutual funds and get the benefit of long term market growth. Buffet is about the best investor around, but he spent years being rubbished because he would not buy into the tech bubble. BillK From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 16:01:48 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 17:01:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future In-Reply-To: <20060307233900.GA27294@ofb.net> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20060307225455.GA27634@ofb.net> <20060307233900.GA27294@ofb.net> Message-ID: <470a3c520603080801p347323ceu9c2134b8d16da869@mail.gmail.com> I think Perry made a very good point in the quoted message to the polymath list. Pat of the value of the extropy list is that everyone can join and try it. Many people lurk for some time and then start posting. If newcomers see that their post are received with interest and trigger interesting discussions, they will stay on the list. If they see that their posts are always ignored or their arguments always dismissed without discussion, at some point they will give up and find other things to do. This is a spontaneous selection mechanism. Of course you can build an invitation only list and invite known people who, in your experience, have interesting things to say. But how can you know if *unknown* people have interesting things to say? The only way is trying them. Some will stay (spontaneously) and some will go (spontaneously). This is one of the reason why I would prefer the ExI list to stay open. G. On 3/8/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:54:58PM -0800, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > > desired purity, but I don't know. Maybe it was too small, or I didn't do > > enough to spark discussion. Anyway, figured I should add the data point about > > extropian-derived salons. > > Or maybe Perry Metzger's prediction of eventually staleness and outliving > utility simply came true: > http://www.mindstalk.net/polymath/polyarc/0003.html > > Last paragraph seems apropos to the discussion. Though I'm less certain that > a large list has to have a lifecycle; organizations don't have to act like > organisms. > > I don't think I ever did bring in "fresh blood". > > > As of my writing this e-mail, the archives are back up: > > http://ofb.net/~damien/polymath/ > > Hey, that's not the URL I wanted. This is: > > http://www.mindstalk.net/polymath/ > > -xx- Damien X-) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 8 15:35:37 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 07:35:37 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10603080705s480bc0a5o20ec9ee7a85106ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200603081613.k28GD6gn006159@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Jef I didn't interpret it as an insult, but rather an observation. Don't know what to do about Anne-Marie, if anything. She is at least a *pleasant* clueless one, or rather just a lost sheep. I was hoping Samantha or you would go offline with her and offer guidance. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: jefallbright at gmail.com [mailto:jefallbright at gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Jef Allbright > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 7:05 AM > To: ExI chat list > Cc: spike > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. > > Samantha - > > My comment and question to Anne-Marie was not kind, but neither was it > intended to be unkind. > > I've noticed and known some people who appear to share two two > attributes: (1) They tend to spew words in a kind of disjointed, > stream of consciousness way, making connections and asserting > significance while lacking much semblance to critical thinking. (2) > They have used LSD for significant periods of their life. > > It's only my personal observation, and I don't know whether it is more > likely that people who already tend to think in this mode are > attracted to LSD, or whether taking LSD potentiates such a tendency > over long terms (it certainly does while under its immediate > influence.) > > In my opinion and experience, altered states of consciousness, whether > induced by meditation, medication, intoxication, or psychotropic > substances, can be sometimes useful for helping people break out of a > rut in their current mode of thinking, and can be useful for > experiencing how illusory ones sense of self, perceptions and values > can be. > > Such experiences can also be a driver of creativity after, but not > usually during, the altered state. Likewise, since such altered states > are highly subjective and thus of little direct value to others it > would be discourteous to post to most public forums in such a mode. > > In the case of this poster on our list I have seen multiple examples > of (what seem to me) incoherent thought with the kind of ecstatic > mystical and erratic emotional attributes characteristic of such drug > influence. I don't know whether my observation and hunch is correct, > but I'm bringing it up because I think it affects the health of our > home on this list and should therefore be identified, rather than > ignored, denied, protected or enabled in the manner of dysfunctional > families. > > > On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > >If I quoted Albert Einstein with: (She likes him, thinks his smart:) > >"The body's surface layer is penetrated by energy > >quanta whose energy is converted at least partially > >into kinetic energy of the electrons. The simplest > >conception is that a light quamtum transfers ! it's > >entire energy to a single electron..)" > > Then I will say: > >If we are all energy that equals mass, to be attracted > >to someone, you would need gravity. > > >Then, If energy equals mass times the speed of light, then > >at certain times people meet for a specific reason. (Or if they > >meet and exchange energy with someone that may be causing radiation, > >they too may become contaminated.) > > >And if e=mc2, then couldn't it mean that their are > >other energies that effect humans that may cause > >electromagnetic fields based on the time. > >(if you haven't already became radiation.) > > >Which in turn would lead to the need to understand > >awareness in humans? (Knowing the right time) > > >Which Buddha describes: To becoming a full conscious human being.! > >(I won't tell her it was Buddha) > > >And just out of curiosity, have scientists measured awareness? > > >Any comments or suggestions are always welcome, > >it makes me smarter >Thanks Anna > > > > > > On 3/7/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > Huh? Many of us over a certain age did our fair share (at least) of > psychedelics. So what? This seems like a bit of a personal dig. Was > that your intent? > > > > > > - samantha > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > > Anne - > > > > Your words in this post and others are very similar to those of people > I've known who have taken a lot of LSD. > > > > Might this be the case here? > > > > - Jef > > > > > > > > On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi! I'm Anne-Marie Taylor > > > a.k.a. Anne-Marie Taylor > > > I have nothing to hide > > > That's the new eulogy > > > You don't need to be anything than what you are. > > > It's a fact, but not yet proven... sry > > > > > > > > From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Mar 8 16:50:39 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:50:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <20060307203151.D415D57FAF@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060308101958.02bba840@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:31 PM 3/7/2006 -0800, Hal wrote: snip >http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/051205crbo_books1 > >One sample quote: > > > People who are not experts in the psychology of expertise are likely > > (I predict) to find Tetlock's results a surprise and a matter > > for concern. For psychologists, though, nothing could be less > > surprising. "Expert Political Judgment" is just one of more than a > > hundred studies that have pitted experts against statistical or actuarial > > formulas, and in almost all of those studies the people either do no > > better than the formulas or do worse... I might have an explanation that would fit this observation. I make the case that humans have (a) psychological mechanism(s), selected by wars with neighbors and ultimately caused by resource shortages--usually as a result of unchecked population growth. It seems these mechanisms were selected by inclusive fitness in situation where genes were conspiring against the individual to do something stupid that was likely to get him killed in favor of his relatives. (His, rarely hers.) Drew Westen demonstrated in his fMIR scans of "partisans" that when people are in "partisan mode" the part of their brains that are used for rational thinking is inhibited and the action is in the emotional reward circuits parts of the brain. Given that politics is "war by other means" this isn't all that surprising (in retrospect anyway). I think Dr. Westen has located the psychological mechanism I proposed in the war paper. Like the capture-bonding mechanism which seems to account for an astonishing range of human weirdness from hazing to S&M, this "partisan mode" mechanism may account for a lot of other strange human traits, all the way from wars to divergent opinions on peak oil. Just like we know we have to use double blind with humans because they are good at fooling themselves, there are probably whole classes of knowledge, particularly predictions, where human judgment just can't be trusted. >I seem to recall reading something about the theory of market consensus >that is quite dramatic. I'm probably remembering it wrong at least in >part, but I'll present it for your consideration. > >Suppose you have a belief about some future event, and then you are >informed of the market consensus and it is very different from your >belief. snip--good stuff >Most people with these beliefs don't actually try to participate >in the markets. I see this as irrational, to not take advantage of >free money. Now, granted, there are some practical difficulties with >opening commodities accounts, and not everyone has $5,000 to invest. >But I don't think that is the real reason people aren't taking advantage >of these offers. I suspect that people are fundamentally being irrational. Bingo. For reasons rooted in the stone age. >In fact, I believe that at root, it is not rational to hold a different >position from the market consensus. Certainly that is the case unless you have knowledge the market does not have. >This is what I was referring >to above, my dim understanding of an economic theorem. To disbelieve >in the consensus is to believe in a world where money grows on trees, >and yet (for most people) not to take it. There's something seriously >inconsistent with this way of thinking. > >As I put it to the guy who believed in Simmons' $200/barrel, his belief >implies a risk-free expectation of 20-fold profits. That sounds too good >to be true. And as they say, when something sounds too good to be true, >it usually is. > >So I would not be too quick to disparage the market consensus. There is >sound logic behind it, and few if any institutions apply the same >discipline and motivation to people making forecasts. True, though the market can be "surprised." I can see a dozen ways that could happen. It is a shame the limits to growth "world dynamics" models were fudged. That discredited the entire field when their predictions failed to come in as "predicted." (Graphs showed the world of 1972 not far from the peak.) When Dr. Peter Vajk was trying to fold in energy from solar power satellites to the model he found an unexplained factor of 4 in the (FORTRAN) code that when changed to 1 pushed the serious declines from the late 70s to the early decades of the 21st century. But I suspect there would have been little attention paid to predictions that far into the future. (Discount factor) At least part of the problem is non-linear behavior of the model. A proper model of human behavior will have to include some very non-linear characteristics to account for cartoons triggering riots where hundreds of people have died. Keith Henson From amara at amara.com Wed Mar 8 17:01:38 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:01:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Crazy Wealthy Space Enthusiasts? Message-ID: >Jeff Bezos and Mark Shuttleworth are two. Then there is the hotel >guy in Vegas (and now Houston I think). There are at least 3, maybe >4 companies working on cheap access to space. [...] >One place to start would be the Forbes lists of the richest people >in the U.S. and the World (they are two distinct lists). They >publish the reshuffled lists every year I think. >Obviously a company could get some great press by launching a >satellite that "NASA left behind..." Thanks Robert for your information. This news item from a friend on the wta list is helpful too: Geeks in space http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5399507.html Potentially useful info above in that Jim Benson, (founding chairman and chief executive of SpaceDev) really wants to send a small space miner that can land onto the surface of (water/ice-rich) asteroids and drill a meter into the surface to extract the ice reserves. The planetary scientists would be horrified to think of their beloved Ceres with its potential subsurface ocean/life to be treated roughly, but perhaps an agreement could be made to take good care of 'her'. Moreover, Benson successfully knows how to encourage investors. So if he really wants to go to the asteroid belt to find water, there exists an almost-built spacecraft exactly designed to go there, and, moreover, to a water-rich asteroid, all for the sum of 40 million dollars. What more could one want ? :-) 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/ ******************************************************************** "For a girl, she's remarkably perceptive." --Calvin From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Mar 8 17:23:49 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:23:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060308085216.024a27c8@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060308122121.022ce340@gmu.edu> At 09:41 AM 3/8/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > (More precisely my expected value of my future > > expectation must equal my current expectation.) > >While that is quite right, it might be interpreted by >many to mean that you shouldn't bother consulting >original sources at all. Of course; I read the sources to produce variance in my expectations, so that I can reduce my mean squared error. 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 Wed Mar 8 16:38:10 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:38:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10603072008j79e51d57i4389de68faa8e624@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060308163810.16366.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jef Allbright wrote: >Anne - >Your words in this post and others are very similar to those of people >I've known who have taken a lot of LSD. >Might this be the case here? >- Jef Actually, when I first posted back in October, I had mentioned that I had taken LSD (mind you, I said a Drug) for the first time back in June 2005. That was the first and only time I ever have. When I first started to post I was very insecure and somewhat confused at the whole situation, now i'm not. As for my comment, Samantha was right, it was a stab at someone, which I apologize for, I was a little quick on the typing and was upset at something. As for the posting regarding my mother, I was truly interested to know if I could explain to her my fascination with Science without confusing her. (She's still quite smart, she went back to University when she was 64). I only wanted to know if my analogy was way off, that's all. I know I don't have a conventional way about me, I never have, but claiming that drugs is my problem is rather harsh. Please keep in mind that my first language is english but I write in French. I'm not going to deny that LSD probably changed me forever but I don't think it was a bad thing. I like the reality i'm in right now, i'm smarter, more educated and fascinated by it. I'm not going to apologize for being different, that's just who I am. I love this list and I don't think i'm causing any problems by posting my ideas or questions. Feel free to tell me otherwise and I'll keep quiet. Anna On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: Hi! I'm Anne-Marie Taylor a.k.a. Anne-Marie Taylor I have nothing to hide That's the new eulogy You don't need to be anything than what you are. It's a fact, but not yet proven... sry --------------------------------- Have a question? Yahoo! Canada Answers. Go to Yahoo! Canada Answers _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Have a question? Yahoo! Canada Answers. Go to Yahoo! Canada Answers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Wed Mar 8 18:23:54 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:23:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Arnhart: Transhumanism and the Future of Human Nature Message-ID: http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/03/transhumanism-and-futu re-of-human.html Wednesday, March 08, 2006 Transhumanism and the Future of Human Nature Larry Arnhart "Transhumanism" has become a popular term for the idea that technological enhancements of humans, animals, and machines will create a superhuman species of beings. Transhumanists believe that advances in genetic engineering, robotics, computer science, pscyhopharmacology, and nanotechnology will improve the physical and mental capacities of human beings to produce a new stage of evolutionary history. A new species of beings far superior to Homo sapiens might evolve from such technologies. Some of the best statements of transhumanism come from Nick Bostrum, James Hughes, and others in the World Transhumanist Association. As I indicated in my chapter on biotechnology in Darwinian Conservatism, I am skeptical about transhumanism for two reasons. (I am now working on a new book that will elaborate my case against transhumanism.) My first reason is that transhumanism suffers from a Nietzschean utopianism that lacks common sense, because it ignores the ways in which the technologies for altering human traits are limited in both their technical means and their moral ends. My second reason is that I favor a stance of libertarian conservatism in response to technological changes that would allow improvement in human life but without the transcendence of human nature expected by the transhumanists. The technology for enhancing human powers will be limited in its technical means, because complex behavioral traits arise from the intricate interplay of many genes interacting with developmental contingencies and unique life histories to form brains that constantly change as they respond flexibly to changing circumstances. Consequently, precise technological manipulation of human nature to enhance desirable traits while avoiding undesirable side effects will be very difficult if not impossible. Consider, for example, the matter of human intelligence. One of the central assertions of the transhumanists is that we will soon create "superintelligent" beings that will be as intellectually superior to humans as humans are today to chimpanzees. Notice the extraordinary claims implicit in such an assertion--that we know what "intelligence" is in all of its complexity, that we can reduce intelligence to material causes that can be technically manipulated in precise ways, and that we can use this technical power to increase intelligence beyond anything ever achieved by living beings. If we ask transhumanists to justify these claims, we get vague assertions about what might happen in the future. For instance, James Hughes, in his book Citizen Cyborg, says this about the future of computer intelligence: "Since computers powerful enough to model human brains should be common in thirty years, those computer models may then be able to run software simulations of our brains and bodies. Presumably these backups of our minds, if switched on, would be self-aware and have an independent existence. This is the scenario known as 'uploading.'" No one knows how to fully model human brains or how to replicate such models in computers. No one knows how brains and bodies could be simulated in computer software. No one knows how computer software could become self-aware. And yet Hughes can imagine a "scenario" in which all of this ignorance is dispelled based on what he thinks "should" or "may" or "presumably" will happen in thirty years! Now, of course, there are ways that we can use biomedical technology to protect against mental disabilities. For example, we could completely eliminate the mental retardation from Down syndrome through genetic screening of embryos or other means so that parents could be sure that they would not have children born with an extra 21st chromosome. But although this would be an improvement in human life, it would not transcend human nature by moving us towards "posthuman" beings with superhuman intelligence. When transhumanists like Hughes predict the coming of "posthuman" humans as the fulfillment of what they think "should" happen, they are expressing not scientific or philosophic reasoning from observable experience but a religious longing for transcendence. Hughes is a Buddhist, and he foresees that the transhuman future will fulfill his Buddhist vision of a "society of enlightened beings as an infinite net, laced with pearls and gems, each enlightened mind a multicolored twinkle that is reflected in every other jewel." Like Friedrich Nietzsche, the transhumanists profess an atheistic materialism, and yet they still yearn for religious transcendence, which drives them to project fantasies of "overmen" and "posthumans" who have escaped the limitations of human nature to enter a heavenly realm of pure thought and immortal bliss. The transhumanists also ignore how the technology of human enhancement will likely be limited in its moral ends. Human beings act to satisfy their natural desires. The use of technology to enhance human life will be driven by these natural desires. Transhumanists implicitly assume the enduring power of these desires. But if that is the case, then it is hard to see how human nature is going to be abolished if the natural desires endure. For example, Hughes speaks about "the human needs and desires these technologies will be asked to serve," which include the desires for long, healthy lives, for intelligence and happiness, and the desires for parents to care for the physical and mental flourishing of their children. (All of these desires are included in my list of "twenty natural desires" in Darwinian Conservatism.) But if human beings are always going to be moved by the same natural desires, how does this take us into "posthuman" existence? If we were really going to enter the "posthuman" realm, we would have to create beings who lacked the natural desires of human beings and who felt no concern for human life as moved by such desires. Such creatures might be superintelligent. But they would also be superpsychopathic predators who would feel no guilt or shame in enslaving or exterminating human beings. The transhumanists respond to this prospect by explaining that we will have to be careful to instill in these posthuman beings what Nick Bostrum calls "human-friendly values." Hughes explains that we will have to instill by technological devices "sociability and empathy for all sentient beings." For example, we might require the installation of "morality chips." Hughes is not troubled by the naive expectation that we can develop "morality chips" to control the posthumans without any harmful side-effects. Even if we could solve the technical problems in reducing morality to a mere matter of mechanical engineering, we might still wonder why Hughes and the other transhumanists want to preserve human morality if their goal is an absolutely posthuman life. If human morality as rooted in the natural human desires is at the core of human nature, then posthumanity would require the abolition of that morality. If the posthumans are going to be moved by the same natural desires and moral emotions that have always moved human beings, then it would seem that human nature has survived. As an alternative to the transhumanist stance, I would defend a libertarian conservatism rooted in human nature. I would argue for leaving people free to exercise individual choice in developing and using new technologies to meet human needs and desires. This would allow people to learn by trial and error what is desirable and what is not in the use of such technologies. Some legal regulation of choice might be required to promote the minimal safety and efficacy of the new technologies and to protect people against force and fraud. But within such a modest regulatory regime, people would have freedom of choice. The moral standard here would be that a technology is good if it promotes the flourishing of our human nature by satisfying our natural desires. We can best conform to that standard by allowing people free choice in satisfying their desires. Although there will be great diversity in the choices people make, there will be some enduring patterns in their choices that reflect the universality of natural human desires. For example, we can assume that the natural desire for parental care will generally motivate parents to use technology in ways that promote the happiness of their children. My stance is close to the position taken by Ron Baily in his book Liberation Biology. But I depart from Bailey when he moves towards a transhumanist libertarianism that assumes that somehow human nature will be superseded by a new, superior form of life. I welcome the prospect of technological changes in the human condition that will improve the physical and mental functions of life. But rather than expecting the emergence of a transhuman form of life, I foresee that human nature will not only endure but prevail. posted by Larry Arnhart @ Wednesday, March 08, 2006 0 comments From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 8 19:11:04 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:11:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news Message-ID: <20060308191104.A650357FAF@finney.org> Lee Corbin writes: > Like others who demur a bit, I too subscribe to some beliefs > about this that may conflict a little with the market. I've > read---along with my book group, which is composed of folks > I respect a good deal---Thomas Gold's "The Deep Hot Biosphere". > > We were convinced! Concretely: at the end of the evening we > discussed the book, most of us thought that the odds were > eighty percent that he was right about the abiotic theory > (we also thought that he had about a fifty percent chance > of being right about life itself first arising deep within > the earth. First, I should point out that I don't think there is much relevant "market" information on this question. Some people say that if it were true then oil should be cheaper, but that's not necessarily correct because this hypothetical deep oil is probably uneconomical today. You could also look at whether profit-driven oil companies are using the theory, and the answer seems to be "no" in the West, but possibly there is some usage in Russia, although accounts conflict. The more relevant information is the refusal of the scientific establishment to credit the theory. Why do you suppose that if Gold's book is so convincing, expert geologists did not have their minds changed? Why are "his" theories (Russians see him as a plagiarist according to that site I mentioned yesterday, gasresources.net) still considered fringe? Even without delving into the issues, isn't that evidence that there are good counter-arguments, and that not everything Gold advances to support his cause is as strong as he makes it sound? The meta question is, how to resolve the issue? Is it necessary to become an expert geologist, to learn the ins and outs of petroleum chemistry and thermodynamics and plate tectonics and models of the formation of the earth and all the other information that people spend years learning in grad school? And even if you did that, what grounds would you have for assuming that you would get the answer more right than the thousands of others who have gone through the same process? Why isn't it reasonable to say that statistically, the great majority of people who have studied the issues closely think that Gold is wrong, and therefore the chances are that if I learned as much as they know and studied the issues myself, I would come to the same conclusion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum has a throw-away line: "A larger fraction of geologists believe in Creation Science than in abiogenic oil." I don't know if it is true or not, but it is a reminder that these same issues arise with regard to Creationism. There are plenty of books out there that advance Creationist theories. I think it is perfectly plausible that reading those books would increase the credibility of the theory for the average person; perhaps even for me, if it weren't for the fact that I am trying not to judge these issues in terms of how persuasive I personally find the arguments. Those books probably reveal problems in the conventional scientific dogma that most of us are unaware of. The same is true of ESP, cold fusion and many other fringe theories. I suspect that reading a one-sided presentation from advocates of these beliefs might well raise significant doubts about our initial position of skepticism. It's like Robin said, it's irrational to both have an open mind that can be pursuaded by this kind of information, and at the same time to believe that such persuasive information exists. My solution is not to be open-minded about it, for the reasons that I have elaborated in my recent messages. I think most people's solution is to assume that the information is just not credible. But that's a dangerous assumption! Ask Lee about abiotic oil. Ask Damien Broderick about ESP. Ask Samantha about Peak Oil. I don't know any Cold Fusion advocates but I did find an old posting in the archives by an ExI VP lamenting the refusal of the scientific establishment to research an "undeniably interesting and mysterious" phenomenon. The point is that assuming that there is no good case for crackpot or fringe theories is dangerous because the truth is that there is in fact good evidence for many of them. How are you going to deal with that? Hal From sentience at pobox.com Wed Mar 8 19:07:06 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:07:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil meta-news In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060308085216.024a27c8@gmu.edu> References: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060308085216.024a27c8@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <440F2B5A.9000301@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 08:10 AM 3/8/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > >>I venture to say that anyone who's studied Gold's fine book >>will significantly change his odds more towards the abiotic >>theory, (even if he retains probability at less than >>fifty percent). > > This can only be true on average for rational people if they do not believe > your claim. If I believed you that my odds would go up after reading the > book, I would just raise my odds in anticipation of that, even if I never read > the book. If I am rational, I must expect that reading a book arguing for > a position on some subject will be as likely to move me away from that > position as to move me closer. (More precisely my expected value of > my future expectation must equal my current expectation.) Robin, this is true, but I fear the way you phrased it may confuse people. They may visualize picking up Gold's book, on Lee's recommendation, and being forced to believe that Gold's book, which contains many arguments *for* abiotic oil, must necessarily have a significant probability of leaving them *less* convinced of abiotic oil than they were before they ever heard of Gold's book. What actually happens is this: 1) I assign some small probabiility to abiotic oil, say, 20%. 2) I hear Lee recommending Gold's book. 3) I now assign some probability, say 30%, to Lee's assertion that if I read Gold's book, I would assign a greater probability to abiotic oil, such as 80%. 3a) This involves taking the probability of a probability, which involves thorny issues of reflectivity which I'm still trying to work through, such as empathizing with your future self and granting credence to a purely abstract computation. 3b) If you permit the notion of a probability of a probability, it is clear that the variance in my expected future probability assignment has increased. 4) The actual distribution over my future probability assignment now has two spikes; a spike at 20% and a spike at 80%. My *expectation* will lie somewhere between these two points. 5) I read Gold's book and find it has no convincing favorable arguments. My opinion is now unchanged relative to what it was at the start of the analysis, 20%. This was always my dominant opinion, and has not changed; however my *net expectation* briefly rose and then settled back down. Therefore: 6) There is still net information value to reading Gold's book, even after taking into account Lee's recommendation of it. 7) When it is said that I must assign a balanced expectation to Gold's book increasing or decreasing my probability estimate of abiotic oil, this balance is estimated relative to my state of uncertainty as to whether Gold might have any good arguments, *not* relative to my pre-analysis state of having never heard of Gold. 7a) Gold's book, taken as an isolated artifact, does not necessarily have a balanced expected effect on a rational reader's opinions for or against prebiotic oil. 7b) For example, suppose that I hand Gold's book to someone after stripping off the cover, so the reader has no idea what the book is about. It is quite reasonable for me to estimate an unbalanced expectation that Gold's book will shift their opinions in favor of prebiotic oil, rather than the converse. 7c) This does not reflect unfavorably on the rationality of the reader. Aumann's Agreement Theorem assumes common knowledge. I know what the book is about, but the person who is about to read it does not. Good rationalists are likely to keep separate buckets for evidence that is strictly from observed facts, and evidence that is from others' observed opinions. I think this is a wise policy in practice, though in theory other people are just another kind of observable fact. Gold's book does not necessarily have a balanced expected impact on your fact-bucket - only on your combined bucket that includes your weighting over all observed facts *plus* all observed opinions. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 8 19:23:13 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:23:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. In-Reply-To: <20060308163810.16366.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <22360fa10603072008j79e51d57i4389de68faa8e624@mail.gmail.com> <20060308163810.16366.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10603081123rf357b72lf591e6dac89aaedd@mail.gmail.com> On 3/8/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > Jef Allbright wrote: > > >Anne - > > >Your words in this post and others are very similar to those of people > >I've known who have taken a lot of LSD. > > >Might this be the case here? > > >- Jef > > Actually, when I first posted back in October, I had mentioned that I had > taken LSD (mind you, I said a Drug) for the first time back in June 2005. > That was the first and only time I ever have. Thanks for our response. I took LSD three times during a couple of months around 1979, because I wanted the experience. I spent months reading all the available literature before deciding to do so. It was a very valuable experience, but not something I would do recreationally, because I wouldn't want to take further risks with scrambling the connections in my brain. > When I first started to post I was very insecure and somewhat confused at > the whole situation, now i'm not. You seem like a friendly addition to the list, and willing to learn. I like that. > As for my comment, Samantha was right, it was a stab at someone, which I > apologize for, I was a little quick on the typing and was upset at > something. That helps me understand your AKA post, but I think Samantha was not referring to you. > > As for the posting regarding my mother, I was! truly interested to know if I > could explain to her my fascination with Science without confusing her. > (She's still quite smart, she went back to University when she was 64). I > only wanted to know if my analogy was way off, that's all. I do think your analogy was truly way off. Maybe we can discuss it productively. > I know I don't have a conventional way about me, I never have, but claiming > that drugs is my problem is rather harsh. Please keep in mind that my first > language is english but I write in French. I like unconventional, and this list is certainly unconventional. I wonder, is there something about the French language that breeds pseudo-scientific and postmodernist thought? I'm not sure it applies to French Canadian, though. > I'm not going to deny that LSD probably changed me forever but > I don't think it was a bad thing. I like the reality i'm in right now, i'm > smarter, more educated and fascinated by it. I'm not going to > apologize for being different, that's just who I am. I love this list > and I don't think i'm causing any problems by posting my ideas or > questions. Feel free to tell me otherwise and I'll keep quiet. > Anna, I'll try to reply to your post about Einstein, gravity and radiation. Perhaps some of this discussion we could have offlist if it becomes too lengthy. I would not ask anyone to keep quiet, as long as they seem to be truly seeking growth. > > On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > > > > > Hi! I'm Anne-Marie Taylor > > a.k.a. Anne-Marie Taylor > > I have nothing to hide > > That's the new eulogy > > You don't need to be anything than what you are. > > It's a fact, but not yet proven... sry > > From sentience at pobox.com Wed Mar 8 19:28:38 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:28:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil meta-news In-Reply-To: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> References: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <440F3066.7090105@pobox.com> Hal Finney wrote: > > That's a good question. Should the conventional wisdom, the majority > belief, be held to the same standards as a minority or fringe viewpoint? > > Look at the scientific establishment. Most observers find a large > degree of conservatism and hostility to new ideas, which are forced > to meet a much higher standard of evidence than results that conform > to the accepted paradigm. Robin's original Idea Futures paper was > "Could Gambling Save Science?", , > and proposed to overcome this kind of problem by using betting markets. > > Maybe science could be improved by considering all evidence equally and > not favoring consensus views. But maybe not! Science has been very > successful in terms of its goals of advancing knowledge. It's not > obvious a priori that its degree of conservatism is truly excessive. > Maybe science is right to be skeptical of evidence that contravenes the > conventional wisdom, even when the evidence looks good on its own. Hal Finney, you're literally the only person on Earth I know who really lives up to Robin Hanson's ideal of modesty. This includes Robin Hanson, who espouses many theories that depart from the current scientific consensus - not that this is a criticism of Hanson; they're good, interesting theories. Doesn't it make you nervous to be the only modest person on Earth? Maybe modesty is wrong. No one else believes in it. You're not the least bit meta-modest in deciding how modest you ought to be; you don't seem to pay attention to what most scientists say about modesty, choosing instead to listen to Robin Hanson's fringe theories of modesty. Oh, sure, Hanson's theories are much better developed mathematically than a few vague things Einstein and Feynman once said, but it's still Not The Consensus. > The point is that in many of these disputed and fringe theories, it is > easy to come up with a very convincing-looking case for why they are true. > But that doesn't mean they really are true. If you investigated every > theory for which there exists a credible-looking story, it would take > up all your time. > > So we have a maxim: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > Even then, it's sometimes hard to know what is an extraordinary claim. > Robin says that medicine provides almost no quantitative benefit, > and that sounds extraordinary, compared to what most people believe. > Yet apparently it is the conventional wisdom in the relevant academic > communities. > > My conclusion is that it does make sense to treat fringe views > differently from widely accepted ones. The strategy I am following is > to find institutions for getting at the truth that seem like they work. > Markets are one, and science is another. If and when those ever disagree, > as Robin's paper anticipated, then I don't know what to do! There are > a few cases like that on FX, and I'm not sure what to make of them. But is your modesty going to work *in practice*? I had a very nice theory about a technique of human rationality - exemplified in the "blue tentacle" section of _Technical Explanation_ - which was that I should evaluate claims by asking how "unusual" they were, and believe the least unusual one. I tried to use the technique twice to explain a surprising observation with multiple possible explanations, and on both occasions the technique failed me. So I dropped it. It was a nice idea but it just didn't work in practice - my evaluation of prior probabilities wasn't good enough. I now reserve the term "extraordinary" for actual violations of physical law, or cases where I can actually calculate the extreme improbability. The moral is that rationalist techniques have to work in practice. Rationality is not what sounds like a good idea, or what sounds like common sense, or even what conforms to theorems about what perfect rationalists would do - it is what works to arrive at the truth. If you'd won a Nobel Prize, not by being humble before Nature, but by practicing your particular advocated form of modesty before scientists - your particular balance of credence in established institutions and skepticism of fringe claims - then I would say, "Behold, modesty has triumphed at least once." I myself espouse a particular balance of credence in established institutions and skepticism of fringe claims, which is certainly more credulous and more skeptical than the population average, but still permits me to defy the mainstream once I have studied a matter sufficiently. Should I enjoy significant scientific success (never mind doing what I actually set out to do with my life), then these pragmatic techniques of rationality will gain in credibility. It's hard for me to see how I could be beaten to the punch, outwitted and outgunned, by a Finneyan modesty-user of equal native intelligence. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 19:37:40 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:37:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil meta-news In-Reply-To: <440F2B5A.9000301@pobox.com> References: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060308085216.024a27c8@gmu.edu> <440F2B5A.9000301@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60603081137o6c0f9beeqb3dcde731faafd0@mail.gmail.com> On 3/8/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Robin Hanson wrote: > > At 08:10 AM 3/8/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > >>I venture to say that anyone who's studied Gold's fine book > >>will significantly change his odds more towards the abiotic > >>theory, (even if he retains probability at less than > >>fifty percent). > > > > This can only be true on average for rational people if they do not believe > > your claim. If I believed you that my odds would go up after reading the > > book, I would just raise my odds in anticipation of that, even if I never read > > the book. If I am rational, I must expect that reading a book arguing for > > a position on some subject will be as likely to move me away from that > > position as to move me closer. (More precisely my expected value of > > my future expectation must equal my current expectation.) > > Robin, this is true, but I fear the way you phrased it may confuse > people. They may visualize picking up Gold's book, on Lee's > recommendation, and being forced to believe that Gold's book, which > contains many arguments *for* abiotic oil, must necessarily have a > significant probability of leaving them *less* convinced of abiotic oil > than they were before they ever heard of Gold's book. > > What actually happens is this: > > 1) I assign some small probabiility to abiotic oil, say, 20%. > 2) I hear Lee recommending Gold's book. > 3) I now assign some probability, say 30%, to Lee's assertion that if I > read Gold's book, I would assign a greater probability to abiotic oil, > such as 80%. > 3a) This involves taking the probability of a probability, which > involves thorny issues of reflectivity which I'm still trying to work > through, such as empathizing with your future self and granting credence > to a purely abstract computation. > 3b) If you permit the notion of a probability of a probability, it is > clear that the variance in my expected future probability assignment has > increased. > 4) The actual distribution over my future probability assignment now has > two spikes; a spike at 20% and a spike at 80%. My *expectation* will > lie somewhere between these two points. > 5) I read Gold's book and find it has no convincing favorable > arguments. My opinion is now unchanged relative to what it was at the > start of the analysis, 20%. This was always my dominant opinion, and > has not changed; however my *net expectation* briefly rose and then > settled back down. ### If you read Gold's book and find no good arguments, shouldn't your expectation drift below 20%, since the absence of evidence in a location where it is most likely to be found is a form of evidence for absence (i.e. the null hypothesis)? Rafal From sentience at pobox.com Wed Mar 8 19:51:48 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:51:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil meta-news In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60603081137o6c0f9beeqb3dcde731faafd0@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060308085216.024a27c8@gmu.edu> <440F2B5A.9000301@pobox.com> <7641ddc60603081137o6c0f9beeqb3dcde731faafd0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <440F35D4.5080105@pobox.com> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > ### If you read Gold's book and find no good arguments, shouldn't your > expectation drift below 20%, since the absence of evidence in a > location where it is most likely to be found is a form of evidence for > absence (i.e. the null hypothesis)? Sure. That did occur to me, but I wanted to talk about the simple case first. I also note that, within the restricted fact bucket, absence of evidence is not experimental evidence of absence. The world's stupidest man may say the sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out. The above inference is from absence of argument, which puts it into the "observed opinion" bucket. Only an experimental test powerful enough to be expected to discriminate between abiotic oil and standard oil would go into the fact bucket. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From dmasten at piratelabs.org Wed Mar 8 19:28:23 2006 From: dmasten at piratelabs.org (David Masten) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:28:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1141846103.3163.11.camel@dmlap> On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 15:20 +0000, BillK wrote: > No, *really*, they're not. It is just a better educated, slightly > higher IQ gamble. I'm having a problem with your use of the term "gamble". Do you mean any behavior that has an element of risk? Or is their some threshold of risk that makes a behavior a "gamble"? If the latter then what is the threshold and how do you arrive at that threshold? Thanks, Dave From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Mar 8 19:37:38 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:37:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10603081123rf357b72lf591e6dac89aaedd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060308193738.46804.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thank you Anna Jef Allbright wrote: On 3/8/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > Jef Allbright wrote: > > >Anne - > > >Your words in this post and others are very similar to those of people > >I've known who have taken a lot of LSD. > > >Might this be the case here? > > >- Jef > > Actually, when I first posted back in October, I had mentioned that I had > taken LSD (mind you, I said a Drug) for the first time back in June 2005. > That was the first and only time I ever have. Thanks for our response. I took LSD three times during a couple of months around 1979, because I wanted the experience. I spent months reading all the available literature before deciding to do so. It was a very valuable experience, but not something I would do recreationally, because I wouldn't want to take further risks with scrambling the connections in my brain. > When I first started to post I was very insecure and somewhat confused at > the whole situation, now i'm not. You seem like a friendly addition to the list, and willing to learn. I like that. > As for my comment, Samantha was right, it was a stab at someone, which I > apologize for, I was a little quick on the typing and was upset at > something. That helps me understand your AKA post, but I think Samantha was not referring to you. > > As for the posting regarding my mother, I was! truly interested to know if I > could explain to her my fascination with Science without confusing her. > (She's still quite smart, she went back to University when she was 64). I > only wanted to know if my analogy was way off, that's all. I do think your analogy was truly way off. Maybe we can discuss it productively. > I know I don't have a conventional way about me, I never have, but claiming > that drugs is my problem is rather harsh. Please keep in mind that my first > language is english but I write in French. I like unconventional, and this list is certainly unconventional. I wonder, is there something about the French language that breeds pseudo-scientific and postmodernist thought? I'm not sure it applies to French Canadian, though. > I'm not going to deny that LSD probably changed me forever but > I don't think it was a bad thing. I like the reality i'm in right now, i'm > smarter, more educated and fascinated by it. I'm not going to > apologize for being different, that's just who I am. I love this list > and I don't think i'm causing any problems by posting my ideas or > questions. Feel free to tell me otherwise and I'll keep quiet. > Anna, I'll try to reply to your post about Einstein, gravity and radiation. Perhaps some of this discussion we could have offlist if it becomes too lengthy. I would not ask anyone to keep quiet, as long as they seem to be truly seeking growth. > > On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > > > > > Hi! I'm Anne-Marie Taylor > > a.k.a. Anne-Marie Taylor > > I have nothing to hide > > That's the new eulogy > > You don't need to be anything than what you are. > > It's a fact, but not yet proven... sry > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- 7 bucks a month. This is Huge Yahoo! Music Unlimited -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 8 20:45:30 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:45:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy , Mass and my mother In-Reply-To: <20060307215125.72442.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060307215125.72442.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10603081245v68c36b32qdbb22c1ad3fa0b4@mail.gmail.com> On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > >I've been trying to explain to mother (who is a diosis with the Protestant > >Church) about science. (Forget about evolution, that's going to take a > >lot more convincing) > > >I may be completely off, but i'm just trying to explain to her (she is > very, very > >old school, pray, be nice and don't think too much:) in easy terms, > >the concept of e=mc2 using humans as the example. Anne, humans inhabit a world in-between the very large and the very small. In fact, we are roughly in the middle of the scale, with the very large, cosmic structures like galaxies at one end, and the very small sub-atomic particles at the the other end. Einstein's equation e=mc^2 was discovered only recently, in the early 20th century, because its effects aren't normally noticeable and hardly apply at the human scale. > > >Please let me know that i'm way off before I approach her with my idea:) > >(And by the way, smileys are cute!) :-) Yes, I think you are way off on this. :-) > > >If I quoted Albert Einstein with: (She likes him, thinks his smart:) > >"The body's surface layer is penetrated by energy > >quanta whose energy is converted at least partially > >into kinetic energy of the electrons. The simplest > >conception is that a light quamtum transfers ! it's > >entire energy to a single electron..)" Usually photons transfer all of their energy to an atom at once, but sometimes they give up their energy gradually by interaction with the coulomb field of the atom, and there are various types of scattering which can cause the photon's energy to gradually dissipate over multiple steps within the body. How much interaction and the types of interactions depend on factors such as the energy and angle of the arriving photon, and the nature of the material. But I don't think this has anything to do with interactions between humans at the human scale. > > Then I will say: > >If we are all energy that equals mass, to be attracted > >to someone, you would need gravity. All bodies are subject to gravitational force in relation to their mass, and scientists have demonstrated that even photons are subject to gravitational attraction, but this is nothing like the emotional attraction that people feel for each other. > > >Then, If energy equals mass times the speed of light, then > >at certain times people meet for a specific reason. (Or if they > >meet and exchange energy with someone that may be causing radiation, > >they too may become contaminated.) This paragraph suggests to me that you may want to take a basic conceptual physics class so you will understand the scientific meaning of "energy", "mass", "radiation", and so on. Your statement just doesn't make any sense in scientific terms. > > >And if e=mc2, then couldn't it mean that their are > >other energies that effect humans that may cause > >electromagnetic fields based on the time. > >(if you haven't already became radiation.) Electromagnetic fields and radiation are all around us, and all bodies emit, absorb, and reflect radiation in various ways that are quite well understood. This doesn't normally have much to do with e=mc2, however, at the level at which it is practiced by engineers and scientists. > >Which in turn would lead to the need to understand > >awareness in humans? (Knowing the right time) This is so disjointed I don't know what I could say to help here. On a completely different tangent, I think understanding awareness is extremely important to humans and human society, since increasing awareness tends to lead to better decision-making. I also think it is important to understand what we mean by both subjective and objective awareness. > >Which Buddha describes: To becoming a full conscious human being.! > >(I won't tell her it was Buddha) To become "fully conscious" as the Buddha teaches is about quieting the mind and becoming more aware of the inner chatter, mental filters and preconceptions that interfere with seeing things more clearly. > >And just out of curiosity, have scientists measured awareness? Awareness can be tested and measured in specific terms under specific conditions, but some philosophers continue to argue about what "awareness" really means. > > >Any comments or suggestions are always welcome, > >it makes me smarter > >Thanks Anna I would comment that there is much we already know and understand about the world we live in. There is even more that we don't yet know and understand. A scientific approach is the best approach we currently have toward refining what we think we already know and uncovering further mysteries and new questions we can ask. I wish you a delightful and rewarding journey along whichever path you follow. - Jef From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Mar 8 21:18:43 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 16:18:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy , Mass and my mother In-Reply-To: <22360fa10603081245v68c36b32qdbb22c1ad3fa0b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060308211843.99487.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thank you for the insight, when I wrote this I had been learning about Psionics and tried to incorporate the two. I thought everything in the universe has energy and mass (humans) and that interaction with other humans (not on an emotional level but on an energy level) could simply be that gravity could somehow be involved, that's why you meet specific people at a certain time. I used radiation as an example to show that if your not aware of the energy field between two people, that your association may be contamination (warmful, useless ect..). I was making an assumption that all humans have their own energy force and if interaction between humans is all about the energy then like Einstein's theory, a ray of light (and other forms of energy) could in fact change a human's own energy level or chemical reactions. But my mother always told me I have a wild imagination:) Thanks Jef for taking your time. Anna Jef Allbright wrote: On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > >I've been trying to explain to mother (who is a diosis with the Protestant > >Church) about science. (Forget about evolution, that's going to take a > >lot more convincing) > > >I may be completely off, but i'm just trying to explain to her (she is > very, very > >old school, pray, be nice and don't think too much:) in easy terms, > >the concept of e=mc2 using humans as the example. Anne, humans inhabit a world in-between the very large and the very small. In fact, we are roughly in the middle of the scale, with the very large, cosmic structures like galaxies at one end, and the very small sub-atomic particles at the the other end. Einstein's equation e=mc^2 was discovered only recently, in the early 20th century, because its effects aren't normally noticeable and hardly apply at the human scale. > > >Please let me know that i'm way off before I approach her with my idea:) > >(And by the way, smileys are cute!) :-) Yes, I think you are way off on this. :-) > > >If I quoted Albert Einstein with: (She likes him, thinks his smart:) > >"The body's surface layer is penetrated by energy > >quanta whose energy is converted at least partially > >into kinetic energy of the electrons. The simplest > >conception is that a light quamtum transfers ! it's > >entire energy to a single electron..)" Usually photons transfer all of their energy to an atom at once, but sometimes they give up their energy gradually by interaction with the coulomb field of the atom, and there are various types of scattering which can cause the photon's energy to gradually dissipate over multiple steps within the body. How much interaction and the types of interactions depend on factors such as the energy and angle of the arriving photon, and the nature of the material. But I don't think this has anything to do with interactions between humans at the human scale. > > Then I will say: > >If we are all energy that equals mass, to be attracted > >to someone, you would need gravity. All bodies are subject to gravitational force in relation to their mass, and scientists have demonstrated that even photons are subject to gravitational attraction, but this is nothing like the emotional attraction that people feel for each other. > > >Then, If energy equals mass times the speed of light, then > >at certain times people meet for a specific reason. (Or if they > >meet and exchange energy with someone that may be causing radiation, > >they too may become contaminated.) This paragraph suggests to me that you may want to take a basic conceptual physics class so you will understand the scientific meaning of "energy", "mass", "radiation", and so on. Your statement just doesn't make any sense in scientific terms. > > >And if e=mc2, then couldn't it mean that their are > >other energies that effect humans that may cause > >electromagnetic fields based on the time. > >(if you haven't already became radiation.) Electromagnetic fields and radiation are all around us, and all bodies emit, absorb, and reflect radiation in various ways that are quite well understood. This doesn't normally have much to do with e=mc2, however, at the level at which it is practiced by engineers and scientists. > >Which in turn would lead to the need to understand > >awareness in humans? (Knowing the right time) This is so disjointed I don't know what I could say to help here. On a completely different tangent, I think understanding awareness is extremely important to humans and human society, since increasing awareness tends to lead to better decision-making. I also think it is important to understand what we mean by both subjective and objective awareness. > >Which Buddha describes: To becoming a full conscious human being.! > >(I won't tell her it was Buddha) To become "fully conscious" as the Buddha teaches is about quieting the mind and becoming more aware of the inner chatter, mental filters and preconceptions that interfere with seeing things more clearly. > >And just out of curiosity, have scientists measured awareness? Awareness can be tested and measured in specific terms under specific conditions, but some philosophers continue to argue about what "awareness" really means. > > >Any comments or suggestions are always welcome, > >it makes me smarter > >Thanks Anna I would comment that there is much we already know and understand about the world we live in. There is even more that we don't yet know and understand. A scientific approach is the best approach we currently have toward refining what we think we already know and uncovering further mysteries and new questions we can ask. I wish you a delightful and rewarding journey along whichever path you follow. - Jef _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Make Yahoo! Canada your Homepage Yahoo! Canada Homepage -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 22:23:42 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:53:42 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] www.AtheistFoundation.org.au - tv ads Message-ID: <710b78fc0603081423m40a36319r@mail.gmail.com> Hi any Aussies on the list, I was watching TV the other night, and on came this ad, black background, white writing, slide-show style. Here's the text of it... Fear of the unknown leads to superstition. (next) Superstition in group mentality leads to religion. (next) Religion + Politics leads to OPPRESSION. (next) www.atheistfoundation.org.au (end) Check 'em out here: http://www.AtheistFoundation.org.au It made my day, I'll tell you that for nothing :-) -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 22:24:43 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:54:43 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy , Mass and my mother In-Reply-To: <22360fa10603081245v68c36b32qdbb22c1ad3fa0b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060307215125.72442.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22360fa10603081245v68c36b32qdbb22c1ad3fa0b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0603081424p7acb6380g@mail.gmail.com> Jef, Don't feed the trolls. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com On 09/03/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > > > >I've been trying to explain to mother (who is a diosis with the Protestant > > >Church) about science. (Forget about evolution, that's going to take a > > >lot more convincing) > > > > >I may be completely off, but i'm just trying to explain to her (she is > > very, very > > >old school, pray, be nice and don't think too much:) in easy terms, > > >the concept of e=mc2 using humans as the example. > > Anne, humans inhabit a world in-between the very large and the very > small. In fact, we are roughly in the middle of the scale, with the > very large, cosmic structures like galaxies at one end, and the very > small sub-atomic particles at the the other end. > > Einstein's equation e=mc^2 was discovered only recently, in the early > 20th century, because its effects aren't normally noticeable and > hardly apply at the human scale. > > > > > > >Please let me know that i'm way off before I approach her with my idea:) > > >(And by the way, smileys are cute!) > > :-) Yes, I think you are way off on this. :-) > > > > > >If I quoted Albert Einstein with: (She likes him, thinks his smart:) > > >"The body's surface layer is penetrated by energy > > >quanta whose energy is converted at least partially > > >into kinetic energy of the electrons. The simplest > > >conception is that a light quamtum transfers ! it's > > >entire energy to a single electron..)" > > Usually photons transfer all of their energy to an atom at once, but > sometimes they give up their energy gradually by interaction with the > coulomb field of the atom, and there are various types of scattering > which can cause the photon's energy to gradually dissipate over > multiple steps within the body. How much interaction and the types of > interactions depend on factors such as the energy and angle of the > arriving photon, and the nature of the material. > > But I don't think this has anything to do with interactions between > humans at the human scale. > > > > > > Then I will say: > > >If we are all energy that equals mass, to be attracted > > >to someone, you would need gravity. > > All bodies are subject to gravitational force in relation to their > mass, and scientists have demonstrated that even photons are subject > to gravitational attraction, but this is nothing like the emotional > attraction that people feel for each other. > > > > > >Then, If energy equals mass times the speed of light, then > > >at certain times people meet for a specific reason. (Or if they > > >meet and exchange energy with someone that may be causing radiation, > > >they too may become contaminated.) > > This paragraph suggests to me that you may want to take a basic > conceptual physics class so you will understand the scientific meaning > of "energy", "mass", "radiation", and so on. Your statement just > doesn't make any sense in scientific terms. > > > > > >And if e=mc2, then couldn't it mean that their are > > >other energies that effect humans that may cause > > >electromagnetic fields based on the time. > > >(if you haven't already became radiation.) > > Electromagnetic fields and radiation are all around us, and all bodies > emit, absorb, and reflect radiation in various ways that are quite > well understood. This doesn't normally have much to do with e=mc2, > however, at the level at which it is practiced by engineers and > scientists. > > > >Which in turn would lead to the need to understand > > >awareness in humans? (Knowing the right time) > > This is so disjointed I don't know what I could say to help here. > On a completely different tangent, I think understanding awareness is > extremely important to humans and human society, since increasing > awareness tends to lead to better decision-making. I also think it is > important to understand what we mean by both subjective and objective > awareness. > > > >Which Buddha describes: To becoming a full conscious human being.! > > >(I won't tell her it was Buddha) > > To become "fully conscious" as the Buddha teaches is about quieting > the mind and becoming more aware of the inner chatter, mental filters > and preconceptions that interfere with seeing things more clearly. > > > >And just out of curiosity, have scientists measured awareness? > > Awareness can be tested and measured in specific terms under specific > conditions, but some philosophers continue to argue about what > "awareness" really means. > > > > > > >Any comments or suggestions are always welcome, > > >it makes me smarter > > >Thanks Anna > > > I would comment that there is much we already know and understand > about the world we live in. There is even more that we don't yet know > and understand. A scientific approach is the best approach we > currently have toward refining what we think we already know and > uncovering further mysteries and new questions we can ask. > > I wish you a delightful and rewarding journey along whichever path you follow. > > - Jef > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 23:21:23 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:21:23 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <1141846103.3163.11.camel@dmlap> References: <1141846103.3163.11.camel@dmlap> Message-ID: On 3/8/06, David Masten wrote: > On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 15:20 +0000, BillK wrote: > > No, *really*, they're not. It is just a better educated, slightly > > higher IQ gamble. > > I'm having a problem with your use of the term "gamble". Do you mean any > behavior that has an element of risk? Or is their some threshold of risk > that makes a behavior a "gamble"? If the latter then what is the > threshold and how do you arrive at that threshold? > Now you're dipping your toe into deep waters. ;) Might be worth another thread on risk analysis and how totally useless humans are at estimating risks. Everything in life is a risk. I use the term 'gamble' when the risks are virtually unknowable because of the many unknown, unpredictable, random factors that are beyond our control and cannot be factored in to our decision. If we don't even know what the factors might be, how can we make allowances for them? "But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." Rumsfeld. :) My claim is that stock price movements are really a random walk. You can chart them, analyse them, interview the CEO, analyse the accounts as much as you like, but it will save you a lot of time, trouble and money if you just stick a pin in the stocks list and buy that one. Unexpected, unpredictable events are as likely to make your random choice a winner as they are to cause all the detailed analysis to be thrown in the rubbish bin. This has been tested many times by comparing experts stocks selection against random choices. The main site is The Wall Street Journal Dartboard Contest In 1988 the Wall Street Journal began a contest that was inspired by Burton Malkiel's book A Random Walk Down Wall Street. In the book, the Princeton Professor theorized that "a blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a newspaper's financial pages could select a portfolio that would do just as well as one carefully selected by experts." On October 7, 1998 the Journal presented the results of the 100th dartboard contest. So who won the most contests and by how much? The pros won 61 of the 100 contests versus the darts. That's better than the 50% that would be expected in an efficient market. On the other hand, the pros losing 39% of the time to a bunch of darts certainly could be viewed as somewhat of an embarrassment for the pros. Additionally, the performance of the pros versus the Dow Jones Industrial Average was less impressive. The pros barely edged the DJIA by a margin of 51 to 49 contests. In other words, simply investing passively in the Dow, an investor would have beaten the picks of the pros in roughly half the contests (that is, without even considering transactions costs or taxes for taxable investors). BillK From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Mar 8 23:22:50 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:22:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Ok I get the hint! Message-ID: <20060308232250.34222.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In one day i've become a drug user, a "pleasant clueless person", a lost sheep and a troll:) Wow, i'm feeling the love...luckily it's my birthday on Friday (at least that's one pleasant thing) I don't feel the need to justify myself, so I won't Thanks Spike, I got the hint, no more posting Anna --------------------------------- Make Yahoo! Canada your Homepage Yahoo! Canada Homepage -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Wed Mar 8 23:30:12 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:30:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil meta-news In-Reply-To: References: <1141846103.3163.11.camel@dmlap> Message-ID: <440F6904.10505@pobox.com> BillK wrote: > > On October 7, 1998 the Journal presented the results of the 100th > dartboard contest. So who won the most contests and by how much? The > pros won 61 of the 100 contests versus the darts. That's better than > the 50% that would be expected in an efficient market. On the other > hand, the pros losing 39% of the time to a bunch of darts certainly > could be viewed as somewhat of an embarrassment for the pros. > Additionally, the performance of the pros versus the Dow Jones > Industrial Average was less impressive. The pros barely edged the DJIA > by a margin of 51 to 49 contests. In other words, simply investing > passively in the Dow, an investor would have beaten the picks of the > pros in roughly half the contests (that is, without even considering > transactions costs or taxes for taxable investors). This information is completely useless unless we know by how much the pros won or the monkeys lost. The pros might do very poorly winning 61 out of 100 contests, if they won small and lost big. Conversely the pros might have done much better relative to the Dow than "51 out of 49" would tell you, if they won big and lost small. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 23:47:59 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:47:59 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil meta-news In-Reply-To: <440F6904.10505@pobox.com> References: <1141846103.3163.11.camel@dmlap> <440F6904.10505@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 3/8/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > BillK wrote: > > > > On October 7, 1998 the Journal presented the results of the 100th > > dartboard contest. So who won the most contests and by how much? The > > pros won 61 of the 100 contests versus the darts. That's better than > > the 50% that would be expected in an efficient market. On the other > > hand, the pros losing 39% of the time to a bunch of darts certainly > > could be viewed as somewhat of an embarrassment for the pros. > > Additionally, the performance of the pros versus the Dow Jones > > Industrial Average was less impressive. The pros barely edged the DJIA > > by a margin of 51 to 49 contests. In other words, simply investing > > passively in the Dow, an investor would have beaten the picks of the > > pros in roughly half the contests (that is, without even considering > > transactions costs or taxes for taxable investors). > > This information is completely useless unless we know by how much the > pros won or the monkeys lost. The pros might do very poorly winning 61 > out of 100 contests, if they won small and lost big. Conversely the > pros might have done much better relative to the Dow than "51 out of 49" > would tell you, if they won big and lost small. > True. And there are much more subtle effects as well. Like the pro's chose 'riskier' stocks and publicised their choices, which might have encouraged people to buy these stocks and push the price up. Read the page referenced for more details. There has been much academic analysis of these results. After all, these 'experts' have to try to justify their fees. Professor Bing Liang concluded that the pros neither outperformed the market nor the darts. According to Liang, the pros supposed superior performance could be explained by the small sample size, the announcement effect, and the missing dividend yields. One of the strongest criticisms of the contest is the fact that the Journal measures performance by price appreciation only, despite the fact that total return is measured by both price appreciation and dividends. For the period that Liang studied, the pro's stocks had an average dividend yield of 1.2% versus yields for the darts of 2.3% and 3.1% for the DJIA average. Just buy a 'tracker' mutual fund. You'll do as good as the pros and you can bank all the fees you would have paid them. BillK From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Mar 8 23:50:20 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:50:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil meta-news In-Reply-To: <440F2B5A.9000301@pobox.com> References: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060308085216.024a27c8@gmu.edu> <440F2B5A.9000301@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060308184716.022ce340@gmu.edu> At 02:07 PM 3/8/2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >>I venture to say that anyone who's studied Gold's fine book > >>will significantly change his odds more towards the abiotic > >>theory, (even if he retains probability at less than fifty percent). > > > > This can only be true on average for rational people if they do not believe > > your claim. If I believed you that my odds would go up after reading the > > book, I would just raise my odds in anticipation of that, even if > I never read > > the book. If I am rational, I must expect that reading a book arguing for > > a position on some subject will be as likely to move me away from that > > position as to move me closer. (More precisely my expected value of > > my future expectation must equal my current expectation.) > >Robin, this is true, but I fear the way you phrased it may confuse >people. They may visualize picking up Gold's book, on Lee's >recommendation, and being forced to believe that Gold's book, which >contains many arguments *for* abiotic oil, must necessarily have a >significant probability of leaving them *less* convinced of abiotic oil >than they were before they ever heard of Gold's book. ... >7) When it is said that I must assign a balanced expectation to Gold's >book increasing or decreasing my probability estimate of abiotic oil, >this balance is estimated relative to my state of uncertainty as to >whether Gold might have any good arguments, *not* relative to my >pre-analysis state of having never heard of Gold. ... >7b) For example, suppose that I hand Gold's book to someone after >stripping off the cover, so the reader has no idea what the book is >about. It is quite reasonable for me to estimate an unbalanced >expectation that Gold's book will shift their opinions in favor of >prebiotic oil, rather than the converse. Yes, this is all correct. The news that there is a book many find interesting that argues for a conclusion may well be bigger news than the news one gets from reading the book itself. For any news, you should expects that it could just as well raise or lower your estimate on any topic. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Mar 9 00:07:11 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:07:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil meta-news In-Reply-To: <440F3066.7090105@pobox.com> References: <20060308075651.E9F4257FB0@finney.org> <440F3066.7090105@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060308185206.023b0020@gmu.edu> At 02:28 PM 3/8/2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >Doesn't it make you nervous to be the only modest person on Earth? >Maybe modesty is wrong. No one else believes in it. You're not the >least bit meta-modest in deciding how modest you ought to be; you don't >seem to pay attention to what most scientists say about modesty, >choosing instead to listen to Robin Hanson's fringe theories of modesty. >Oh, sure, Hanson's theories are much better developed mathematically >than a few vague things Einstein and Feynman once said, but it's still >Not The Consensus. I'd be interested in your or anyone else's pointers to things people take to be the theoretical consensus on modesty. Do you have particular quotes by Einstein and Feynman in mind, for example? >But is your modesty going to work *in practice*? Philip Tetlock's new book on Expert Political Judgement can be considered a data set showing that modesty works in practice. He shows that a tendency toward extreme opinions tends to make people less accurate in their forecasts. >If you'd won a Nobel Prize, not by being humble before Nature, but by >practicing your particular advocated form of modesty before scientists - >your particular balance of credence in established institutions and >skepticism of fringe claims - then I would say, "Behold, modesty has >triumphed at least once." Winning a Nobel Prize is not a very good indicator of accurate predictions, thought it may be a better indicator of contributions to intellectual progress. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From nanogirl at halcyon.com Wed Mar 8 23:59:29 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:59:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ok I get the hint! References: <20060308232250.34222.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e301c6430c$73346540$0200a8c0@Nano> Anna, please let me apologize to you on behalf of the list. This is a group that is very supportive of difference, in fact we have to be, since we ourselves stand out from the mainstream as different and in the future this will become an even more prevalent issue. In a large group such as this list, there will be the occasional individuals who either lose sight of this or generate a riff in interactions or just simply don't realize how they are making others feel, I am sorry that you had to be put in this position. Not everyone speaks the same, some people are more creative/poetic than others, some people want to know more, this is not a bad thing (everybody's different) and not a reason to try and isolate a person to analyze (just because you can). It's extremely difficult to get a real feel for people from emails anyways. Anna you have not done anything wrong, I would like you to know, (and I think I would be speaking for the majority of the list) that you are welcome here. Lets be kind, if it doesn't hurt you try to accept differences! (I remember making this same point in a previous email regarding the Gay and Lesbian community). 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." ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne-Marie Taylor To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:22 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Ok I get the hint! In one day i've become a drug user, a "pleasant clueless person", a lost sheep and a troll:) Wow, i'm feeling the love...luckily it's my birthday on Friday (at least that's one pleasant thing) I don't feel the need to justify myself, so I won't Thanks Spike, I got the hint, no more posting Anna ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Make Yahoo! Canada your Homepage Yahoo! Canada Homepage ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Mar 9 00:47:26 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 16:47:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Modesty (was RE: Peak Oil meta-news) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060308185206.023b0020@gmu.edu> Message-ID: For maybe twenty years I was suckered by Feynman into believing that he was quite modest. Especially cute was his praise of a nameless teacher who inspired a student to extend the principle of least action to a key element in the 1940's quantum revolution. (Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 19.) If you know a bit about the principle of least action, and you know what happened in the late 1940's, then you gradually deduce that Feynman was praising *his* own teacher, and giving that teacher credit for inspiring him to develop the path formulation. It really *is* charming. But from tales of safe-cracking (which, Feynman fails to inform anyone was de rigeur among all the students), to hints from a number of colleagues, to a careful reading of "Surely You're Joking", describing him as modest is a really big laugh! I don't know about Einstein; could be. But let's not be gulled by a person's *own* writings! Lee > I'd be interested in your or anyone else's pointers to things people take to > be the theoretical consensus on modesty. Do you have particular quotes > by Einstein and Feynman in mind, for example? From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 9 02:38:29 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:38:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. In-Reply-To: <200603081613.k28GD6gn006159@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200603090238.k292ck14007114@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Whoooooops. Hate it when that happens. {8-[ I throw myself into the penalty box for accidental posting a private note to the list. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 7:36 AM > To: 'Jef Allbright'; 'ExI chat list' > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. > > Jef I didn't interpret it as an insult, but rather an > observation... From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 9 02:51:00 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:51:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] message from the penalty box In-Reply-To: <440F35D4.5080105@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200603090251.k292p66A002281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> A pleasant clueless one in the penalty box (that would be me) wishes to pass along a message from a fellow penalty box dweller: {8-] spike The Project Room, an international arts and education program cordially invites you to attend a VIP/Press reception for a new public art program "A MOVABLE FEAST" March 12, 6:00 - 9:00 PM 13 Crosby St. Soho Exhibition: March 12 & 13 Curated by Nina Colosi Zhang Ga Nam June Paik Kurt Ralske Troika Ranch Talks by artist and lecture by curator Paulina Kolczynska, "Collecting New Media Art" Monday, March 13, 7:00 -9:30 PM The guests can participate in "Peoples' Portrait" by having their pictures taken and broadcast, via the internet, simultaneously on public video walls including The Reuters Sign at 3 Times Square-the world's largest digital display system, as well as museums and galleries in Seoul, Beijing, Adelaide and Linz. Some of our event sponsors: http://www.mionedesigns.com/ Designer Michael Mione has designed the fabulous dresses we are wearing...from his new collection. http://www.frankwines.com/ Get Hi. with Frank Wines! Presenting Hi. wines from Italy. http://www.rhythminmotion.biz/ Sound! Design team: http://www.diarch.net/ Architect responsible for the design for this event http://www.joeginsberg.com/ interior designer in the advisery board (Also at the Architectural digest Design Show March 9-12, Pier 94) http://http://www.drakelife.com/ Providing Corporate Housing From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Mar 9 02:56:30 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:56:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10603080705s480bc0a5o20ec9ee7a85106ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060308015840.75555.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22360fa10603072008j79e51d57i4389de68faa8e624@mail.gmail.com> <6D1FDF05-79C7-41C1-8E71-2F5C822B6D21@mac.com> <22360fa10603080705s480bc0a5o20ec9ee7a85106ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <88EF6BC8-D7D8-422F-A9FD-BF6A2EA28DF7@mac.com> On Mar 8, 2006, at 7:05 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > Samantha - > > My comment and question to Anne-Marie was not kind, but neither was it > intended to be unkind. > > I've noticed and known some people who appear to share two two > attributes: (1) They tend to spew words in a kind of disjointed, > stream of consciousness way, making connections and asserting > significance while lacking much semblance to critical thinking. (2) > They have used LSD for significant periods of their life. > Actually you seem to be talking about different ways of speaking/ experiencing and denying implicitly that ones different than what you habitually or preferentially use have much value or even implying that they are pathological. A relatively metaphorical and poetic flow state is not without value just because we value rationality. It has nothing to do per se with using this or that drug. Some drugs make it easier to experience and explore certain types of consciousness. > > In my opinion and experience, altered states of consciousness, whether > induced by meditation, medication, intoxication, or psychotropic > substances, can be sometimes useful for helping people break out of a > rut in their current mode of thinking, and can be useful for > experiencing how illusory ones sense of self, perceptions and values > can be. > Yes, among other things. > Such experiences can also be a driver of creativity after, but not > usually during, the altered state. Likewise, since such altered states > are highly subjective and thus of little direct value to others it > would be discourteous to post to most public forums in such a mode. > I don't see why unless again you claim some states are suspect or relatively useless. > In the case of this poster on our list I have seen multiple examples > of (what seem to me) incoherent thought with the kind of ecstatic > mystical and erratic emotional attributes characteristic of such drug > influence. This is very judgmental and damaging to our community in my opinion. I happen to be a born mystic in that ecstatic and mystical states came easily to me from early childhood. I also learned to develop my logical and rational side. But I don't despise either way of being/ experiencing and I have personally been damaged by attempting to choose one aspect and deny the other many times in my life. I also don't believe you can justify your derogatory opinion of drugs such as LSD. That is a discussion we have had before here. Lastly I don't believe it is appropriate to silence a poster as not conforming to your preferred type of consciousness. I have seen Anne-Marie post in many different styles. That is one thing I enjoy about her presence here. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Mar 9 02:27:28 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:27:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical Thinking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 8, 2006, at 5:46 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > This month's Skeptical Inquirer has a very fine article > titled "Critical Thinking, What is it good for?, What is > it?" by Howard Gabennesch. > > He makes many excellent points, although to me a bit > politically biased. (Actually, the biases, I must admit, > are *towards* my positions not against them. Now how often > do you see someone complaining about that? :-) > > He finally comes around to The Claim, to wit, that we > must be better at teaching critical thinking. But I very > seriously doubt that it can be taught! > On what do you base this doubt? If critical thinking can be shown to be useful and the components essential to critical thinking can be identified along with techniques to deploy them and this information and these techniques can be learned then I see no basis for "serious doubt". > By their natures, it seems (speaking in the identical > twin sense), some people are more judicious than others, > that is, capable of more carefully and objectively > weighing evidence. This "seeming" seems to be stating only that we observe that some people of equal training or lack of it in critical thinking exhibit unequal levels of same. This says nothing about whether critical thinking is teachable. > And some people are much more reluctant > to admit mistakes than are others; some are simply much > better at "remaining confused" and not venturing an > opinion until they've had a great deal of exposure to > a new claim or idea than are others. > Different people have different psychological habits and levels of comfort forming an opinion. Again, how does this say anything about teachability? > (Claiming that critical thinking can be taught reminds > me very much of the arrogant believe that *we* are so > superior that *we* can rehabilitate criminals, but not > they, us.) > What? Surely this adds nothing to your thesis and is at best a useless diversion. > I strongly suspect that a more successful society--- > given our current IQ range and limitations---has a > role for all types, and is seriously weakened when > one manner of thinking and behaving gains too much > ascendancy over the others. The proper trade off, I say, > between too little steadfastness and too much can *not* > be easily formulated in all too fashionable formulas > one hears nowadays. Railing against "irrationality" > (as does the author) strikes me as a little empty and > a lot silly. Well that is interesting pure opinion but says nothing about whether critical thinking is teachable. It would seem to suggest that you personally aren't comfortable with the population at large developing critical thought! > > Want to know the truth, or would you rather change the world? > Sometimes there may be a tradeoff! Huh? Where are you going? > > And if one more time I hear religionists or nonbelievers > denouncing each other as "irrational" I may lose my supper. > *Beliefs* may be irrational; but we need to reserve the > criticism of being irrational for people who should be > locked up for their own good. > Why? - samantha From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Thu Mar 9 03:08:43 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:08:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Crazy Wealthy Space Enthusiasts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Clark Lindsay's HobbySpace (which is also the base site for RLV News, an excellent space blog) has pretty much exactly the information you're looking for, a listing of various millionaires and billionaires who've devoted money to spaceflight efforts. It's in the "Space Angels" section of this page: http://www.hobbyspace.com/Active/index.html#Angels On 3/8/06, Amara Graps wrote: > > >Jeff Bezos and Mark Shuttleworth are two. Then there is the hotel > >guy in Vegas (and now Houston I think). There are at least 3, maybe > >4 companies working on cheap access to space. > [...] > >One place to start would be the Forbes lists of the richest people > >in the U.S. and the World (they are two distinct lists). They > >publish the reshuffled lists every year I think. > > >Obviously a company could get some great press by launching a > >satellite that "NASA left behind..." > > > Thanks Robert for your information. > > This news item from a friend on the wta list is helpful too: > > Geeks in space > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5399507.html > > Potentially useful info above in that Jim Benson, (founding chairman and > chief executive of SpaceDev) really wants to send a small space > miner that can land onto the surface of (water/ice-rich) asteroids > and drill a meter into the surface to extract the ice reserves. > > The planetary scientists would be horrified to think of their > beloved Ceres with its potential subsurface ocean/life to be treated > roughly, but perhaps an agreement could be made to take good care of > 'her'. Moreover, Benson successfully knows how to encourage investors. > > So if he really wants to go to the asteroid belt to find water, there > exists an almost-built spacecraft exactly designed to go there, > and, moreover, to a water-rich asteroid, all for the sum of 40 million > dollars. What more could one want ? :-) > > 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/ > ******************************************************************** > "For a girl, she's remarkably perceptive." --Calvin > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Mar 9 02:41:03 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:41:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0B5FE346-D4AF-422C-ABE6-03E6AE816510@mac.com> On Mar 8, 2006, at 6:52 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Perhaps you miss my point: I (and others) were complaining > that people *don't* bet on Peak Oil who rationally *should* > be betting. Your examples are of a lot of loons, or people > just having fun. As Hal implied, those betting on oil > futures are most often professionals. > I have been betting on Peak Oil to the extent I find the market rational. For instance, I predict that for every dip in the price of oil that it will come back up again as high or higher quite shortly due to what I believe regarding the fundamental validity of Peak Oil. I have been going long in these dips for over a year now and selling and going short when normal market perturbations start to cause a fallback. This has been a winning strategy. It is not, for reasons already covered, so reasonable to buy a far out of the money call for many years hence. So can we move along to something of a bit more substance than the self-satisfied dismissal of Peak Oil, Global Warming or whatever else is generally looked down on with justification based on strained rationalizations? - samantha From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 9 03:16:28 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:16:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy , Mass and my mother In-Reply-To: <20060308211843.99487.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200603090316.k293GZaX028348@andromeda.ziaspace.com> AKA Anne Marie, I do apologize for accidentally posting to the list a comment meant for one person. My reference to you as a pleasant clueless one should be seen in the light of the fact that I myself am a pleasant clueless one, for not noticing the cc line. {8-[ But honest to evolution pal, do not post wacky stuff like this. This whole psionics thing (whatever that is) I can assure you does not belong on ExI chat. In the current atmosphere of swift and severe list sniping (so much so that I sniped myself) this can cause you to join me and several others in the penalty box. Science and technology is the currency of the realm here, not psionics. Thanks for being kind tho. {8-] spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne-Marie Taylor Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 1:19 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy , Mass and my mother Thank you for the insight, when I wrote this I had been learning about Psionics and tried to incorporate the two. I thought everything in the universe has energy and mass (humans) and that interaction with other humans (not on an emotional level but on an energy level) could simply be that gravity could somehow be involved, that's why you meet specific people at a certain time. I used radiation as an example to show that if your not aware of the energy field between two people, that your association may be contamination (warmful, useless ect..). I was making an assumption that all humans have their own energy force and if interaction between humans is all about the energy then like Einstein's theory, a ray of light (and other forms of energy) could in fact change a human's own energy level or chemical reactions. But my mother always told me I have a wild imagination:) Thanks Jef for taking your time. Anna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Mar 9 03:07:08 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:07:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] a.k.a is.. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10603081123rf357b72lf591e6dac89aaedd@mail.gmail.com> References: <22360fa10603072008j79e51d57i4389de68faa8e624@mail.gmail.com> <20060308163810.16366.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22360fa10603081123rf357b72lf591e6dac89aaedd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000A9D1E-8922-4910-9C2B-84A8A04B2F39@mac.com> Jef, I should have read all the posts on the issue first. Sorry if I was a bit harsh. Thanks for clearing this up. - samantha On Mar 8, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 3/8/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: >> >> Jef Allbright wrote: >> >>> Anne - >> >>> Your words in this post and others are very similar to those of >>> people >>> I've known who have taken a lot of LSD. >> >>> Might this be the case here? >> >>> - Jef >> >> Actually, when I first posted back in October, I had mentioned >> that I had >> taken LSD (mind you, I said a Drug) for the first time back in >> June 2005. >> That was the first and only time I ever have. > > Thanks for our response. I took LSD three times during a couple of > months around 1979, because I wanted the experience. I spent months > reading all the available literature before deciding to do so. It was > a very valuable experience, but not something I would do > recreationally, because I wouldn't want to take further risks with > scrambling the connections in my brain. > >> When I first started to post I was very insecure and somewhat >> confused at >> the whole situation, now i'm not. > > You seem like a friendly addition to the list, and willing to learn. > I like that. > >> As for my comment, Samantha was right, it was a stab at someone, >> which I >> apologize for, I was a little quick on the typing and was upset at >> something. > > That helps me understand your AKA post, but I think Samantha was not > referring to you. > >> >> As for the posting regarding my mother, I was! truly interested to >> know if I >> could explain to her my fascination with Science without confusing >> her. >> (She's still quite smart, she went back to University when she was >> 64). I >> only wanted to know if my analogy was way off, that's all. > > I do think your analogy was truly way off. Maybe we can discuss it > productively. > >> I know I don't have a conventional way about me, I never have, but >> claiming >> that drugs is my problem is rather harsh. Please keep in mind that >> my first >> language is english but I write in French. > > I like unconventional, and this list is certainly unconventional. > > I wonder, is there something about the French language that breeds > pseudo-scientific and postmodernist thought? I'm not sure it applies > to French Canadian, though. > > >> I'm not going to deny that LSD probably changed me forever but >> I don't think it was a bad thing. I like the reality i'm in right >> now, i'm >> smarter, more educated and fascinated by it. I'm not going to >> apologize for being different, that's just who I am. I love this list >> and I don't think i'm causing any problems by posting my ideas or >> questions. Feel free to tell me otherwise and I'll keep quiet. >> > > Anna, I'll try to reply to your post about Einstein, gravity and > radiation. Perhaps some of this discussion we could have offlist if > it becomes too lengthy. > > I would not ask anyone to keep quiet, as long as they seem to be truly > seeking growth. > >> >> On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi! I'm Anne-Marie Taylor >>> a.k.a. Anne-Marie Taylor >>> I have nothing to hide >>> That's the new eulogy >>> You don't need to be anything than what you are. >>> It's a fact, but not yet proven... sry >>> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Mar 9 03:13:46 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:13:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical Thinking References: Message-ID: <001801c64327$7b2d26e0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Samantha Atkins" To: ; "ExI chat list" > And if one more time I hear religionists or nonbelievers >> denouncing each other as "irrational" I may lose my supper. >> *Beliefs* may be irrational; but we need to reserve the >> criticism of being irrational for people who should be >> locked up for their own good. > Why? Their own good? Our own good? And who - in your opinion, Lee - would those people be? Olga From transcend at extropica.com Thu Mar 9 02:55:49 2006 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 20:55:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] LiveScience: Record set for hottest temperature on Earth Message-ID: <200603090414.k294E3wJ018385@andromeda.ziaspace.com> This article caught my eye: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11732814 Record set for hottest temperature on Earth Scientists produce gas more than 100 times hotter than the sun by Ker Than Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET March 8, 2006 Scientists have produced superheated gas exceeding temperatures of 2 billion degrees Kelvin, or 3.6 billion degrees Fahrenheit. This is hotter than the interior of our sun, which is about 15 million degrees Kelvin, and also hotter than any previous temperature ever achieved on Earth, they say. They don't know how they did it. The feat was accomplished in the Z machine at Sandia National Laboratories. "At first, we were disbelieving," said project leader Chris Deeney. "We repeated the experiment many times to make sure we had a true result." Thermonuclear explosions are estimated to reach only tens to hundreds of millions of degrees Kelvin; other nuclear fusion experiments have achieved temperatures of about 500 million degrees Kelvin, said a spokesperson at the lab. The achievement was detailed in the Feb. 24 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters. The Z machine is the largest X-ray generator in the world. It's designed to test materials under extreme temperatures and pressures. It works by releasing 20 million amps of electricity into a vertical array of very fine tungsten wires. The wires dissolve into a cloud of charged particles, a superheated gas called plasma. A very strong magnetic field compresses the plasma into the thickness of a pencil lead. This causes the plasma to release energy in the form of X-rays, but the X-rays are usually only several million degrees. Sandia researchers still aren't sure how the machine achieved the new record. Part of it is probably due to the replacement of the tungsten steel wires with slightly thicker steel wires, which allow the plasma ions to travel faster and thus achieve higher temperatures. One thing that puzzles scientists is that the high temperature was achieved after the plasma's ions should have been losing energy and cooling. Also, when the high temperature was achieved, the Z machine was releasing more energy than was originally put in, something that usually occurs only in nuclear reactions. Sandia consultant Malcolm Haines theorizes that some unknown energy source is involved, which is providing the machine with an extra jolt of energy just as the plasma ions are beginning to slow down. Sandia National Laboratories is located by Albuquerque New Mexico and is part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). C 2006 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved. Brandon Reinhart transcend at extropica.com From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 9 04:51:23 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 20:51:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Housing bubble looking good Message-ID: <20060309045123.2C99757FB0@finney.org> Apologies for the U.S.-centric nature of this post, but here is some interesting data on the so-called "housing bubble" which has been much discussed in this country. Is the housing bubble bursting? Is it about to burst? There are many websites tracking this phenomenon and mostly predicting bad things, from what I have read. So what about the people whose business it is to know: homeowners, and home buyers? The Los Angeles times published a poll today reflecting what people expect with regard to housing prices: http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2006-03/22315063.pdf According to the data, housing prices nationwide have risen 36% over the past three years. The poll asked what respondents (75% of whom were homeowners) what they expected over the next three years (question 35). Interestingly, the results for the whole sample and for just homeowners were the same to a percentage point: No appreciation 5% Less than 5% 12% 5% to 15% 49% 16% to 30% 19% 31% to 45% 3% More than 45% 3% Don't know 9% So half of homeowners expect 5 to 15% over the next three years, less than the 36% over the previous three, but still a solid gain. Another 25% foresee a more than 15% rise. Another question where the respondents seemed to differ from the conventional wisdom was Q16: 'Which of the following statements comes closest to your view: "The Federal Reserve will continue to increase interest rates throughout the year," or "The Federal Reserve will soon stop raising interest rates and keep them at the current level," or"The Federal Reserve will start cutting interest rates this year"?' I think most economists forecast that the Fed will soon stop raising rates, but the most popular answer was the first. 48% said they expected the Fed to keep raising rates; 30% said they would soon stop raising them and keep them level, and 9% said they thought they would start cutting rates. While I would not always credit polls, since people often have no particular incentive to inform themselves of the issues, in this case I think the answers are credible. Every homeowner I know thinks about what their house is worth. It is a frequent topic of conversation. To a significant degree, people plan their lives around their expectations for the housing market. While we can't be sure that they were completely honest with the pollster (many of the questions were really hard and this was the 3nd to last), I don't see much reason they would lie. Same with interest rates, everybody wants and needs to know what is happening with those, for financial planning. Then of course there is the still-controversial notion that people do in fact do a pretty good job of running their lives, and that when things matter, they are able to come up with good estimations and predictions. Many people cling to a comfortable sense of superiority and scorn towards the average person. The cypherpunks used to love to derive the public as "sheeple". My studies suggest that in fact these kinds of consensus opinions are actually a very strong and reliable method of forecasting. There is also a futures market which can be used to predict what the Fed will do, but it only goes out a couple of months. Every Monday you can read the latest market forecast at: http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/ So far it is predicting the Fed will continue to raise rates at least through May, and it's on the fence about June. The overall message from the Times poll was very encouraging, if we believe in this methodology. Contrary to the doomsayers who get so much publicity, the consensus opinion among homeowners and potential homebuyers is that housing prices will continue to rise, probably at a more moderate rate. Good news. Hal From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Mar 9 03:53:25 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 21:53:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] MSNBC view on future human evolution References: <200603090251.k292p66A002281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000c01c6432d$04e120d0$640fa8c0@kevin> MSNBC has this neat little "interactive" presentation on the future of human evolution: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7348103/ While I think it is interesting that they have presented some possibilities that have been talked about for years in circles familiar to us all, their timetables seem to be way off base. For example, one of the "possible" future humans is a cyborg. They place this at 3 million years into the future! It's nice to see some of the ideas presented jump into the mainstream, yet I am somewhat disappointed. From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Mar 9 04:50:26 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 20:50:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy , Mass and my mother In-Reply-To: <20060308211843.99487.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <22360fa10603081245v68c36b32qdbb22c1ad3fa0b4@mail.gmail.com> <20060308211843.99487.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10603082050u72202088kbd44a18d1ea3a036@mail.gmail.com> On 3/8/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > Thank you for the insight, when I wrote this I had been learning about > Psionics and tried to incorporate the two. I thought everything in the > universe > has energy and mass (humans) and that interaction with other humans > (not on an emotional level but on an energy level) could simply be that > gravity could somehow be involved, that's why you meet specific people > at a certain time. I used radiation as an example to show that if your not > aware of the energy field between two people, that your association may > be contamination (warmful, useless ect..). I was making an assumption > that all humans have their own energy force and if interaction between > humans is all about the energy then like Einstein's theory, a ray of light > (and other forms of energy) could in fact change a human's own energy > level or chemical reactions. > > But my mother always told me I have a wild imagination:) > Thanks Jef for taking your time. > Anna > Anna, When I was about 19 I met a women who was a high priestess in a witch coven. We spent the entire first day and night talking, sharing and comparing our ideas and views of the world. We were both very intelligent, and it was amazing how we could hold such different world views but also communicate and appreciate each other. I was just out of high school, having done fours years of double-session self-guided electronics and teaching myself programming at the local college where I was able to get a free account. I had soaked up all the math and science courses and was a true science and engineering geek. But I had also had a fascination with understanding how and what other people thought, so I had read widely on psychology, the occult, paganism, world religions and mythology. It was too early for evolutionary psychology, but I could see clear patterns relating people's beliefs to basic human motivations that we all share. So, this interesting witch and I spent many days together, I learning her views, and she learning about mine. We traveled around San Francisco and I met friends of hers who followed Aleister Crowly. I met other friends of hers who were closely associated with the Grateful Dead and were living life on LSD. I met people immersed in studying Kabbalah and others concentrating their Kundalini, and I recognized that they all these diverse practices had something in common: Each was trying to make sense of their world in order to more effectively interact with it. I also saw quite clearly that while many paths can be deep and awe-inspiring, few of these paths were truly effective outside their limited circle. I spent the next few years continuing to work in high-tech but also studying eastern religions, Taoism and especially zen, and then at some point I came to the understanding or experience that I call going into the void, leaving behind the support offered by all these belief systems, and coming out the other side, with everything just as it was, but free of any feeling of being tied to any belief system. [But not denying that I hold beliefs.] Since then, I've spent time in several countries, lived in Japan for a few years while setting up a high-tech service office, and discovered the Internet and the Extropy list while in Japan. I was amazed and excited when I found this group and discovered that there were at least a couple hundred people discussing topics I had been considering alone all those years. Talk about intelligent AND unconventional! What I'm preparing to tell you is that for me there is no greater high that gaining a new insight, a new piece to the puzzle that illuminates the pieces one has already gathered, and clarifies the edges of possibility. I welcome and admire the unconventional, but not for unconventionality itself, because some ideas fit the puzzle and work better than others. - Jef From aiguy at comcast.net Thu Mar 9 04:42:10 2006 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:42:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060308085216.024a27c8@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <009101c64333$d4877cc0$74550318@ZANDRA2> Even if abiotic oil is real or there is a lot more oil down there than we previously thought isn't the real limitation on meeting increased oil demand the current small number of world refineries and high cost/long time frame of building new ones? I have not read where the world is building new refineries at a pace which will keep up with world demand. Saudi Arabia has claimed during the recent gas hikes that if they increased oil supply that the refining capacity did not exist to bring the gas prices down. Even the rather minor hurricane disruption last year caused major spikes in gas prices. Add to this the greater risk of terrorist action against the world refineries as evidenced in Saudi Arabia and increased risk of disruption of oil supply due to war in the unstable middle east and the probabilities seem to add up to at least one major disruption in the oil supply before 2010. Add to this the greater risk of more hurricane disruptions in the gulf due to the 30 year hurricane cycle we are starting into. If such an incident occurred though would oil prices go up or down? We would lose partial capacity to process the existing oil currently on oil carriers or existing within the capacity of the oil pipelines. I would anticipate that gas prices would soar but oil prices might actually drop. How could one best invest to capitalize on these combined risks? From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Mar 9 06:05:59 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 22:05:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy , Mass and my mother In-Reply-To: <20060308211843.99487.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060308211843.99487.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mar 8, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Thank you for the insight, when I wrote this I had been learning about > Psionics and tried to incorporate the two. I thought everything in > the universe > has energy and mass (humans) and that interaction with other humans > (not on an emotional level but on an energy level) could simply be > that > gravity could somehow be involved, that's why you meet specific people > at a certain time. Mass/energy and curved space-time about wraps up what the universe is. But what the heck is "psionics"? What Google tells me doesn't look good, bunches of stuff assuming various psychic abilities and that machines can be used to augment same. Nothing to do with science in the lot as far as I can tell. Why would you want to play with that? What the heck is this "energy level"? Is it real energy that we can measure and test or some woolly headed "vibes" or what? What would gravity have to do with meeting this person rather than that person? Do your words mean anything at all? Do you care about whether they have meaning and actually describe how things are and that you can know whether they do or not? If you don't care then this really isn't the place for you. > I used radiation as an example to show that if your not > aware of the energy field between two people, that your association > may > be contamination (warmful, useless ect..). What is "warmful", "ect"? Will you at least bother to proof-read please? You used scientific words to mean nothing at all or something we have no real evidence of. This isn't even justified as metaphor. It is sloppy and useless. If you don't intend to think and write more clearly then please leave as you will only annoy the rest of us. - samantha From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 9 09:14:43 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 01:14:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil news Message-ID: <20060309091443.DAFA857FB0@finney.org> Gary Miller writes: > Even if abiotic oil is real or there is a lot more oil down there than we > previously thought isn't the real limitation on meeting increased oil demand > the current small number of world refineries and high cost/long time frame > of building new ones? > > I have not read where the world is building new refineries at a pace which > will keep up with world demand. There may be some short term refinery capacity shortages but things are probably not as bad as they have been made out to be in some quarters. Western countries are slow to build refineries because they are ugly, polluting monsters and have instead been enhancing capacity at existing refineries. As a result there is a shift to building refineries in the third world and then shipping gasoline and other refined products. Some might characterize this as exporting pollution. Here is an article discussing new refineries in the Middle East: http://www.intertanko.com/tankernews/artikkel.asp?id=10173 "The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, the cartel that controls 40 per cent of the world's oil supplies, plans to increase its refining capacity by almost 6m barrels a day, or 50%, in the next seven years." Current worldwide oil production is about 85m barrels per day so an increase of refinery capacity of 6m barrels a day is a significant improvement. And refineries are being built in other parts of the world as well. > Saudi Arabia has claimed during the recent gas hikes that if they increased > oil supply that the refining capacity did not exist to bring the gas prices > down. Even the rather minor hurricane disruption last year caused major > spikes in gas prices. > > Add to this the greater risk of terrorist action against the world > refineries as evidenced in Saudi Arabia and increased risk of disruption of > oil supply due to war in the unstable middle east and the probabilities seem > to add up to at least one major disruption in the oil supply before 2010. > > Add to this the greater risk of more hurricane disruptions in the gulf due > to the 30 year hurricane cycle we are starting into. Yes, it is probably reasonable to foresee at least occasional supply disruptions. Recently though there has been enough stored capacity to deal with them pretty well. The hurricanes dealt a blow to worldwide oil production but aside from a price spike that lasted about three weeks there was not much long term effect. > If such an incident occurred though would oil prices go up or down? > > We would lose partial capacity to process the existing oil currently on oil > carriers or existing within the capacity of the oil pipelines. > > I would anticipate that gas prices would soar but oil prices might actually > drop. You would think that damage to refineries would have this effect; however in practice oil and gasoline prices usually move together. I have seen two explanations offered for this phenomenon. The first is mere market inertia, that traders expect energy prices to be correlated and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as they all put in trades on that expectation. The second is that even though a refinery outage would produce a temporary drop in oil demand even as gasoline prices soar, soon enough the refineries will be fixed and then the pent-up demand will need to be satisfied. Reserves that were drawn down need to be replenished and postponed consumption must be met. The result is that the temporary oil glut will soon be replaced by heavy demand. Because the oil market is forward looking, it anticipates this effect and incorporates it into today's prices, hence oil does not fall when there is a refinery outage. > How could one best invest to capitalize on these combined risks? Theoretically the markets are already pricing in these risks. Do you think these possibilities for supply disruption are unknown to oil traders and would come as a surprise to them? I doubt it. Nevertheless, you could always speculate, guess when something is going to happen and hope to get a long or short position at just the right time. Or you could hedge, treating the markets as a form of insurance so that an adverse move that costs you at the gas pump is compensated by you making money on the market, and vice versa. Generally, as with other insurance, hedges will cost you money on average, as you are offloading risk to the speculators. Hal From amara at amara.com Thu Mar 9 10:27:24 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:27:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Crazy Wealthy Space Enthusiasts? Message-ID: Neil H. neuronexmachina at gmail.com : >Clark Lindsay's HobbySpace (which is also the base site for RLV News, an >excellent space blog) has pretty much exactly the information you're looking >for, a listing of various millionaires and billionaires who've devoted money >to spaceflight efforts. It's in the "Space Angels" section of this page: >http://www.hobbyspace.com/Active/index.html#Angels Fantastic. Thanks alot, really. It puts into one page the essential information I was seeking for the part of the mission for an alternative way to pay Orbital to finish Dawn. It's a long shot in any case; nonNASA space agencies are the first choice by the project managers because that is the approach that they know best (guessing that this idea is a crazy idea to them too), but I presented an alternative approach about private funding to finish Dawn, if their first choice fails. The number of wealthy-people/genuine-space-geeks listed on that web page investing in space was astounding to me! Put a smile on my face! 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Mar 9 14:46:05 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:46:05 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Housing bubble looking good In-Reply-To: <20060309045123.2C99757FB0@finney.org> References: <20060309045123.2C99757FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603090646ga7aa2f8x36457d9ef7e238f8@mail.gmail.com> On 3/9/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > The overall message from the Times poll was very encouraging, if we > believe in this methodology. Contrary to the doomsayers who get so > much publicity, the consensus opinion among homeowners and potential > homebuyers is that housing prices will continue to rise, probably at a > more moderate rate. Good news. > I'm curious - why do you call it good news? Granted if you yourself own a house it is good for you personally, but overall, inflated house prices are a negative-sum game, an artificial scarcity that transfers money from some people to other people while harming society as a whole. (It is true that high house prices are correlated with general economic growth, but this is as an effect rather than a cause.) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Mar 9 15:28:25 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:28:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:53 PM 2/26/2006 -0800, you wrote: >Keith writes > > > [Hal wrote] > > > > > reasonable heuristic for a rational observer with potentially stringent > > > bounds on his available computational capacity; or whether you see it > > > as irrational behavior in terms of getting at the truth, but justified > > > in terms of other benefits, such as social advantages. > > > > In the last year or two I have been subjected to a dawning horror that > > genes have not only built mechanisms into humans to allow them to think > > rationally, but mechanisms to shut off rational thinking when doing so is > > in the interest of the gene. > >Of course, what you write here is by no means an attack on >rationality, because, as you say, our interests and our genes' >interest at times diverge, and naturally we want what's best for us. It is *much* worse than an attack on rationality. It is an attack on such concepts as "we" and "us," not to mention "I." The unexplained freakin' out of the Libertarians over "Memes, MetaMemes and Politics" is perhaps due to these paragraphs being seen as an attack on the fundamental Libertarian belief that people are (or at least should be) objective and rational. "But a good fraction of the memes that make up human culture fall into the categories of political, philosophical, or religious. A rationale for the spread and persistence for these memes is a much deeper problem. The spread of some memes of these classes at the expense of others is of intense concern to many readers of Reason. If we are to be effective at judging ideas and promoting the spread of ones we think are more rational, it would be useful to understand how memes come about, how they use people to spread, and why the self-interest of the people who spread a meme and the meme's "interest" are not always the same. "Study of these concepts may provide insight into why some ideas are more attractive than others and into what "rational" and "objective" mean. Much of the recent progress in understanding evolution came from a viewpoint shift:biologists started looking at the world from the viewpoint of genes. Because genes influence their own survival (via causal loops) the ones we observe seem as if they were "striving" to be represented by more copies in the next generation. Memes too seem to "strive." Of course, this is metaphor, since neither genes nor memes are conscious. In the process of making more copies of themselves in human minds memes sometimes work at cross purposes with human genes. "At least three different and conflicting viewpoints for determining"rational" and "objective" exist: from the viewpoint of the genes a person carries, from the viewpoint of the memes they carry (or are infected with) and from their conscious mind, shaped by both genes and memes." If any of you can put yourself in the Libertarian mind mode--do you think this is the part of the article that invoked the response to this article that persisted for at least ten years? It is only in the last few days that it has dawned on my how the above would have been seen as an attack. I probably would have offended them less by peeing in the potted plant at their office. So, "we want what's best for us." opens a car of worms. Best for our genes? Best for our memes? Sigh. Best for the "rational" and "objective" person may be darn near lost in the noise if the genes have--for sound reasons--evolved brain mechanisms to depress rational thinking and "partisan" (and war mode) mode memes are activating the mechanism. > > I about half way suspect that non-rational behaviors may > > all have roots in the same evolved brain mechanism. [E.g.] > > humans have capture-bonding mechanisms because of heavy selection. > >Well, I have quite a number of questions, but they boil down to >wondering about all the assaults on rationality. The emphasis >here is different from yours; I take the default hypothesis to >be that evolution knew what it was doing (at least in the EEA), >and that "irrationality" is not ipso-facto a bad thing each time >it's identified. > >The assaults on rationality that come to mind: > >1. (the first one I ever heard of) Schelling's examples of how > it is sometimes very rational to be irrational (the words > here are very problematic, obviously) > >2. general emotional behavior: anger, love, envy, and so forth > surely have evolutionary explanations, and moreover, one > easily sees that the *propensity* to become angry, for > example, in many situations pays dividends > >3. the famous Damasio card experiment in which (as I understand > it) one cannot rationally keep track of so much data, and so > feelings of disfavor towards situations are necessary for > optimal human performance. (I dare say that such brain > processing can literally create a bad taste in one's mouth.) > >4. Gladwell's book "Blink" which I have not read and do not > recommend, but joins the parade of claims that many situations > are best *not* dealt with rationally (e.g. the legend of "The > Marines vs. the Wall-Street brokers) > >and there was, I think, at least one paper at the Society for >Personality and Social Psychology conference held recently that >made the news. It was about the same thing, but I can't find it >right now. I could add one. I never knew "chicken" was studied by game theory people until recently. Apparently ripping the steering wheel off and tossing it out the window is considered a way to win. >How much should these change our perspective? I don't know. EP is a depressing subject, but I can't see any other way to understand what's going on with such events as the "cartoon" meme resulting in hundreds of deaths. ""My contention, simply put, is that the evolutionary approach is the only approach in the social and behavioural sciences that deals with why, in an ultimate sense, people behave as they do. As such, it often unmasks the universal hypocrisies of our species, peering behind self-serving notions about our moral and social values to reveal the darker side of human nature." (Silverman 2003) It may be to late to do anything about the hundreds of millions or billions of deaths event(s) even if everybody understood the EP reasons behind it. Keith Henson From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Mar 9 15:33:06 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 07:33:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical Thinking In-Reply-To: <001801c64327$7b2d26e0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: Olga writes > [Samantha writes] > > [Lee wrote] > > > > > And if one more time I hear religionists or nonbelievers > > > denouncing each other as "irrational" I may lose my supper. > > > *Beliefs* may be irrational; but we need to reserve the > > > criticism of being irrational for people who should be > > > locked up for their own good. > > > Why? > > Their own good? Our own good? And who - in your opinion, Lee - would those > people be? I meant to indicate people whose lives are so dysfunctional that either they realize something is wrong or they're such a menace to others that the inevitable reactions of others will bring them to harm. Nice to hear from you again, Olga, after all this time! Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Mar 9 16:09:18 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:09:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Keith writes > [Lee wrote] > > Of course, what you write here is by no means an attack on > > rationality, because, as you say, our interests and our genes' > > interest at times diverge, and naturally we want what's best for us. > > It is *much* worse than an attack on rationality. It is an attack on such > concepts as "we" and "us," not to mention "I." It seems to me that the *concept* of "us", for example, is clear. It merely needs to be internalized that what is good for us is not necessarily the same thing that is good for our genes or memes. I think that most of us who've read Dawkins understand that. > The unexplained freakin' out of the Libertarians over "Memes, MetaMemes and > Politics" is perhaps due to these paragraphs being seen as an attack on the > fundamental Libertarian belief that people are (or at least should be) > objective and rational. Probably true. I have had no end of difficulty getting people (even three years ago on this list) to doubt the merits of unbridled rationality. Folks here and elsewhere seem to equate rationality with critical thinking, and to continually see those with whom they simply disagree as lacking in rationality. Moreover, (perhaps we agree here) rationality in the absence of moderating emotional and intuitive restraint has been highly oversold, and despite help from Hayek, few seem to be getting the message. Most of the horrors of the twentieth century came from unbridled rationality, e.g., Leninism and Nazism and people's general conviction that they could remold society by the power of reason alone. The French were the first to suffer thusly; they even built a statue to Reason and commenced a sort of worship of same. I call it "hyperrationality". You'd call it "out of control memes" I wager. But the extremism was all very rational. What was missing from their thinking were the traditional feelings for their victims, which they suppressed for abstract goals. > But a good fraction of the memes that make up human culture fall into the > categories of political, philosophical, or religious. A rationale for the > spread and persistence for these memes is a much deeper problem. Of course. My point is that it's too "rational". "Logically, in order to appease the Gods---in which we do believe---we must torture the small children and burn our crops, even if that seems to go against our better judgment." The *hard* problem is identifying when general judgment and intuition *should* be overridden. My tentative answer: there's no general solution, but the burden of proof and experiment must always lie with those advocating strictly rational courses of action. > The spread of some memes of these classes at the expense of others is of > intense concern to many readers of Reason. If we are to be effective at judging > ideas and promoting the spread of ones we think are more rational, *That* is the problem. It's not that the obscurantists have abandoned rational thought---if they did, they'd be easy to defeat---it's that they all too rationally try to defend extremely erroneous points of view. We---you---should stop thinking of our beliefs as more "rational". For example, Intelligent Design is *not* irrational: it's only wrong, and the intuitive and unconscious judgments that give rise to it are religious in nature, i.e., based on false fundamental beliefs about the world. > So, "we want what's best for us." opens a car of worms. Best for our > genes? Best for our memes? But our language (thanks to Dawkins and his advocates) is not the problem. Once one understands the basic claims of memetics, it is clear what "we want what's best for us" to mean. And that's simply because it's (now) obvious that we are not our genes nor our memes. [At this point I listed four limitations to reason:] > > 1. (the first one I ever heard of) Schelling's examples of how > > it is sometimes very rational to be irrational (the words > > here are very problematic, obviously) > > > > 2. general emotional behavior: anger, love, envy, and so forth > > surely have evolutionary explanations, and moreover, one > > easily sees that the *propensity* to become angry, for > > example, in many situations pays dividends > > > > 3. the famous Damasio card experiment in which (as I understand > > it) one cannot rationally keep track of so much data, and so > > feelings of disfavor towards situations are necessary for > > optimal human performance. (I dare say that such brain > > processing can literally create a bad taste in one's mouth.) > > > > 4. Gladwell's book "Blink" which I have not read and do not > > recommend, but joins the parade of claims that many situations > > are best *not* dealt with rationally (e.g. the legend of "The > > Marines vs. the Wall-Street brokers) > > I could add one. I never knew "chicken" was studied by game theory people > until recently. Apparently ripping the steering wheel off and tossing it > out the window is considered a way to win. Yes, it's similar to making a believable threat, e.g., I will retaliate even if it costs me because it will be basically out of my hands (I have thrown away the steering wheel; I am a vengeful person who'll get even even if that's not best for me) Lee From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Mar 9 15:11:00 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 07:11:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil - Meta Message-ID: <20060309151100.37382.qmail@web52606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > > [*] http://users.erols.com/igoddard/wacoflir.htm > > Well, you deserve all the credit for that. The > truth is that my theory was wrong. You came up > with the idea about material on the ground > fluttering in the wind to make things flash, > which explained all the data. That idea addressed the major fact the official report overlooked: some flashes appear at given spots in rapid succession naively resembling machinegun fire, a central axiom of the gunfire theory. It was on a friend's large 3-foot TV screen that I saw a flapping piece of something (also be seen in photos) attached to a fallen wall panel just where the most noted successive flashes appear. The flag also constantly flapped that day. That gets to my point regarding the way to find the truth of fringe claims. That's it and it's as good for *any* claim. If a claim says, "There exists some x such that x has the property A," then go out and find an x as best as you can and see if it's an A. But that may not always be practical for everyone, so your proposed project is probably worthwhile. > Today I wouldn't even try to get into it. This > kind of fringe stuff is too far off the radar to > even be credible enough to pay attention to. But IR professionals are split on the gunshot theory (see my list at link above), which makes it a good example here. The government stuck with those who said they were reflections. So there's no way the average observer could really know whose right without looking at the source data themselves, which I provide at my site and which makes this case an ideal example of needing to examine source data. A CATO report presents what may be the consensus on the Waco FLIR, which says more research is necessary: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa395.pdf . For me, being able to line up the flashes with inanimate objects, and only that, makes the case closed. > I'm sure that was already the case for most people > even back then. And after all, they were right, at > a considerably lower cost than I went through, and > enormously lower than what you had to go through to > get to essentially the same conclusion. Right, but most who believe the experts who say the flashes are not gunshots are doing the same thing as those believing the experts who say gunshots... which is to base their belief on that of others. Second-hand belief. What I'm saying is that it's better to base belief on a first-hand review of source data. But obviously one cannot afford to do that on all matters, so your idea has a necessary niche. But still, when the govt hired Vector Data to examine the FLIR, a report avoiding the enormous expense of a flash-by-flash analysis would not be acceptable. If they'd just taken a vote among FLIR experts (which might be a draw), that would not be acceptable. Ultimately someone has to actually check the source data, and that's not necessary cheap. But to your point, perhaps some way of automated interrogation of http://scholar.google.com might prove useful in your project. That's basically my intuitive response to the question, "What's most likely worth believing regarding topic x." ~Ian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Mar 9 17:14:10 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:14:10 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode References: Message-ID: <008001c6439c$e1ef3fb0$640fa8c0@kevin> When I think of irratinal behaviour, I thing of behaviour that doesn;t make sense in the slightest. For example, every time my daughters go to their mother's house for visitation (I have custody), I hear weird stories like one of her dropping her pants in front of the girls and farting on their face. Or waking the younger one up at 2am and force-feeding her a brownie. She often makes disjointed comments that seem to have no attachment to anything going on at the time. This would make sense if she was just following a line of thought for a bit and then blurted out part of it, but with her, it's stranger than that. For example, you can be talking about the girls needing to brush their teeth and in the middle of the conversation she'll say "That reminds me of my favorite word...hermaphrodite. Do you know what that is?". Of course, she says this about once every 3-4 months. A couple years ago, my youngest was 5 yrs old and she peed in the bed. Her mother picked her up and dropped literally threw her in the bathtub giving her several bruises and a bloody nose. Her way to rationalize it was "she got in a hurry because she was worried about the bed". So I don't think "rational" thought is overrated. Instead, I think it is very common but misunderstood. I think that the accusation of being irrational is overused incorrectly. Most people assume that any two people who make a rational decision would make the same decision and that's not the case. What is rational is always clouded by emotion. Something may be rational and logical for me, but not for you simply because I place a higher level of importance on something. For examle, Is it rational for me to spend $10 on anchovies? Not if I have absolutely no use for them whatsoever. But if I get anything out of it...even just a chance to see the checkout person sneer, then it becomes rationalized in my mind. The look on the person's face is worth the $10 to me and that's all that matters. Someone else would likely call that irrational, but in fact, they mean that it's something that they wouldn't do and they don;t understand my motivation. From hibbert at mydruthers.com Thu Mar 9 17:27:23 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:27:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Housing bubble looking good In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603090646ga7aa2f8x36457d9ef7e238f8@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060309045123.2C99757FB0@finney.org> <8d71341e0603090646ga7aa2f8x36457d9ef7e238f8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4410657B.3070807@mydruthers.com> Russell Wallace asked in response to a Hal Finney posting: > I'm curious - why do you call it good news? Granted if you yourself > own a house it is good for you personally, but overall, inflated > house prices are a negative-sum game, I don't know what Hal's reasons were, but the reason it looks good in general for the economy, is as an alternative to the widespread view of the bubble proponents. The usual intended meaning of the claim that "it's a bubble" is that there's a crash coming. A crash would be very bad for the economy, so indications that the boom will merely slow or will continue are good news in pointing to non-crash scenarios. Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Mar 9 18:37:08 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 10:37:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Housing bubble looking good In-Reply-To: <4410657B.3070807@mydruthers.com> References: <20060309045123.2C99757FB0@finney.org> <8d71341e0603090646ga7aa2f8x36457d9ef7e238f8@mail.gmail.com> <4410657B.3070807@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <20060309183708.GA13340@ofb.net> On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 09:27:23AM -0800, Chris Hibbert wrote: > I don't know what Hal's reasons were, but the reason it looks good in > general for the economy, is as an alternative to the widespread view of > the bubble proponents. The usual intended meaning of the claim that > "it's a bubble" is that there's a crash coming. A crash would be very > bad for the economy, so indications that the boom will merely slow or > will continue are good news in pointing to non-crash scenarios. Or it could mean that an inevitable crash is being postponed for yet longer, to do even more damage when it finally comes. Cf. Japan. I have a friend who follows housing blogs; I think he was reporting things like falling housing sales in California markets. But I don't have cites to give. -xx- Damien X-) From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Mar 9 18:40:19 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 18:40:19 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Housing bubble looking good In-Reply-To: <4410657B.3070807@mydruthers.com> References: <20060309045123.2C99757FB0@finney.org> <8d71341e0603090646ga7aa2f8x36457d9ef7e238f8@mail.gmail.com> <4410657B.3070807@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603091040x537e6017gf60d9a6e5405815c@mail.gmail.com> On 3/9/06, Chris Hibbert wrote: > > I don't know what Hal's reasons were, but the reason it looks good in > general for the economy, is as an alternative to the widespread view of > the bubble proponents. The usual intended meaning of the claim that > "it's a bubble" is that there's a crash coming. A crash would be very > bad for the economy, so indications that the boom will merely slow or > will continue are good news in pointing to non-crash scenarios. > Well, a fall in house prices would in and of itself be good. What's bad is the situation where an economic recession leaves many homeowners unable to pay their inflated mortgages, combined with a fall in prices leading to negative equity, so there's mass defaulting on debt and people ending up in the street. But the more inflated house prices become (relative to per capita GNP), the more likely that scenario is to happen, and the more severe it will be when it does happen; so it still doesn't strike me as good news. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Mar 9 18:50:25 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 10:50:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060309185025.GB13340@ofb.net> On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:28:25AM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > The unexplained freakin' out of the Libertarians over "Memes, MetaMemes and > Politics" is perhaps due to these paragraphs being seen as an attack on the I haven't heard of this. > >The assaults on rationality that come to mind: > > > >1. (the first one I ever heard of) Schelling's examples of how > > it is sometimes very rational to be irrational (the words > > here are very problematic, obviously) > > > >2. general emotional behavior: anger, love, envy, and so forth > > surely have evolutionary explanations, and moreover, one > > easily sees that the *propensity* to become angry, for > > example, in many situations pays dividends Yes. But does jealousy make you happier, or does it serve the purposes of your genes? Does *love* serve your purposes, or those of your genes? May that depend on who you find yourself falling in love with? What *are* your purposes, when it comes down to it? > >3. the famous Damasio card experiment in which (as I understand > > it) one cannot rationally keep track of so much data, and so > > feelings of disfavor towards situations are necessary for > > optimal human performance. (I dare say that such brain > > processing can literally create a bad taste in one's mouth.) > > > >4. Gladwell's book "Blink" which I have not read and do not > > recommend, but joins the parade of claims that many situations > > are best *not* dealt with rationally (e.g. the legend of "The > > Marines vs. the Wall-Street brokers) 5. The Wason card test, where even people trained in logic have trouble giving the right answer to a pretty simple abstract problem, while an isomorphic problem in the language of social cheating (detecting underage drinkers) is easy for everyone to solve. 6. "X and Y add up to $110, Y costs $100 more than X. How much is X?" Reportedly the fast answer even for trained people is "$10", but this effect fades if the total is $233 insstead of $110, say. This may not seem to serious, but I think it may say something about how fast responses (habit, pattern completion) can sideline reasoning. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Mar 9 18:59:27 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 10:59:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical Thinking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060309185927.GC13340@ofb.net> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 06:27:28PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Mar 8, 2006, at 5:46 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > And some people are much more reluctant to admit mistakes than are others; > > some are simply much better at "remaining confused" and not venturing an > > opinion until they've had a great deal of exposure to a new claim or idea > > than are others. > > Different people have different psychological habits and levels of > comfort forming an opinion. Again, how does this say anything about > teachability? "Habits" suggests something modifiable. On the pessimistic side... psychologists seem to have identified a Big 5 of personality traits, of fairly high heritability (50% say, with the other 50% not necessarily being obviously due to parental influence [Pinker, _The Blank Slate]) Extroversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neurosis. If critical thinking abiilities, or potential, were largely a function of one's openness ("I could be wrong") and conscientiousness ("I will check if I am wrong") then teachability might be limited to bringing people up to their potential, with a lot of people having fairly low potential. If this were the case, then genetic screening (let alone engineering, but screening is easier and sufficient) could alter the frequencies of these traits, and thus of critical thinking. -xx- Damien X-) From amara at amara.com Thu Mar 9 19:03:16 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 20:03:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 365 Days of Skywatching (A free downloadable ebook) Message-ID: Beautiful.. and it's free! http://www.universetoday.com/whatsup/ 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 Thu Mar 9 19:16:04 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:16:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: <008001c6439c$e1ef3fb0$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: Kevin writes > When I think of irrational behaviour, I thing of behaviour that doesn't make > sense in the slightest. And that's the way it should be. We need to start restricting what we mean by "rational", and start using only as the opposite of "irrational" as you've just used it. Thanks for the description of your ex's truly irrational behavior. > So I don't think "rational" thought is overrated. Instead, I think it is > very common but misunderstood. I think that the accusation of being > irrational is overused incorrectly. Most people assume that any two people > who make a rational decision would make the same decision and that's not the > case. What is rational is always clouded by emotion. Something may be > rational and logical for me, but not for you simply because I place a higher > level of importance on something. But to address your first point, rational thought frequently *is* overrated. Unless it's tempered by sound judgment and appropriate emotion, it is *EXTREMELY* dangerous as the 20th century profusely illustrated. Your second point---that the term "irrational" is overused---is quite right, but isn't related to whether or not rational thought is overrated. Your third point---that rationality is some kind of common coin and we should not expect that all people to come the same decisions if they merely employ rationality---seems right on to me! But then you make the mistake of attributing that (or so it looks like you said) to the "rational decision" being clouded by emotion. Are you aware that it has been shown that *without* emotion---or without "using your gut" ---rational decision making often results in very poor behavior? Your fourth point---that two people using "rationality" may come to different decisions because their values are different---well, yes, that's so. Al Qaeda strikes me as a rational organization (by which I illustrate yet again the utter pointlessness of speaking like that), but so what? I cannot think of a *single* way in which saying that Al Qaeda is not rational makes any sense. So yes, thanks for pointing out yet another tempting---but wrong---way that people are prone to placing rationality (or Reason) on a pedestal. > For example, Is it rational for me to spend > $10 on anchovies? Not if I have absolutely no use for them whatsoever. But > if I get anything out of it...even just a chance to see the checkout person > sneer, then it becomes rationalized in my mind. The look on the person's > face is worth the $10 to me and that's all that matters. Someone else would > likely call that irrational, but in fact, they mean that it's something that > they wouldn't do and they don't understand my motivation. I agree. But: you bring up "rationalizing", almost a different subject. In brief, rationalizing is sometimes good, sometimes bad. What is always true is the degree to which we fool ourselves into thinking that our after-the-fact rationalizing is the *source* of our take on something. Rationalizing is good when it's used to try to formally review or describe the sense behind our conclusions or feelings, or to illuminate or to try to justify them. Of course, rationalizing seems bad when used in this very way by people we disagree with. Lee From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 9 21:10:16 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 13:10:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Housing bubble looking good Message-ID: <20060309211016.299B057FAF@finney.org> Russell Wallace writes: > I'm curious - why do you call it good news? Granted if you yourself own a > house it is good for you personally, but overall, inflated house prices are > a negative-sum game, an artificial scarcity that transfers money from some > people to other people while harming society as a whole. (It is true that > high house prices are correlated with general economic growth, but this is > as an effect rather than a cause.) That's a good point. I was wrong to offer such a simplistic assessment of the story. In fact my kids will soon be of age to enter the housing market and houses are so overpriced in my area that there is no way they could hope to buy a house around here. Mostly I meant to contrast the poll results with the "doom and gloom" often found in discussions about an upcoming bursting of the housing bubble, often with predicted disastrous consequences. On the web I often read forecasts of collapses in prices, foreclosures, bank failures, collapse of the dollar, stock market crash, etc. It is in comparison to these kinds of predictions that the poll's picture of steady but more moderate housing price rises looked like good news. The relevance to our discussion here is the methodology of believing the consensus view, when there are good reasons to suppose that the sampled population would have an informed opinion. It will be interesting to see whether the poll prediction turns out to be correct, since most of what I read from "experts" seems more skeptical about prices continuing to rise. The prediction of continued Fed rate hikes is another one where the people seem to be somewhat in disagreement with the experts, so that will be worth watching too. Hal From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Mar 9 21:32:38 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 13:32:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Housing bubble looking good In-Reply-To: <20060309211016.299B057FAF@finney.org> References: <20060309211016.299B057FAF@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060309213238.GA14925@ofb.net> On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:10:16PM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > The relevance to our discussion here is the methodology of believing the > consensus view, when there are good reasons to suppose that the sampled > population would have an informed opinion. It will be interesting to By contrast there's the anecdote of the 1929 tycoon who pulled out of the stock market when his shoeshine boy started giving him tips. "No more fools to pull in, time to sell." -xx- Damien X-) From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 9 22:03:00 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:03:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Housing bubble looking good Message-ID: <20060309220300.1742057FAF@finney.org> Damien Sullivan writes: > By contrast there's the anecdote of the 1929 tycoon who pulled out of the > stock market when his shoeshine boy started giving him tips. "No more fools > to pull in, time to sell." I do hear this kind of thing a lot when I tell people about markets. Certainly 1929 is a notorious failure to anticipate the future, and there are many others. I have occasionally seen revisionist analyses which try to show that many infamous market bubbles and failures were actually not as bad as people think, but still it is clear that markets have not done well at forecasting unexpected events. Of course that is a bit tautological since if the events were forecast by the markets, they would have been expected. One book I've been reading is The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385721706/sr=8-1/qid=1141940646/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7320869-9548132?%5Fencoding=UTF8 It's a pretty good book, a bit anecdotal and breezy, but he has some interesting ideas about when "the crowd" can be expected to provide good information and when problems can arise. One way things can go wrong is if people start paying too much attention to the consensus instead of thinking for themselves. For example, suppose you ask a classroom of students to guess how many jelly beans are in a jar. If you have everyone write down their guess and then you average them, they usually come pretty close. It's a big surprise to most of the class, according to Surowiecki. However if you have the first person say his guess out loud, then the next, then the next and so on, the results tend not to be so close. What happens is that people hear what others are guessing, and they mentally adjust their own estimate to take into consideration what everyone else thinks. Suppose by coincidence the first few guessers were too high (or suppose that the teacher has "salted" the class with stooges to make sure this happens!). Then the next few people may revise their guesses upwards a bit, thinking they were too low. The more people do this, the more powerful the effect becomes. The result is that the whole class can become trapped in a false guess just because the first few were off. You can see how this can apply to markets. People don't just make up their own minds, they adjust their opinions when they see what the consensus is. In fact the other day I argued that from a certain point of view, rationality almost forces this. But, the unfortunate thing is that if this happens too much, the market won't work well. If everyone just agreed with the market price, then the price would have no connection to reality. So ironically, for markets to work right, people have to partially ignore the information they get from the market. Markets ultimately depend on people being irrational in this sense. This can provide an explanation for market bubbles and crashes, where people were relying too much on information from the market price itself and not bringing enough of their own insights and information from the rest of the world into the market. The market will consolidate and integrate all the information available, but only if people bring that information to the market. The good thing is that the market constantly dangles that carrot out there of great riches, if you do have some private information that contradicts the market consensus. So people still have incentives to take positions based on their information and move that market price in the way it ought to go. The question is whether this incentive is strong enough to overcome the tendency to be fooled by an apparent market consensus. Hal From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Mar 9 22:04:51 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 17:04:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309154458.02c73c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:09 AM 3/9/2006 -0800, you wrote: >Keith writes > > [Lee wrote] > > > Of course, what you write here is by no means an attack on > > > rationality, because, as you say, our interests and our genes' > > > interest at times diverge, and naturally we want what's best for us. > > > > It is *much* worse than an attack on rationality. It is an attack on such > > concepts as "we" and "us," not to mention "I." > >It seems to me that the *concept* of "us", for example, is clear. It sure isn't for me. >It merely needs to be internalized that what is good for us is >not necessarily the same thing that is good for our genes or >memes. I can't even set up a hierarchy. Our hardware was shaped by genes. We don't yet and may never appreciate how deeply this influences us. What would we be without memes? Not even as well off the chimpanzees. And this war business . . . if I am right external environment signals flip an evolved behavioral switch that changes the gain on a class of memes. In the EEA was that good for us? Almost certainly or it would not have evolved. If it isn't good for us today (and you could argue either way) what can we (at the society or species level) do about it? Can you picture the people in power in the US today understanding this? It would be seen as an attack by the godless evolutionists! They would probably react worst than the Libertarians did to my meme article if they ever heard about it. >I think that most of us who've read Dawkins understand that. I am not so sure Dawkins understood it. > > The unexplained freakin' out of the Libertarians over "Memes, MetaMemes > and > > Politics" is perhaps due to these paragraphs being seen as an attack on > the > > fundamental Libertarian belief that people are (or at least should be) > > objective and rational. > >Probably true. I have had no end of difficulty getting people (even three >years ago on this list) to doubt the merits of unbridled rationality. Heck, I have doubts about rationality being much of a factor in human thinking at all. >Folks >here and elsewhere seem to equate rationality with critical thinking, and to >continually see those with whom they simply disagree as lacking in >rationality. Chances are both sides are operating in "partisan mode." >Moreover, (perhaps we agree here) rationality in the absence of moderating >emotional and intuitive restraint has been highly oversold, and despite >help from Hayek, few seem to be getting the message. Most of the horrors >of the twentieth century came from unbridled rationality, e.g., Leninism >and Nazism and people's general conviction that they could remold society >by the power of reason alone. Reason when you don't have knowledge is a non-starter. It was simply impossible to reason correctly about chemistry when chemistry concepts included the philosopher's stone or phlogiston. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philospher%27s_stone There is no chance you could "remold society by the power of reason alone" lacking a really good understanding of the humans who make up society. I don't think our knowledge is up to the task today, but we can look back and state with a great deal of confidence that nobody in the previous century had the knowledge to remold society any more than a 10th century alchemist could have sequenced DNA. >The French were the first to suffer thusly; >they even built a statue to Reason and commenced a sort of worship of same. >I call it "hyperrationality". > >You'd call it "out of control memes" I wager. But the extremism was all >very rational. What was missing from their thinking were the traditional >feelings for their victims, which they suppressed for abstract goals. Erk. I suggest you read Azar Gat's article on primitive warfare. I think that will convince you that there is no such thing as "traditional feelings for their victims," at least not for humans in hunter gatherer groups. The "abstract goals" you mention are really xenophobic class memes that served to synch up the warriors to kill. People may claim they were rational, but that does not make it so. On the other hand, I can believe they were rationalized by "twirling the cognitive kaleidoscope" and calling it reasoning. > > But a good fraction of the memes that make up human culture fall into the > > categories of political, philosophical, or religious. A rationale for the > > spread and persistence for these memes is a much deeper problem. > >Of course. My point is that it's too "rational". "Logically, in order >to appease the Gods---in which we do believe---we must torture the >small children and burn our crops, even if that seems to go against >our better judgment." Part you are quoting was written almost 20 years go. I think I have a handle on the "much deeper perblem." >The *hard* problem is identifying when general judgment and intuition >*should* be overridden. My tentative answer: there's no general solution, >but the burden of proof and experiment must always lie with those >advocating strictly rational courses of action. > > > The spread of some memes of these classes at the expense of others is of > > intense concern to many readers of Reason. If we are to be effective at > judging > > ideas and promoting the spread of ones we think are more rational, > >*That* is the problem. It's not that the obscurantists have abandoned >rational thought---if they did, they'd be easy to defeat---it's that >they all too rationally try to defend extremely erroneous points of >view. We---you---should stop thinking of our beliefs as more "rational". >For example, Intelligent Design is *not* irrational: it's only wrong, >and the intuitive and unconscious judgments that give rise to it are >religious in nature, i.e., based on false fundamental beliefs about >the world. I am not going to defend the state of my understanding 20 years ago. > > So, "we want what's best for us." opens a car of worms. Best for our > > genes? Best for our memes? > >But our language (thanks to Dawkins and his advocates) is not >the problem. Once one understands the basic claims of memetics, >it is clear what "we want what's best for us" to mean. And >that's simply because it's (now) obvious that we are not our >genes nor our memes. If I threw out an estimate that we are 45% genes and 55% memes that does not leave much "us." Consider your computer. It definitely has a "spirit" you interact with. And yet the hardware, software and its "experience" (accumulated files) is ever bit of it. If you can show me that humans are in some way a different class, I would be most appreciative. Point being, I understand the facts, but can't sort it out. I don't even have an idea of where to start. I suspect that this is one of that class of questions where it is better not to ask. snip Best wishes, Keith Henson From sentience at pobox.com Fri Mar 10 00:12:57 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 16:12:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Housing bubble looking good In-Reply-To: <20060309220300.1742057FAF@finney.org> References: <20060309220300.1742057FAF@finney.org> Message-ID: <4410C489.7030505@pobox.com> Hal Finney wrote: > > You can see how this can apply to markets. People don't just make > up their own minds, they adjust their opinions when they see what > the consensus is. In fact the other day I argued that from a certain > point of view, rationality almost forces this. But, the unfortunate > thing is that if this happens too much, the market won't work well. > If everyone just agreed with the market price, then the price would have > no connection to reality. So ironically, for markets to work right, > people have to partially ignore the information they get from the market. > Markets ultimately depend on people being irrational in this sense. > > This can provide an explanation for market bubbles and crashes, where > people were relying too much on information from the market price itself > and not bringing enough of their own insights and information from the > rest of the world into the market. The market will consolidate and > integrate all the information available, but only if people bring that > information to the market. > > The good thing is that the market constantly dangles that carrot out there > of great riches, if you do have some private information that contradicts > the market consensus. So people still have incentives to take positions > based on their information and move that market price in the way it > ought to go. The question is whether this incentive is strong enough to > overcome the tendency to be fooled by an apparent market consensus. If people take into account both private information and market information in setting their own buying and selling prices, but have (a) no ability to consciously untangle the difference, (b) logarithmic utility functions, and (c) generally poorer private information than the aggregate market information; then you can see how markets would be systematically inaccurate in the direction of "common wisdom" yet people would be unable to take advantage of this because of being unable to untangle their private opinions from the market wisdom, and hence, unable to detect any great divergences. Which implies that Peak Oilers are necessarily irrational (a different matter from being necessarily wrong) because they are acting as if they know specifically that a market price setting is the result of irrational consensus. And yet we would not be able to trust the markets to say that there would *not* be Peak Oil. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Mar 10 03:30:21 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:30:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: <20060309185025.GB13340@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien writes > > >2. general emotional behavior: anger, love, envy, and so forth > > > surely have evolutionary explanations, and moreover, one > > > easily sees that the *propensity* to become angry, for > > > example, in many situations pays dividends > > Yes. But does jealousy make you happier, or does it serve the purposes of > your genes? I would say that it can easily accomplish both. It might, for example, help retain a mate by motivating you to fight for a exclusive relationship with him/her, and, if you are successful, increase your happiness that way. You suffer, on the other hand, if either the jealousy is too weak to provoke you to take action, or the action fails. Now, not surprisingly, culture plays a strong role. I bet that in some cultures men enjoy being jealous (probably because the odds of them gaining eventual satisfaction are so great). In ours, it probably causes more pain than happiness. > Does *love* serve your purposes, or those of your genes? > May that depend on who you find yourself falling in love > with? To this question I wouldn't be able to give any more than the preceding kind of answer. > What *are* your purposes, when it comes down to it? I'm sure that I speak for many when I say that my immortal purposes involve doing away with my genes altogether. So it doesn't matter what *my* purposes are. The important question is "Have the human genes made a TERRIFIC mistake, not only in immolating themselves, but in destroying all DNA on Earth?" Most likely answer is "Yes, they have." Because the odds are very against humanity just simply puttering along in its present bio-form for much longer. Thanks especially for your second example below, I hadn't heard of it. But I am really after examples of "excess" rationality, i.e., where, objectively speaking, raw rationality fails. Lee > 5. The Wason card test, where even people trained in logic have trouble > giving the right answer to a pretty simple abstract problem, while an > isomorphic problem in the language of social cheating (detecting underage > drinkers) is easy for everyone to solve. > > 6. "X and Y add up to $110, Y costs $100 more than X. How much is X?" > Reportedly the fast answer even for trained people is "$10", but this effect > fades if the total is $233 instead of $110, say. This may not seem to > serious, but I think it may say something about how fast responses (habit, > pattern completion) can sideline reasoning. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Mar 10 03:42:27 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:42:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical Thinking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Samantha writes > On Mar 8, 2006, at 5:46 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > This month's Skeptical Inquirer has a very fine article > > titled "Critical Thinking, What is it good for? > ... > > He finally comes around to The Claim, to wit, that we > > must be better at teaching critical thinking. But I very > > seriously doubt that it can be taught! > > On what do you base this doubt? See my next paragraph > > By their natures, it seems (speaking in the identical > > twin sense), some people are more judicious than others, > > that is, capable of more carefully and objectively > > weighing evidence. > > This "seeming" seems to be stating only that we observe that some > people of equal training or lack of it in critical thinking exhibit > unequal levels of same. This says nothing about whether critical > thinking is teachable. I was emphasizing *natures* in the essentialist sense that for (mostly genetic) reasons some people are more judicious than others (poorly written, perhaps but I thought that the clue "identical twin sense" would carry it). > If critical thinking can be shown to > be useful and the components essential to critical thinking can be > identified along with techniques to deploy them and this information > and these techniques can be learned then I see no basis for "serious > doubt". Well, that's a big *if*. I was saying, "I don't think so." > > (Claiming that critical thinking can be taught reminds > > me very much of the arrogant believe that *we* are so > > superior that *we* can rehabilitate criminals, but not > > they, us.) > > What? Surely this adds nothing to your thesis and is at best a > useless diversion. I see a strong parallel: "teaching criminals to change their tendencies" is as difficult---I claim---as changing people to become critical thinkers. As Gibbon said, "The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous." You'll only succeed teaching people who want to learn. > > And if one more time I hear religionists or nonbelievers > > denouncing each other as "irrational" I may lose my supper. > > *Beliefs* may be irrational; but we need to reserve the > > criticism of being irrational for people who should be > > locked up for their own good. > > Why? Because religious people may be just as rational as I. They're simply wrong. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Mar 10 04:15:31 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 20:15:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309154458.02c73c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Keith H. writes > [Lee writes] > > > It seems to me that the *concept* of "us", for example, is clear. > > It sure isn't for me. > > > It merely [sic] needs to be internalized that what is good > > for us is not necessarily the same thing as what is good for > > our genes or memes. > > I can't even set up a hierarchy. Our hardware was shaped by genes. We > don't yet and may never appreciate how deeply this influences us. What > would we be without memes? Not even as well off the chimpanzees. So far as *genes* go, here is what I submit "us" means: "we" are defined by our most carefully articulated wishes. Example: our New Year's Resolutions are about *our* goals; what we really end up doing, of course, can easily be what the genes want. Thus I am able to clearly distinguish between me and my genes. (Hey, that was easy!) So far as *memes* go, I concede the question to be VASTLY more difficult. But let me take a swipe as follows. The point boils down to this: can we meaningfully say that a given person was harmed when he contracted a certain meme or set of memes? Operationally---although we might require a time-machine to determine it with any certainty---I think that it *is* meaningful: Step 1: we identify the person *with* the state he or she was in just prior to the meme infestation. Step 2: we record the change in circumstances and state of the person that follows (in other words, we record a history of the person during an appropriate time interval following the infestation) Step 3: we take this history back in time to before the meme onslaught, and compel the person to spend a great deal of time evaluating the transformation, and get him or her to make a careful assessment of its value. If the person's verdict is that this was good for him/her, then that's what we must go with. Inapplicable example: a person is raised on a certain set of memes, and so in principle there is no "prior person" to consult, at least without doing great violence to the notion of the person's identity. Thus, for instance, a fifty-year-old Hare Krishna who came down with those memes in his early teens cannot be distinguished from them. Thanks for the very thought-provoking way you've put the question. Lee From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 10 04:10:55 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 20:10:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] 365 Days of Skywatching (A free downloadable ebook) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603100445.k2A4jdbp012151@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Subject: [extropy-chat] 365 Days of Skywatching (A free downloadable > ebook) > > Beautiful.. and it's free! > > http://www.universetoday.com/whatsup/ > > Amara Cool! This is the coolest freeware since Google Earth. Here's a thought: in all history there have been free things available, public libraries and such. But in all history, there has never before been so many so cool free things as now: the internet, Google, Google Earth, email, chat groups. Ahhhh, life is goooood. {8-] spike From tankdoc at adelphia.net Fri Mar 10 05:16:08 2006 From: tankdoc at adelphia.net (tankdoc) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:16:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] 365 Days of Skywatching (A free downloadableebook) References: <200603100445.k2A4jdbp012151@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000601c64401$bd86ec30$50efa745@firstbase> Spike said > Cool! This is the coolest freeware since Google Earth. > > Here's a thought: in all history there have been free things available, > public libraries and such. But in all history, there has never before > been > so many so cool free things as now: the internet, Google, Google Earth, > email, chat groups. Ahhhh, life is goooood. > > {8-] spike I've always disliked the term freeware, I prefer donatedware, since it isn't really free, someone has paid for it. Back to lurker mode. Jerry Imbriale From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 06:05:37 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:05:37 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: References: <20060309185025.GB13340@ofb.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603092205r14cbb582q1ed24820f468d926@mail.gmail.com> On 3/10/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I'm sure that I speak for many when I say that my immortal > purposes involve doing away with my genes altogether. So > it doesn't matter what *my* purposes are. The important > question is "Have the human genes made a TERRIFIC mistake, > not only in immolating themselves, but in destroying all > DNA on Earth?" Most likely answer is "Yes, they have." > Because the odds are very against humanity just simply > puttering along in its present bio-form for much longer. > And there I disagree. The odds were always against that, and are especially so if we fail to reach Singularity; and if nothing else, the sun would autoclave the biosphere in a few hundred million years anyway. I don't care so much about the technology of information storage on deoxyribonucleic acid per se, but if I have any say in the matter (which I may not, but the odds are at least a little better than if we'd never come down from the trees), the essential part of the information carried in our genes will outlive the stars themselves. Doesn't sound like a mistake to me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Mar 10 08:49:29 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:49:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603092205r14cbb582q1ed24820f468d926@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > On 3/10/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I'm sure that I speak for many when I say that my immortal > > purposes involve doing away with my genes altogether. So > > it doesn't matter what *my* purposes are. The important > > question is "Have the human genes made a TERRIFIC mistake, > > not only in immolating themselves, but in destroying all > > DNA on Earth?" Most likely answer is "Yes, they have." > > Because the odds are very against humanity just simply > > puttering along in its present bio-form for much longer. > > And there I disagree. The odds were always against that, > and are especially so if we fail to reach Singularity; > and if nothing else, the sun would autoclave the biosphere > in a few hundred million years anyway. I don't care so > much about the technology of information storage on > deoxyribonucleic acid per se, but if I have any say in > the matter (which I may not, but the odds are at least > a little better than if we'd never come down from the > trees), the essential part of the information carried > in our genes will outlive the stars themselves. Doesn't > sound like a mistake to me. We're operating on different levels. I'm thinking biology: Gene: The fundamental physical and functional unit of heredity. A gene is an ordered sequence of nucleotides located in a particular position on a particular chromosome that encodes a specific functional product (ie, a protein or RNA molecule). Those things---in the sense that they're "selfish" a la Dawkins---have made an awful mistake that greatly imperils their survival. You're evidently thinking of our genes' collective hypothesis that there is a niche for a thinking general purpose creature. Indeed, the algorithms and propensities that the human genes have created (what you're calling the essential part of the information) entertain a good chance of scoring really big in this universe. Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 10 07:58:44 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:58:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309154458.02c73c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310002446.02c976b8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:15 PM 3/9/2006 -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: >Keith H. writes > > > [Lee writes] > > > > > It seems to me that the *concept* of "us", for example, is clear. > > > > It sure isn't for me. > > > > > It merely [sic] needs to be internalized that what is good > > > for us is not necessarily the same thing as what is good for > > > our genes or memes. > > > > I can't even set up a hierarchy. Our hardware was shaped by genes. We > > don't yet and may never appreciate how deeply this influences us. What > > would we be without memes? Not even as well off the chimpanzees. > >So far as *genes* go, here is what I submit "us" means: "we" are >defined by our most carefully articulated wishes. Example: our >New Year's Resolutions are about *our* goals; what we really end >up doing, of course, can easily be what the genes want. Thus I >am able to clearly distinguish between me and my genes. (Hey, that >was easy!) And to what extent is what you want shaped by your genes? Just because you fail to carry out a New Year's Resolution doesn't mean that making it is not the outcome of genes. I can't *think* of a likely resolution that does not make sense in genetic terms. >So far as *memes* go, I concede the question to be VASTLY more >difficult. But let me take a swipe as follows. > >The point boils down to this: can we meaningfully say that a given >person was harmed when he contracted a certain meme or set of memes? >Operationally---although we might require a time-machine to determine >it with any certainty---I think that it *is* meaningful: > >Step 1: we identify the person *with* the state he or she was in > just prior to the meme infestation. > >Step 2: we record the change in circumstances and state of the > person that follows (in other words, we record a history > of the person during an appropriate time interval > following the infestation) > >Step 3: we take this history back in time to before the meme > onslaught, and compel the person to spend a great deal > of time evaluating the transformation, and get him or > her to make a careful assessment of its value. > >If the person's verdict is that this was good for him/her, then >that's what we must go with. I hate to throw cold water on this scheme, but the machine (brain) you are using to are using to make the measurement was constructed by genes, not to mention that we don't have a way to rewind lives like video tape. This reminds me of the event ten years ago at one of Howard Davidson's parties that started me down the EP pathway. (Apologies to Natasha) A woman, dark hair, mid 30s or so, knew that I was tangling with the scientology cult. She was out of it by that time, but her mystified comment to me was that while she knew now that scientology was bs, her time in the cult had been the peak experience of her life. I now know several people who bailed out after 30 years in the cult! For a *long* time they thought they were doing the right thing. (Drug addicts are usually more honest than cult addicts.) >Inapplicable example: a person is raised on a certain set of memes, >and so in principle there is no "prior person" to consult, at least >without doing great violence to the notion of the person's identity. >Thus, for instance, a fifty-year-old Hare Krishna who came down with >those memes in his early teens cannot be distinguished from them. Even people raised all their lives in some cult or religion sometimes get out. How much is both getting in and getting out dependant on genes? I can't say but drug addiction which uses the same brain circuits is known to be very much controlled by genes. >Thanks for the very thought-provoking way you've put the question. Glad you like it. `` On another thread you mentioned modesty. That is tied into the same EP model as cult addiction and drug addiction in that people are set up by their evolved brain modules to seek status. Status is more or less the integral of attention. In the EEA social status was highly correlated with reproductive success so it is easy to account for the brain mechanisms being selected. But the problem is you can't be *seen* as by the other social primates as blatantly seeking social status. Robert Wright goes into considerable detail using Darwin as an example in Moral Animal. I don't entirely understand why this evolved, but it is a powerful mechanism designed to punish those who are too blatant about seeking social status. You will get punished in a lot of social situations if you just admit that you *are* a typical social primate and thus seeking social status is on your agenda just like every one else--even if you and other people are not consciously aware of the motivation. Back when the cults/drugs/attention/status EP model was first dawning on me I put this observation in some Usenet postings. They were used by the cult attacking me in court and later cited by the judge. There is no more spectacular example I can think of for status seeking than a federal judge. Given what they could make as a partner in a big law firm, the status of being a federal judge is typically costing them $500,000 a year in lost income. There would be more humor in this if it had not cost me at least $250,000 and made me a refugee/fugitive. Keith >Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 10 09:46:22 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:46:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1B98ADA5-B475-4062-B742-278534EE26EF@mac.com> On Mar 9, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Probably true. I have had no end of difficulty getting people > (even three > years ago on this list) to doubt the merits of unbridled > rationality. Folks > here and elsewhere seem to equate rationality with critical > thinking, and to > continually see those with whom they simply disagree as lacking in > rationality. > It depends a lot on how "rationality" is being defined, doesn't it. I don't equate as an equality rationality with critical thinking. Critical thinking is a tool used in service of rationality but it is not equivalent to rationality. All of us have seen critical thinking be used in service of the decidedly irrational also, I imagine. > Moreover, (perhaps we agree here) rationality in the absence of > moderating > emotional and intuitive restraint has been highly oversold, and > despite > help from Hayek, few seem to be getting the message. I cannot agree without a great deal better agreement on what is meant by "rationality". > Most of the horrors > of the twentieth century came from unbridled rationality, e.g., > Leninism > and Nazism and people's general conviction that they could remold > society > by the power of reason alone. That is a blatant falsehood. Lenin and subsequent party doctrine distrusted rationality and twisted away from objective reality into proletarian vs. bourgeois truth. Reason was seen as a weapon in service of a separate truth only, not as a guide to rational goals or action in the context of an objective reality. The Nazi party rose to power on faith in "blood", in instinct and distrust of reason. > > You'd call it "out of control memes" I wager. But the extremism was > all > very rational. What was missing from their thinking were the > traditional > feelings for their victims, which they suppressed for abstract goals. > No, it was not "very rational". This is too glaring an error for me to follow the rest of this post. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 10 09:31:13 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:31:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > The unexplained freakin' out of the Libertarians over "Memes, > MetaMemes and > Politics" is perhaps due to these paragraphs being seen as an > attack on the > fundamental Libertarian belief that people are (or at least should be) > objective and rational. > What freakin' out was that? I find such rather irrelevant myself besides the annoyance of a contrived debunking using dubious analysis. Libertarians as a group have no fundamental belief that people are or should be objective and rational. That is not a definitive belief of libertarians. What made you think that it is? > "But a good fraction of the memes that make up human culture fall > into the > categories of political, philosophical, or religious. A rationale > for the > spread and persistence for these memes is a much deeper problem. > The spread > of some memes of these classes at the expense of others is of intense > concern to many readers of Reason. If we are to be effective at > judging > ideas and promoting the spread of ones we think are more rational, > it would > be useful to understand how memes come about, how they use people to > spread, and why the self-interest of the people who spread a meme > and the > meme's "interest" are not always the same. > We need a better way to speak about this than to impute an "interest" to either a meme or a gene. I know what you mean but the wording bogs down the discussion imho. > "Study of these concepts may provide insight into why some ideas > are more > attractive than others and into what "rational" and "objective" > mean. Much > of the recent progress in understanding evolution came from a > viewpoint > shift:biologists started looking at the world from the viewpoint of > genes. This seems a bit over the top. EP for instance is about a lot more than "the viewpoint of the genes". > Because genes influence their own survival (via causal loops) the > ones we > observe seem as if they were "striving" to be represented by more > copies in > the next generation. Memes too seem to "strive." Of course, this is > metaphor, since neither genes nor memes are conscious. In the > process of > making more copies of themselves in human minds memes sometimes > work at > cross purposes with human genes. > > "At least three different and conflicting viewpoints for > determining"rational" and "objective" exist: from the viewpoint of the > genes a person carries, from the viewpoint of the memes they carry > (or are > infected with) and from their conscious mind, shaped by both genes > and memes." > You first say that genes and memes are not conscious and these "viewpoints" etc. are metaphorical then you purport to redefine rational and even objective in terms of these metaphors. I don't derive much real meaning from this. Care to try again? We already know humans and any evolved intelligent creature is subject to genes and memes. How does this change what is and isn't objectively real? How does it change what is and isn't the best choice in a particular situation for the benefit of the person or persons? > If any of you can put yourself in the Libertarian mind mode--do you > think > this is the part of the article that invoked the response to this > article > that persisted for at least ten years? You are asking people to guess at something you purport to be the case from ten years ago and say whether they think it is "explained" by this dubious attribution of a shared common belief of all/most libertarians? Why? > ""My contention, simply put, is that the evolutionary approach is > the only > approach in the social and behavioural sciences that deals with > why, in an > ultimate sense, people behave as they do. As such, it often unmasks > the > universal hypocrisies of our species, peering behind self-serving > notions > about our moral and social values to reveal the darker side of human > nature." (Silverman 2003) > It may be to late to do anything about the hundreds of millions or > billions > of deaths event(s) even if everybody understood the EP reasons > behind it. > Do you have any positive tools from your study of EP beyond dark understanding of the seeming inevitability of it all? How can we unprogram, reprogram or channel our programming into less disastrous outcomes? - samantha From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Mar 10 10:04:14 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:04:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update References: <20060309220300.1742057FAF@finney.org> Message-ID: <003601c6442a$866f63c0$0200a8c0@Nano> Hello friends, a good update on Jims current condition awaits here: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/2006/03/day-106.html 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 sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 10 09:59:48 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:59:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical Thinking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A812E59-3270-4759-8269-90E46E4CC916@mac.com> On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Samantha writes > >>> By their natures, it seems (speaking in the identical >>> twin sense), some people are more judicious than others, >>> that is, capable of more carefully and objectively >>> weighing evidence. >> >> This "seeming" seems to be stating only that we observe that some >> people of equal training or lack of it in critical thinking exhibit >> unequal levels of same. This says nothing about whether critical >> thinking is teachable. > > I was emphasizing *natures* in the essentialist sense that > for (mostly genetic) reasons some people are more judicious > than others (poorly written, perhaps but I thought that > the clue "identical twin sense" would carry it). > It doesn't and my objection was not answered by this response. >> If critical thinking can be shown to >> be useful and the components essential to critical thinking can be >> identified along with techniques to deploy them and this information >> and these techniques can be learned then I see no basis for "serious >> doubt". > > Well, that's a big *if*. I was saying, "I don't think so." > We know critical thinking is useful. We have identified aspects of critical thinking. I have several books on my shelfs that attempt this and have exercise to teach such techniques. So where is the basis for your doubt or claim that this is "a big if"? >>> (Claiming that critical thinking can be taught reminds >>> me very much of the arrogant believe that *we* are so >>> superior that *we* can rehabilitate criminals, but not >>> they, us.) >> >> What? Surely this adds nothing to your thesis and is at best a >> useless diversion. > > I see a strong parallel: "teaching criminals to change their > tendencies" is as difficult---I claim---as changing people to > become critical thinkers. As Gibbon said, "The power of > instruction is seldom of much efficacy except in those > happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous." You'll > only succeed teaching people who want to learn. Claims without backing beyond assertion don't make for good discussion. - samantha From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Mar 10 11:05:04 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:05:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310002446.02c976b8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Keith H. writes > [Lee wrote] > > So far as *genes* go, here is what I submit "us" means: "we" are > > defined by our most carefully articulated wishes. Example: our > > New Year's Resolutions are about *our* goals; what we really end > > up doing, of course, can easily be what the genes want. Thus I > > am able to clearly distinguish between me and my genes. (Hey, that > > was easy!) > > And to what extent is what you want shaped by your genes? Oh, I concede that point entirely. Who *I* am has been greatly shaped by my genes. Nonetheless, here I am, and I'm ready to cause destruction of all those genetic sources. Memes are harder: > > The point boils down to this: can we meaningfully say that a given > > person was harmed when he contracted a certain meme or set of memes? > > Operationally---although we might require a time-machine to determine > > it with any certainty---I think that it *is* meaningful: > > > > Step 1: we identify the person *with* the state he or she was in > > just prior to the meme infestation. > > > > Step 2: we record the change in circumstances and state of the > > person that follows... > > > > Step 3: we take this history back in time to before the meme > > onslaught, and [get a judgment about it from the person] > > I hate to throw cold water on this scheme, but the machine (brain) you are > using to are using to make the measurement was constructed by genes, Yes, but so what? Frankenstein destroyed its creator too. What I am is a set of dispositions, preferences, values, beliefs, and attitudes. Change enough of those things and I'm someone else. Genes just want to make more copies of themselves; I'm a trial balloon for doing so. > not to mention that we don't have a way to rewind lives like video tape. The above steps establish only that there is a definite ideal truth to the matter, and that we're not chasing shadows. Suppose a middle- aged man moves from a secure job in Nebraska to a novel environment in California. He *can* cogently discuss, later on, whether that was a good idea or not. Likewise, to take a relatively black and white case, if an adult becomes suddenly intoxicated by the memes of your favorite cult, his friends and family *can* cogently discuss whether this change for him was good in the light of his prior values. But that is a relatively simple black and white case; we have the person "before" and a possibly different person "after". The hard cases are those in which an individual would meet the approval of former selves (to the degree that they were able to understand him). In those cases, isn't the person and his meme-set largely to be identified as the same entity? > I now know several people who bailed out after 30 years in the cult! > For a *long* time they thought they were doing the right thing. By what lights do we say that they weren't doing the right thing? My answer is to inquire what would be the expected outcome of a debate across time between the devotee and his later skeptical self. In the usual case, I gather, no agreement would be reached. Can we say that they're different people? I'd say so! Anyway, when the person prior to any involvement is hypothetically brought into the debate, whose side would he end up on? If with the later skeptic, we may say that the infusion of cult memes was bad for the original person, i.e., counter to his values. > Even people raised all their lives in some cult or religion sometimes get > out. How much is both getting in and getting out dependant on genes? I > can't say but drug addiction which uses the same brain circuits is known to > be very much controlled by genes. Your guess is better than mine! My guess would be that this person had a genetic propensity to become involved in cults and another genetic tendency to be too open to memes in the first place. This latter openness both helped him break out as well as permitted him to fall victim in the first place. Prediction: identical twin studies will back up my (hardly original) claim. > You will get punished in a lot of social situations if you just admit that > you *are* a typical social primate and thus seeking social status is > on your agenda just like every one else--even if you and other people are > not consciously aware of the motivation. It *is* too bad that candor and honesty were so rarely selected for in the EEA. Probably the people on this list go out of their way to praise them. Lee From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Mar 10 12:39:51 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 07:39:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update In-Reply-To: <003601c6442a$866f63c0$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <20060309220300.1742057FAF@finney.org> <003601c6442a$866f63c0$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <58835.72.236.102.93.1141994391.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Hello friends, a good update on Jims current condition awaits here: > http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/2006/03/day-106.html > Looks good all 'round! :) Still enjoying salad? Best wishes and high hopes for your future! MB From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 16:31:52 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:31:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ok I get the hint! In-Reply-To: <00e301c6430c$73346540$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <20060308232250.34222.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00e301c6430c$73346540$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: Anna, I agree with Gina. There is nothing wrong with being somewhat different, particularly if one is trying to explain and communicate different thoughts. One of the problems in communicating with people is in recognizing that you are ultimately trying to get the other person to recreate in their mind the equivalent of the neural connections that you have in your mind -- and we are using very cumbersome methods (speaking "symbol, symbol, symbol, ..." to the other person) and hoping that they can develop an understanding similar to that which we have. In the particular case under discussion it looks like you created a logical disconnect among some list members because you were attempting to serve as an interpreter between one "reality" (extropianism/transhumanism) and another reality (based upon 'faith'?) using language (science & physics) which can have problems in both realms. (At least that is my subjective impression based on brief readings of some of the conversation.) The ExI list is a rather rough and tumble environment because most of the people have a strong background in science and rational debate (as well as pick a whole host of other topics). So if one frames a communication which is significantly in departure from the common knowledge base it leads people to "creative"(?) speculation about what the communicator may not understand, be misinterpreting, etc. As a side note, I'm still rather pissed about the general direction the list seems to be taking which is that you can join the "club" if you scored 800's on your SATs at the age of 16 or have a degree from Caltech but god forbid you should walk into the club and demonstrate some ignorance or ideas which conflict with the "club reality". Do not be completely offended Anna, there are at least a few of us here who may wonder how various people connect the dots from time to time are open minded enough to ask whether or not there might be some wisdom in those pathways. Perhaps what we need is an extropy(transhumanist?)-novices list... As things appear now the "club" is never going to transition from a "clique" to a robust educational and transformational vehicle (IMO). If that is true, then there should be warnings and/or messages posted on the mailing list signup pages and in the monthly notices that this isn't "really" about "chatting" unless the chat topic happens to be one which interests the "clique". (if you respond to the last couple of paragraphs, you may want to change the Subject...) Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 10 16:52:48 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:52:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310095941.02cba310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:31 AM 3/10/2006 -0800, samantha wrote: >On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > The unexplained freakin' out of the Libertarians over "Memes, > > MetaMemes and > > Politics" is perhaps due to these paragraphs being seen as an > > attack on the > > fundamental Libertarian belief that people are (or at least should be) > > objective and rational > >What freakin' out was that? http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-February/025367.html Hal was the only one to respond directly. >I find such rather irrelevant myself >besides the annoyance of a contrived debunking using dubious >analysis. Whoh! This is not debunking Libertarians, this is at the meta level trying to understand something about partisan behavior. We have an observed fact: two groups of Libertarians had what can be considered a memetic "allergic" reaction, one that was still influential at Reason when Aaron Lynch's work came out ten years later. >Libertarians as a group have no fundamental belief that >people are or should be objective and rational. That is not a >definitive belief of libertarians. What made you think that it is? You need to distinguish between upper and lower case libertarians. I was not speculating about lower case libertarians, I am one myself and *I* didn't get an allergic reaction to the article. Don't know of any who did. As to "objective and rational" being a underpinning world view for upper case Libertarian, that's the result of knowing a bunch of Libertarians and their less social memetic neighbors Objectivists. It isn't stated, just assumed. I vividly remember (by name) a person who was somewhere toward the Objectivist end of the Libertarian spectrum telling me in 1985 that if it came to a choice between saving his ass and the rest of the world, the rational thing would be for everyone else to die. This seemed wrong at the time, but I didn't have an argument against it. Only after I got deeply into evolutionary psychology did I understand why it was wrong. But, hey, I am far from welded to this explanation--there could be a better one. You might note that the person who asked me to send it to Liberty (Andre Marrou I think) didn't have this reaction. (Or perhaps that makes the case he wasn't enough of a upper case Libertarian.) > > "But a good fraction of the memes that make up human culture fall > > into the > > categories of political, philosophical, or religious. A rationale > > for the > > spread and persistence for these memes is a much deeper problem. > > The spread > > of some memes of these classes at the expense of others is of intense > > concern to many readers of Reason. If we are to be effective at > > judging > > ideas and promoting the spread of ones we think are more rational, > > it would > > be useful to understand how memes come about, how they use people to > > spread, and why the self-interest of the people who spread a meme > > and the > > meme's "interest" are not always the same. > > > >We need a better way to speak about this than to impute an "interest" >to either a meme or a gene. I know what you mean but the wording >bogs down the discussion imho. > > > "Study of these concepts may provide insight into why some ideas > > are more > > attractive than others and into what "rational" and "objective" > > mean. Much > > of the recent progress in understanding evolution came from a > > viewpoint > > shift:biologists started looking at the world from the viewpoint of > > genes. > >This seems a bit over the top. EP for instance is about a lot more >than "the viewpoint of the genes". > > > Because genes influence their own survival (via causal loops) the > > ones we > > observe seem as if they were "striving" to be represented by more > > copies in > > the next generation. Memes too seem to "strive." Of course, this is > > metaphor, since neither genes nor memes are conscious. In the > > process of > > making more copies of themselves in human minds memes sometimes > > work at > > cross purposes with human genes. > > > > "At least three different and conflicting viewpoints for > > determining"rational" and "objective" exist: from the viewpoint of the > > genes a person carries, from the viewpoint of the memes they carry > > (or are > > infected with) and from their conscious mind, shaped by both genes > > and memes." > >You first say that genes and memes are not conscious and these >"viewpoints" etc. are metaphorical then you purport to redefine >rational and even objective in terms of these metaphors. I don't >derive much real meaning from this. Care to try again? We already >know humans and any evolved intelligent creature is subject to genes >and memes. How does this change what is and isn't objectively >real? How does it change what is and isn't the best choice in a >particular situation for the benefit of the person or persons? As I told Lee, I am not going to defend 20 year old writings of mine, especially when they are somewhat out of date to my own understanding of the subject. This was quoted just to try to understand the "allergic" reaction Libertarians had to it many years go. > > If any of you can put yourself in the Libertarian mind mode--do you > > think > > this is the part of the article that invoked the response to this > > article > > that persisted for at least ten years? > >You are asking people to guess at something you purport to be the >case from ten years ago and say whether they think it is "explained" >by this dubious attribution of a shared common belief of all/most >libertarians? Why? Because I am trying to understand something that persisted as a mystery to me for nearly two decades. I *think* my understanding it makes sense, but want to subject it to the analysis of others. After reading about Drew Weston's work, I no longer trust myself in such matters. Now if I had a fMRI scan of my brain while reacting to critical statements about this understanding and could attach it . . . my understanding could *still* be wrong, but at least you would know I had the rational parts of my brain engaged and was not just defending a fixed, partisan set of memes. If you want a deeper level . . . no I won't go there. :-) > > ""My contention, simply put, is that the evolutionary approach is > > the only > > approach in the social and behavioural sciences that deals with > > why, in an > > ultimate sense, people behave as they do. As such, it often unmasks > > the > > universal hypocrisies of our species, peering behind self-serving > > notions > > about our moral and social values to reveal the darker side of human > > nature." (Silverman 2003) > > > It may be to late to do anything about the hundreds of millions or > > billions > > of deaths event(s) even if everybody understood the EP reasons > > behind it. > >Do you have any positive tools from your study of EP beyond dark >understanding of the seeming inevitability of it all? Yes. The situation is analogous to being in a truck hurtling toward a cliff. Apply the brakes! In my war paper I connect the fading out of the IRA to the *Irish women* who a generation ago cut the population growth to where economic growth got ahead of population growth. It is my clam based on EP that this damped down the gain on memes supporting the IRA. Of course this happened long before anyone had a clue about EP. The problem with the situation in much of the Islamic world is like being in a truck doing 70 mph and only 50 feet from the brink. Even if you understand the problem, can you do anything about it? >How can we >unprogram, reprogram or channel our programming into less disastrous >outcomes? I don't know. I am not even certain that my EP based analysis is accurate. More critical thought in this area would sure help. Formal simulation models would also be of great value. If someone would like to collaborate on a model let me know. If this EP based model is correct, and you want to save the current population from a huge die back, then economic growth faster than population growth is the only way I can see to raise the income per capita and shut off war mode. Nanotechnology in the self replicating mode would do that. Can it happen in time? Can we do anything to make it happen faster? Good questions! Thanks, Keith Henson From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 17:29:27 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:29:27 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0603092205r14cbb582q1ed24820f468d926@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603100929y63f8e8d3wec1be235a727682@mail.gmail.com> On 3/10/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > We're operating on different levels. I'm thinking biology: > > Gene: The fundamental physical and functional unit of > heredity. A gene is an ordered sequence of nucleotides > located in a particular position on a particular > chromosome that encodes a specific functional product > (ie, a protein or RNA molecule). > > Those things---in the sense that they're "selfish" a la > Dawkins---have made an awful mistake that greatly imperils > their survival. > > You're evidently thinking of our genes' collective hypothesis > that there is a niche for a thinking general purpose creature. > Indeed, the algorithms and propensities that the human genes > have created (what you're calling the essential part of the > information) entertain a good chance of scoring really big > in this universe. > Well, by "the essential part of the information" I mean something more than the "hypothesis that there is a niche for a thinking general purpose creature". There is a lot of information in the human way of experiencing life, as opposed to that of some unspecified general intelligence. Take the distant future, say 10^14 years, when all the stars will have burned out (though other energy sources such as dark matter annihilation and proton decay may still be available); will genes in the biological sense - sequences of nucleotides coding for proteins - still exist? Unlikely. Will the human way of experiencing life still exist? I hope so. If it does, I will think it meaningful to say our genetic inheritance has survived, in the same sort of way that if my mind is uploaded into an electronic substrate I will say that I have survived even though my neurons have not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Mar 10 18:27:52 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:27:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical Thinking and Rationality (was RE: Humans--non-rational mode) In-Reply-To: <1B98ADA5-B475-4062-B742-278534EE26EF@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha writes > On Mar 9, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I have had no end of difficulty getting > > people (even three years ago on this list) > > to doubt the merits of unbridled rationality. > > Folks here and elsewhere seem to equate > > rationality with critical thinking, and to > > continually see those with whom they simply > > disagree as lacking in rationality. > > It depends a lot on how "rationality" is being defined, doesn't it. > I don't equate as an equality rationality with critical thinking. > Critical thinking is a tool used in service of rationality but it is > not equivalent to rationality. I see rationality as a tool in the service of critical thinking! Surely "critical thinking" is a broader concept---it's a mode of thought. Why don't you agree? Lee From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Mar 10 19:33:59 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:33:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ok I get the hint! References: <20060308232250.34222.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00e301c6430c$73346540$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <01a101c64479$947a4350$640fa8c0@kevin> Anna, Robert has some VERY good points here. I am one of the outsiders. I am not part of the clique and never had the benefit of a college life. Instead, I am entirely self-taught. It is important for you to know that although you are not the genius that some here seem to be, you still have a contribution to make. For example, I would hate to imagine Charles Darwin, med-school drop-out, keeping his ideas to himself. This list has a variety of people from all walks of life. Each of these people has their own talents, and their own problems. You will find that some here suffer from an inability to remain silent. They must point out every thing that doesn;t make perfect sense to them so that they can improve their own self-esteem. This is not altogether bad. In fact, critical review is necessary. But you have to be tough to handle it and learn to use it constructively. You will also find that there are some excellent people here. One I think very highly of is Robert. A couple years ago I threw out the idea of manufacturing meat rather than getting it from animals. Several people proceeded to tell me how ignorant I was and how I needed to go back to school. Robert came to my defense and I was very pleased. Then this article came out last year. http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1098 I felt vindicated. But what is really troubling was that I had let the incident affect my own self-esteem and had went back to lurking for a time. Robert is wonderfully patient and willing to entertain some ideas that are way outside of the mainstream. But at the same time, this leads to a lot of dead-ends. Sometimes I wonder how Robert can research and post on so many different subjects, keep track of his references, and still find time to "feed the trolls" as it is called around here. After this article, I realized that my thoughts are no less important than those of a "genius" and that education can sometimes actually get in the way of real learning. This is not to knock the educational establishment. It is necessary as most of the new science and technology is built on the work of others. In fact, so few breakthroughs come from anywhere else, that it is easy to understand how some are lulled into a belief that their education makes them superior. My advice is to critique your own work before you post it. Make sure it really is something that you are willing to subject to ridicule. Swimming with sharks can be a truly educational, exhilarating, and rewarding experience. Just be careful about the bait that you jump into the shark pit with. Kevin Freels Anna, I agree with Gina. There is nothing wrong with being somewhat different, particularly if one is trying to explain and communicate different thoughts. One of the problems in communicating with people is in recognizing that you are ultimately trying to get the other person to recreate in their mind the equivalent of the neural connections that you have in your mind -- and we are using very cumbersome methods (speaking "symbol, symbol, symbol, ..." to the other person) and hoping that they can develop an understanding similar to that which we have. In the particular case under discussion it looks like you created a logical disconnect among some list members because you were attempting to serve as an interpreter between one "reality" (extropianism/transhumanism) and another reality (based upon 'faith'?) using language (science & physics) which can have problems in both realms. (At least that is my subjective impression based on brief readings of some of the conversation.) The ExI list is a rather rough and tumble environment because most of the people have a strong background in science and rational debate (as well as pick a whole host of other topics). So if one frames a communication which is significantly in departure from the common knowledge base it leads people to "creative"(?) speculation about what the communicator may not understand, be misinterpreting, etc. As a side note, I'm still rather pissed about the general direction the list seems to be taking which is that you can join the "club" if you scored 800's on your SATs at the age of 16 or have a degree from Caltech but god forbid you should walk into the club and demonstrate some ignorance or ideas which conflict with the "club reality". Do not be completely offended Anna, there are at least a few of us here who may wonder how various people connect the dots from time to time are open minded enough to ask whether or not there might be some wisdom in those pathways. Perhaps what we need is an extropy(transhumanist?)-novices list... As things appear now the "club" is never going to transition from a "clique" to a robust educational and transformational vehicle (IMO). If that is true, then there should be warnings and/or messages posted on the mailing list signup pages and in the monthly notices that this isn't "really" about "chatting" unless the chat topic happens to be one which interests the "clique". (if you respond to the last couple of paragraphs, you may want to change the Subject...) Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 10 21:01:20 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:01:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310095941.02cba310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060310095941.02cba310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5F8881E6-B193-4B38-A972-1CCCEEB4BA4A@mac.com> On Mar 10, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > At 01:31 AM 3/10/2006 -0800, samantha wrote: > >> On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >>> >>> The unexplained freakin' out of the Libertarians over "Memes, >>> MetaMemes and >>> Politics" is perhaps due to these paragraphs being seen as an >>> attack on the >>> fundamental Libertarian belief that people are (or at least >>> should be) >>> objective and rational >> >> What freakin' out was that? > > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-February/ > 025367.html > Druids are cool. :-) But I can see a neutral explanation as to why Reason gave the article a pass. It just isn't enough about what they generally publish. Perhaps our evolved proclivity to read signs of larger group approval or disapproval once quite important to our survival leads to a preference for darker explanations. It is a really good article but I wouldn't expect to read it in Reason magazine. I don't know why you got a hostile blast rather than a simple "not interested" from "Liberty". Perhaps one of your religious examples gored that particular person's ox. But all that doesn't explain why it had continued influence and was remembered long afterward. Perhaps people simply overreact to any notion that they are not in control? Dunno. Libertarians as a group aren't unaware of how people can become more or less enslaved to various ideas and notions. It is a puzzle to me. > Hal was the only one to respond directly. > >> I find such rather irrelevant myself >> besides the annoyance of a contrived debunking using dubious >> analysis. > > Whoh! This is not debunking Libertarians, this is at the meta > level trying > to understand something about partisan behavior. We have an > observed fact: > two groups of Libertarians had what can be considered a memetic > "allergic" > reaction, one that was still influential at Reason when Aaron > Lynch's work > came out ten years later. My sincere apologies. I had this confused with another post that I don't have an URL for at the moment. > >> Libertarians as a group have no fundamental belief that >> people are or should be objective and rational. That is not a >> definitive belief of libertarians. What made you think that it is? > > You need to distinguish between upper and lower case libertarians. > I was > not speculating about lower case libertarians, I am one myself and *I* > didn't get an allergic reaction to the article. Don't know of any > who did. > > As to "objective and rational" being a underpinning world view for > upper > case Libertarian, that's the result of knowing a bunch of > Libertarians and > their less social memetic neighbors Objectivists. It isn't stated, > just > assumed. > Well I guess you can count me as a little "o" objectivist. I believe there is objective reality and I believe that rationality is pretty axiomatically required to make the best choices leading to more of what we value in the context of objective reality. Thus you could fairly say that I believe people should be rational, or at least they should if they are going to optimize their happiness. I also believe that rationality is required in choosing and/or tuning one's values. > I vividly remember (by name) a person who was somewhere toward the > Objectivist end of the Libertarian spectrum telling me in 1985 that > if it > came to a choice between saving his ass and the rest of the world, the > rational thing would be for everyone else to die. > Hmm. I guess you had to be there. No comment for now. There is something to be said for having the ability to maximize one's own well being regardless for how irrationally and even dangerously the rest of the world may be behaving. But the above seems empty and not worth a lot of analysis as it is a pretty unimaginable contrived hypothetical situation. >> >> Do you have any positive tools from your study of EP beyond dark >> understanding of the seeming inevitability of it all? > > Yes. The situation is analogous to being in a truck hurtling toward a > cliff. Apply the brakes! > > In my war paper I connect the fading out of the IRA to the *Irish > women* > who a generation ago cut the population growth to where economic > growth got > ahead of population growth. It is my clam based on EP that this > damped > down the gain on memes supporting the IRA. > This is interesting as a factor but it is doubtful to me that it was the primary determinant. > Of course this happened long before anyone had a clue about EP. > > The problem with the situation in much of the Islamic world is like > being > in a truck doing 70 mph and only 50 feet from the brink. Even if you > understand the problem, can you do anything about it? > Probably not much more than: a) get out the truck and out of its way; b) don't add nitro to its fuel; c) quickly set up barriers near the brink preferable to all concerned to going over the brink; d) encourage those in the truck to detour. A set of memes like fundamental Islam certainly will grow stronger if directily opposed by a foreign memeset the infected parties associate strongly with their own multi-level oppression and subjugation. That adds nitro to the tank and greatly increases their adherence to their current memeset. >> How can we >> unprogram, reprogram or channel our programming into less disastrous >> outcomes? > > I don't know. > > I am not even certain that my EP based analysis is accurate. More > critical > thought in this area would sure help. Formal simulation models > would also > be of great value. If someone would like to collaborate on a model > let me > know. > > If this EP based model is correct, and you want to save the current > population from a huge die back, then economic growth faster than > population growth is the only way I can see to raise the income per > capita > and shut off war mode. Even if the EP model is not the best explanation I agree strongly with this point. I believe that engineering better memes is very important but I also believe we are hurtling toward the brink and there is little time for alternative memes to be produced and gain sufficient adherents. I think that a major economic "correction" is inevitable before 2010. We seem to be on the brink of what I believe actually amounts to Energy Wars (imho the "war on terror" is a cover for positioning and preliminary moves). Unless we get a large infusion of very cheap energy or a major technological advance (such as MNT or SAI) soon I think we are in for a major crisis. > > Nanotechnology in the self replicating mode would do that. > > Can it happen in time? Dunno. It is quite a cliffhanger. > > Can we do anything to make it happen faster? > We can do our own technical work that may be germane or help, contribute to the work of others, continue to attempt to understand and improve ourselves and others including building and fielding hopefully more helpful memes. > Good questions! Thanks, > Your welcome. Thank you. - samantha From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 22:05:08 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:05:08 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Are vaccinations useless? was Re: Failure of low-fat diet In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60603101403u19055c7cpcf68c949db689a0a@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60603061407x25401316t6c98b5960b1b015e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060306174613.024859b0@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60603101403u19055c7cpcf68c949db689a0a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60603101405j4f0fd3c1vab902e58aa2a5568@mail.gmail.com> On 3/6/06, Robin Hanson wrote about the impact of vaccination on the prevalence of smallpox: > To answer your exact question I'd guess 1 to 10% of the reduction is > attributable to vaccination. > ### To avoid misunderstanding, are you saying that even without vaccinations against smallpox, the lifetime prevalence of that particular disease today would be only about 1% to 10% of the lifetime prevalence observed in the years 1500 - 1700 in Europe? This would mean a reduction of an estimated lifetime prevalence from close to 90% down to, say 1%, solely from the collateral effects of affluence. If you indeed believe this, then you would need to explain how a 100% reduction of the prevalence of smallpox occurred in all those countries which did not achieve affluence, or even experienced worsening of their economic circumstances, including Afganistan, China of the Great Leap Forward period, and others. Rafal From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 22:30:55 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:30:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Black Holes not -- really Dark Energy Stars? Message-ID: George Chapline, Robert Laughlin & others (card carrying physicists) are proposing that Black Holes may not really exist. Instead what you have is "dark energy stars" that have properties very close to those of Black Holes without some of the problems associated with them. I'm not sure about it being announced in New Scientist and haven't gone looking for papers but it sounds like an interesting idea. URL: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925423.600&print=true I'd like to see a list of the papers this is based on if they have been submitted. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Fri Mar 10 22:37:53 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:37:53 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy, Mass and my mother In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4411FFC1.30802@lineone.net> Emlyn wrote: >Jef, > >Don't feed the trolls. Emlyn, No! I'm all for starving trolls, but i don't (and obviously neither does Jef) think that Anna is a troll. She seems to me to be someone without the kind of scientific education that a lot, probably most, of the people here have, and that causes her to seem naive or even trollish. I don't believe that she is either. If someone is willing and eager to learn things, it seems perverse to try to deny them simply because they are saying things that seem silly. They /aren't/ silly things, they are just uninformed. Jef is doing a great thing by trying to explain concepts that are probably foreign to Anna, and she is doing an even better thing by being unafraid to show her ignorance of certain things, and of asking for help in understanding. I think they are both, in their own ways, displaying very admirable qualities. I don't think Anna is trying to stir up trouble, i think she is hungry for knowledge. We should be privileged to feed her. I may be proved wrong, but i'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt and be wrong, than assume the worst of them, and be right. If Anna starts saying "No, you're all wrong, you need to realign your crystals with the cosmic harmonic vibrations of love and peace bla bla", then i'll concede defeat and get my Troll Whacker (TM) out. ben PS, Anna, happy birthday, and what Gina said. From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 10 23:31:59 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:31:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy, Mass and my mother In-Reply-To: <4411FFC1.30802@lineone.net> References: <4411FFC1.30802@lineone.net> Message-ID: On Mar 10, 2006, at 2:37 PM, ben wrote: > > Emlyn, No! > > I'm all for starving trolls, but i don't (and obviously neither does > Jef) think that Anna is a troll. > > She seems to me to be someone without the kind of scientific education > that a lot, probably most, of the people here have, and that causes > her > to seem naive or even trollish. I don't believe that she is either. If > someone is willing and eager to learn things, it seems perverse to try > to deny them simply because they are saying things that seem silly. > They > /aren't/ silly things, they are just uninformed. > I was unaware that this list has as part of its charter the education of people who believe, for instance, that gravity determines which people we meet in our lives. A mailing list cannot be all thinks to all people. > Jef is doing a great thing by trying to explain concepts that are > probably foreign to Anna, and she is doing an even better thing by > being > unafraid to show her ignorance of certain things, and of asking for > help > in understanding. I think they are both, in their own ways, displaying > very admirable qualities. Assertion of various non-sensical things is asking for help? Even if it is the above question about the purpose of the list remains. - samantha From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 23:58:09 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:28:09 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy, Mass and my mother In-Reply-To: References: <4411FFC1.30802@lineone.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0603101558y324e7f1fi@mail.gmail.com> Samantha wrote: > Assertion of various non-sensical things is asking for help? Even if > it is the above question about the purpose of the list remains. > > > - samantha > I agree with Samantha... those posts are not about asking for help. They're like the output of a markov chaining bot which has been primed with new age gobbledegook. Learning things is really cool. But a systematic, rational approach to inquiry is necessary before you're going to get anywhere. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com From hal at finney.org Sat Mar 11 00:25:09 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:25:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cars Message-ID: <20060311002509.6E32057FAF@finney.org> We have occasionally discussed "cars of the future", either electric, or hybrids, or hydrogen. Among fans of such technology there is a lot of skepticism towards hydrogen cars, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that it is the quasi-official choice of the U.S. government for automatic research. (Although in the past few weeks Bush has said some nice things about plug-in hybrids.) I read an interview in Wired magazine a few months ago with the GM guy in charge of hydrogen car research, and the reporter was pretty hostile, apparently favoring hybrids: . The reporter implied that hydrogen would not be practical for decades and that this was just a distraction. This has been a fairly common message from the grass roots future-car community. However there is evidence now that hydrogen cars will really happen, and possibly sooner than many thought. In January, Honda announced that it would begin production of fuel cell hydrogen vehicles within three or four years. That presumably means going beyond the prototype stage and actually selling vehicles (only in Japan, at first). Here is an article about it, from the excellent Green Car Congress blog: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/honda_to_put_hy.html and here is background on the Honda next-gen FCX hydrogen fuel-cell car: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/10/hondas_more_pow.html The FCX, as with most hydrogen cars, is basically an electric vehicle. The hydrogen reacts with oxygen in a fuel cell to generate electricity. The FCX has one electric motor under the hood and two in-wheel rear motors for power. This gives it an effective 174 horsepower, compared to 244 for the similar-sized Accord. But electric motors have an advantage at low speeds as they can deliver their full rated torque from the beginning. The range of the FCX is 350 miles, comparable to the Accord and well above the DOE target for next gen hydrogen cars. One problem in this short time frame is, where will people get the hydrogen? One idea Honda has is a home hydrogen fueling system. It turns natural gas into hydrogen, and can also be adapted to produce electricity. If they do decide to sell it in the U.S. there is also a burgeoning hydrogen fueling infrastructure in California: see . I believe Honda already has some prototype hydrogen vehicles on the road being tested, although they are earlier versions than the next-gen FCX and don't have quite the range and power. But apparently progress has been rapid in fuel cells and hydrogen storage, and the company is convinced that the time is right to move this technology into commercial production. So while you will still see many comments about how hydrogen power is a fraud, inefficient, impractical, and all the rest, it appears that the car companies are ignoring all the nay-sayers and simply going ahead and building hydrogen powered cars. Apparently it was not a fraud, after all, and companies are serious about putting these cars on the road. And while it was easy for that reporter above to sneer at GM, why should we believe a company that still sells Hummers (you could almost hear the scorn dripping), Honda in contrast has a sterling reputation. With them backing H2 and promising to bring cars to market in four years, hydrogen has to be taken seriously. Hal From hal at finney.org Sat Mar 11 00:50:03 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:50:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Longevity Dividend Message-ID: <20060311005003.EC39657FAF@finney.org> S. Jay Olshansky is a widely quoted aging expert, perhaps best known for his odd Scientific American article a few years ago showing how humans could be redesigned for longer lifespans. The stout little creatures with their extra muscles and knees that bend backwards were quite bizarre, and I doubt that anyone will be rushing to genetically engineer themselves this way. Olshansky has also been an outspoken opponent of over-optimistic life extension claims. But now he has come forward with a proposal for a major research into not life extension, but health extension, which he calls The Longevity Dividend. http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/3/1/28/1/ > What we have in mind is not the unrealistic pursuit of dramatic increases > in life expectancy, let alone the kind of biological immortality best > left to science fiction novels. Rather, we envision a goal that is > realistically achievable: a modest deceleration in the rate of aging > sufficient to delay all aging-related diseases and disorders by about > seven years. This target was chosen because the risk of death and most > other negative attributes of aging tends to rise exponentially throughout > the adult lifespan with a doubling time of approximately seven years. > Such a delay would yield health and longevity benefits greater than > what would be achieved with the elimination of cancer or heart disease. > And we believe it can be achieved for generations now alive. > > If we succeed in slowing aging by seven years, the age-specific risk of > death, frailty, and disability will be reduced by approximately half at > every age. People who reach the age of 50 in the future would have the > health profile and disease risk of today's 43-year-old; those aged 60 > would resemble current 53-year-olds, and so on. Equally important, once > achieved, this seven-year delay would yield equal health and longevity > benefits for all subsequent generations, much the same way children > born in most nations today benefit from the discovery and development > of immunizations. > > A growing chorus of scientists agrees that this objective is > scientifically and technologically feasible. How quickly we see > success depends in part on the priority and support devoted to the > effort. Certainly such a great goal - to win back, on average, seven years > of healthy life - requires and deserves significant resources in time, > talent, and treasury. But with the mammoth investment already committed in > caring for the sick as they age, and the pursuit of ever-more expensive > treatments and surgical procedures for existing fatal and disabling > diseases, the pursuit of the Longevity Dividend would be modest by > comparison. In fact, because a healthier, longer-lived population will > add significant wealth to the economy, an investment in the Longevity > Dividend would likely pay for itself. Olshansky and his team call for a $3 billion government program: 1/3 to go to basic research on aging; 1/3 for research on age related diseases; 1/6 for clinical trials of anti-aging medicine; and 1/6 for a preventive medicine program that would cover accidents and lifestyle issues. > With this effort, we believe it will be possible to intervene in > aging among the baby boom cohorts, and all generations after them > would enjoy the health and economic benefits of delayed aging. Such > a monetary commitment would be small when compared to that spent each > year on Medicare alone, but it would pay dividends an order of magnitude > greater than the investment. And it would do so for current and future > generations. Well, they better get going pronto if they are going to help baby boomers, some of whom are turning 60. Not a lot of time left for some magic drug that's going to buy them 7 years. But surely the prospects are more promising for interventions that could be applied at a younger age. Olshansky provides a footnote to buttress his claim that a "growing chorus of scientists agrees" that his 7 year objective is feasible. But the footnote is to his "Position Statement on Human Aging", , the whole thrust of which is quite the opposite. It is mostly a harshly critical condemnation of existing life-extension technologies. There is a final paragraph or two calling for more research and offering a glimmer of optimism, but for the most part it is gloom and doom straight through. It hardly seems to justify his claim. One ironic note is that there is a sidebar at the bottom of the article from The Scientist about a possible anti-aging drug! Presumably Olshansky did not have control over the placement of this note which somewhat contradicts and undercuts the pessimism in his "position statement": > Recent results indicate that an approved diabetes drug, metformin, may > battle aging. Approved in 1995, metformin was marketed as Glucophage. Now > it and generic versions are the most widely used oral medication for > type II diabetes. "There is a huge natural experiment with people on > metformin," says Don Ingram, of the US National Institute on Aging. And, > some data are beginning to look promising. > > Animal studies with metformin show increased age and reduced tumor load, > and although no clinical studies are looking directly at effects on aging, > a variety of ongoing clinical trials in humans are investigating type > II diabetes, metabolic syndrome, liver disease, and polycystic ovary > syndrome. The UK Prospective Diabetes Study 34 showed that in patients > with type II diabetes, metformin treatment resulted in reductions in > end-organ damage, myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality. Stephen > Spindler, professor of biochemistry at the University of California, > San Diego, has shown that metformin out-performs short-term calorie > restriction in inducing the gene-expression changes associated with > long-term calorie restriction. > > Not everyone is persuaded by the metformin results, however. Side > effects, such as a small risk of lactic acidosis that can be fatal in > certain patients, are not likely worth the risk of lifelong treatment > for aging. Nir Barzilai at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New > York says, "Meformin is a terrific drug used in a large prospective study > to prevent diabetes, but this does not mean it has any effects on aging > beyond its specific role in preventing one of the age-related diseases." Sounds like pretty good stuff if you don't mind this lactic acidosis risk. It would be nice to see some serious research done on its anti aging properties, and perhaps some variant could be found without this form of toxicity. No doubt this is the kind of thing that Olshansky's 3 billion dollars would go towards. Hal From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Mar 10 23:50:08 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:50:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Are vaccinations useless? was Re: Failure of low-fat diet In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60603101405j4f0fd3c1vab902e58aa2a5568@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7641ddc60603061407x25401316t6c98b5960b1b015e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060306174613.024859b0@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60603101403u19055c7cpcf68c949db689a0a@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60603101405j4f0fd3c1vab902e58aa2a5568@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060310183943.024748c0@gmu.edu> At 05:05 PM 3/10/2006, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >>On 3/6/06, Robin Hanson wrote about the impact of >>vaccination on the prevalence of smallpox: >> > To answer your exact question I'd guess 1 to 10% of the reduction is >> > attributable to vaccination. >To avoid misunderstanding, are you saying that even without >vaccinations against smallpox, the lifetime prevalence of that >particular disease today would be only about 1% to 10% of the lifetime >prevalence observed in the years 1500 - 1700 in Europe? Regarding the United States, yes, that is my rough estimate. >This would >mean a reduction of an estimated lifetime prevalence from close to 90% >down to, say 1%, solely from the collateral effects of affluence. >If you indeed believe this, then you would need to explain how a 100% >reduction of the prevalence of smallpox occurred in all those >countries which did not achieve affluence, or even experienced >worsening of their economic circumstances, including Afganistan, China >of the Great Leap Forward period, and others. In response to my saying that the data suggests medicine only contributed a small fraction to the reduction in mortality over the last few centuries, I was asked what did it. I said I was very unsure. When I was asked to at least give an example of what might be plausible, I offered the stress-wealth theory. I was not intending to offer a grand theory making precise predictions about the rates of each disease in each nation at each time, and to then challenge others to present data to prove me wrong. I don't know the details of smallpox in poor counties - perhaps that is an area where medicine had a larger than usual effect. 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 emlynoregan at gmail.com Sat Mar 11 00:50:27 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:20:27 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cars In-Reply-To: <20060311002509.6E32057FAF@finney.org> References: <20060311002509.6E32057FAF@finney.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc0603101650p51011807l@mail.gmail.com> On a mostly unrelated note, except it's still vaguely about cars, I've been wondering why they don't fly yet, and what to do about it. It seems to me (who is flying interstate a lot at the moment - it sucks!) that there are issues with flying cars (chiefly, how could people possibly pilot them in crowded airspace? Planes are hard to fly). But maybe they could be solved for the long haul trips (where they'd be really useful). It seems to me that if your car could fly & roll (rotors + wheels?), you could just use the flying for inter-city travel (aka the Moulton Aerocar, see here for a picture and some funky effort to make a modern version: http://www.aerocar.com/ ). To take the human element out, you would think heavily restricted and predetermined automated flight paths could work. It'd be like cable cars without the cable - you drive up to the launch point, the autopilot takes over, and flies you to your chosen destination (in a big stream of similar vehicles that are on the same flightpath), lands, and you drive off onto the roads. There'd be no need to get the autopilot really smart. For example, avoiding obstacles isn't necessary with a cable car, and it isn't necessary here, you just have to spend effort to make sure the flight corridor is always clear. So at best, maybe a panic mode that automatically lands you wherever you are, or even (or plus) an ejection/parachute mechanism. I don't know what flight mechanism you use. Fixed wing seems too tricky, maybe rotors would be good. You want something that can stop and hover, gives the autopilot more to work with. But are helicopter-type vehicles too hard to control with autopilot? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Mar 11 00:57:25 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:57:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cars In-Reply-To: <20060311002509.6E32057FAF@finney.org> References: <20060311002509.6E32057FAF@finney.org> Message-ID: Hal, I have not read all of the URLs you posted. But my research suggests that the two major barriers are: 1) Hydrogen production is not "sustainable" if they are producing it from "natural" gas. 2) There is no transportation infrastructure for hydrogen. Because of (1) & (2) there is no way that hydrogen can compete with gasoline as a fuel source unless you impose a large tax on gasoline (or subsidize the hydrogen). (This is ignoring what I would expect to be higher costs for fuel cell based vehicles at least until such time as they are manufactured in quantitites equal to vehicles using current internal combustion engines.) If you have some enlightening facts related to (1 & 2) as to where we are going to get sustainable low cost hydrogen (or how we are going to produce the electric power to separate the H2 from H2O) then please share them. I have thought at some length about this and from my perspective the only good solution which can be implemented relatively quickly without a lot of government intervention is solar ponds using engineered microorganisms that produce methane. The government's hydrogen emphasis is entirely ill-conceived unless either (a) someone comes up with a nanocatalyst that can produce hydrogen from water at significantly lower energy costs than electrolysis requires or (b) the government intends to foot the bill to produce a national hydrogen pipeline system and/or builds the nuclear power plants to supply the required electricity. Brazil has this right -- there is nothing wrong with carbon based fuel sources so long as you are pulling the carbon out of the atmosphere and using solar energy to reduce it and not pulling the already reduced hydrocarbons out of the ground. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Mar 11 01:21:43 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:21:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical Thinking In-Reply-To: <9A812E59-3270-4759-8269-90E46E4CC916@mac.com> Message-ID: I wrote some sentences stating my belief that the propensities to think critically are carried in our genes, and hence will not submit to being taught, that's all: > >>> By their natures, it seems (speaking in the identical > >>> twin sense), some people are more judicious than others, > >>> that is, capable of more carefully and objectively > >>> weighing evidence. > >> > >> This "seeming" seems to be stating only that we observe that some > >> people of equal training or lack of it in critical thinking exhibit > >> unequal levels of same. This says nothing about whether critical > >> thinking is teachable. > > It doesn't and my objection was not answered by this response. Well, now it *should* be. I thought that it was obvious that the more it's by nature rather than by nurture---that was my claim---the less it's teachable. I've seen you again and again write as though you had put no effort at all into what the person was getting at. > >> If critical thinking can be shown to > >> be useful and the components essential to critical thinking can be > >> identified along with techniques to deploy them and this information > >> and these techniques can be learned then I see no basis for "serious > >> doubt". > > > > Well, that's a big *if*. I was saying, "I don't think so." > > We know critical thinking is useful. We have identified aspects of > critical thinking. I have several books on my shelfs that attempt > this and have exercise to teach such techniques. So where is the > basis for your doubt or claim that this is "a big if"? Where is the evidence that some children over a respectable period of time have been successfully taught to think critically? That is the basis of my calling what you wrote a "big if". > > I see a strong parallel: "teaching criminals to change their > > tendencies" is as difficult---I claim---as changing people to > > become critical thinkers. As Gibbon said, "The power of > > instruction is seldom of much efficacy except in those > > happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous." You'll > > only succeed teaching people who want to learn. > > Claims without backing beyond assertion don't make for good discussion. I *said* that that's the way I see it! You want proof that that's the way I see it? I merely ventured another opinion that your assertion contained a big "if" and you seemed to want evidence for that!? And NOW, you are telling me that it is I who need evidence? Good grief. I give up. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Mar 11 01:36:50 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:36:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603100929y63f8e8d3wec1be235a727682@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > On 3/10/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > We're operating on different levels. I'm thinking biology: > > > > Gene: The fundamental physical and functional unit of > > heredity.... > > Those things---in the sense that they're "selfish" a la > > Dawkins---have made an awful mistake that greatly imperils > > their survival. > > > > You're evidently thinking of our genes' collective hypothesis > > that there is a niche for a thinking general purpose creature. > > Indeed, the algorithms and propensities that the human genes > > have created (what you're calling the essential part of the > > information) entertain a good chance of scoring really big > > in this universe. > > Well, by "the essential part of the information" I mean something > more than the "hypothesis that there is a niche for a thinking > general purpose creature". There is a lot of information in the > human way of experiencing life, as opposed to that of some > unspecified general intelligence. Agreed. And it is *this* information that there is hope for. > Take the distant future, say 10^14 years, when all the stars will > have burned out (though other energy sources such as dark matter > annihilation and proton decay may still be available); will genes > in the biological sense - sequences of nucleotides coding for > proteins - still exist? Unlikely. Will the human way of experiencing > life still exist? I hope so. If it does, I will think it meaningful > to say our genetic inheritance has survived, in the same sort of > way that if my mind is uploaded into an electronic substrate I > will say that I have survived even though my neurons have not. Okay. Like I say, two different ways of speaking essentially the same thing: I'd call it simply "us", and I'd mean "our values, predispositions, beliefs, dispositions, preferences, and attitudes". To me *we* are, (in the sense "to be identified with") those things. Those things are both genetic (genes) and environmental (memes, mostly) in origin. It is *we* as a race that I hope survives. Your way of speaking emphasizes our origins, and mine does not; but we seem to totally agree on substance. Lee From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Mar 11 00:59:50 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:59:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Are vaccinations useless? was Re: Failure of low-fat diet In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060310183943.024748c0@gmu.edu> References: <7641ddc60603061407x25401316t6c98b5960b1b015e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060306174613.024859b0@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60603101403u19055c7cpcf68c949db689a0a@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60603101405j4f0fd3c1vab902e58aa2a5568@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060310183943.024748c0@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20060311005950.GA16080@ofb.net> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 06:50:08PM -0500, Robin Hanson wrote: > I don't know the details of smallpox in poor counties - perhaps that is an > area where medicine had a larger than usual effect. Polio's almost gone as well. Had a setback in Nigeria when Muslims were boycotting the vaccination program. Meanwhile malaria and HIV run rampant... -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Mar 11 01:21:16 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:21:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60603012243s7cd0ae55v62a2eda44a22df98@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu> <7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60602271529w53777d7tb750f64a38d6a0a9@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060227183158.02488f60@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60603012243s7cd0ae55v62a2eda44a22df98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060311012116.GA20568@ofb.net> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:43:16AM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Clearly, the likelihood of surviving an infectious illness depends on > the level of stress you are under, and I mean something else than > purely psychological stress. Under natural conditions most humans have > to cope with substantial burdens of parasite infestations, coupled > I would expect that there is a nonlinear survival response to > reduction of single infectious risk factors: if you vaccinate only Axelrod speculated that pathogens might have a couple of infection modes. If they're the only ones around, or if the host seems healthy, it makes sense to play nice and go for modest scattering into the environment over time, not hurting the host too much. If the host seems to be getting weaker, this can be seen as foreseeing the end of the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game, and the pathogen might explode in a frenzy of rapid reproduction, weakening the host even more. So at some point in improving nutrition, decreasing stress, or decreasing overall pathogen load, there might have been a switch in how we were being infected. -xx- Damien X-) From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Mar 11 02:12:54 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:12:54 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0603100929y63f8e8d3wec1be235a727682@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603101812g792eefebr5ad2bb5c51a7eaf5@mail.gmail.com> On 3/11/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Okay. Like I say, two different ways of speaking essentially > the same thing: I'd call it simply "us", and I'd mean "our values, > predispositions, beliefs, dispositions, preferences, and attitudes". > > To me *we* are, (in the sense "to be identified with") those things. > Those things are both genetic (genes) and environmental (memes, > mostly) in origin. It is *we* as a race that I hope survives. > Your way of speaking emphasizes our origins, and mine does not; > but we seem to totally agree on substance. Right - yes, I think we do agree on substance then. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sat Mar 11 01:14:47 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:14:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] My apologies Message-ID: <20060311011447.9860.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> My apologies for going into topics that I was unaware, at the time, where not appropriate towards the list. I didn't do it intentionally, I really believed what I was writing. In regards to: >Emlyn wrote: >I agree with Samantha... those posts are not about asking for help. >They're like the output of a markov chaining bot which has been primed >with new age gobbledegook. >Learning things is really cool. But a systematic, rational approach to >inquiry is necessary before you're going to get anywhere. I have never in any post suggested that I was a genius, but I don't think being rude is the best antidote for this list or any others. I might not be at the level of education that I would like to be but don't underestimate people, it might one day come back and bite you in the ass. I'm learning because I like and want to learn, even if at times I look stupid or irrational (sorry Samantha), I mean in no way any harm to anyone. If that's not Extropian then what is? And Emlyn, I was always told by mother don't judge a book by it's cover. Thanks to everyone that didn't think I was a lunatic:) and took their time to answer my posts, it made my day! Anna --------------------------------- 7 bucks a month. This is Huge Yahoo! Music Unlimited -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kimdu16 at earthlink.net Sat Mar 11 02:07:21 2006 From: kimdu16 at earthlink.net (Kara Devar) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:07:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cars References: <20060311002509.6E32057FAF@finney.org> <710b78fc0603101650p51011807l@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0e6501c644b0$8896e0c0$6401a8c0@feemullairone> I love the "helicopter" idea, but it's a lot harder than it looks. I have 30+ hours on helicopters and although I did well, I regretfully decided I'd better stop until I could at least afford to fly one with a huge amount of horsepower ($1,000,000 purchase--before maintenance and insurance. Don't even think about long-term rental.) I was training in a Robinson R22--$250 per hour and one step above a lawn chair and a propeller-beanie. My instructor and one of his other students were both body-builders. We're at sea level, but they'd go out, sit on the roof, fire up the rotor, and walk back disgusted because there just wasn't enough air that day. 100 lbs under the designated weight, but still not safe to fly. Unfortunately, while the horsepower buys you out of some problems and time to fix other problems, it's very expensive both in dollars and mechanical complexity. The problems are: too many flight controls, too many weird time lags in each control, long preflights, and an incredible sensitivity to weather, ground affects and numerous other hard-to-quantify factors. Compared to fixed-wing craft, helicopters are very intuitive and incredibly unforgiving. (I think a pilot can have as little as 0.50 seconds to stabilize a helicopter if it "settles in power"--basically descends through its own rotor wash.) I'm not a fixed wing pilot, but my boyfriend (Chris) is completing his commercial license. I fly with him and am constantly surprised at the traffic issues, the navigation issues, the maintenance issues...etc. Even in a $450K+ fully loaded computerized Cirrus (weather, terrain avoidance, obstacle avoidance, parachute, traffic) we're shocked at how many other craft go undetected and how many errors there are in the obstacle databases. The parachute is nice, but plenty of people have died under an optimally-deployed canopy. (It has saved some--yeah!) The raw technology may be there to self-coordinate flights via GPS, but even in 2006, the economics and the distribution of the technology just aren't where they need to be. Chris is also in the Air Force Reserves and stationed at Edwards, so I've seen the Global Hawk and Predators in action. Talk about PRINCESS aircraft! Unmanned but the maintenance/fussing requirements put a Newport Beach girl like me to shame! Unfortunately, private flying still seems surprisingly complicated and expensive. The only place I've seen it work on a commuting basis is Alaska. They fly their planes like we drive our cars, but they're also very skilled pilots (time, money, natural ability, education, dedication, Darwinian selection, focus and guts all far beyond those of a normal commuter). I heard about a test on the I-15 in California of automated car control--that might be a more workable solution than flying cars. I know driving a car in two dimensions is dangerous, but with flying cars, there would be a long period of huge expenses and stunning fatality rates (think of the lawsuits!). It's hard to get over that initial hump... Too bad! Kara (Long-Time Lurker) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Emlyn" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cars > On a mostly unrelated note, except it's still vaguely about cars, I've > been wondering why they don't fly yet, and what to do about it. > > It seems to me (who is flying interstate a lot at the moment - it > sucks!) that there are issues with flying cars (chiefly, how could > people possibly pilot them in crowded airspace? Planes are hard to > fly). But maybe they could be solved for the long haul trips (where > they'd be really useful). > > It seems to me that if your car could fly & roll (rotors + wheels?), > you could just use the flying for inter-city travel (aka the Moulton > Aerocar, see here for a picture and some funky effort to make a modern > version: http://www.aerocar.com/ ). To take the human element out, you > would think heavily restricted and predetermined automated flight > paths could work. It'd be like cable cars without the cable - you > drive up to the launch point, the autopilot takes over, and flies you > to your chosen destination (in a big stream of similar vehicles that > are on the same flightpath), lands, and you drive off onto the roads. > > There'd be no need to get the autopilot really smart. For example, > avoiding obstacles isn't necessary with a cable car, and it isn't > necessary here, you just have to spend effort to make sure the flight > corridor is always clear. So at best, maybe a panic mode that > automatically lands you wherever you are, or even (or plus) an > ejection/parachute mechanism. > > I don't know what flight mechanism you use. Fixed wing seems too > tricky, maybe rotors would be good. You want something that can stop > and hover, gives the autopilot more to work with. But are > helicopter-type vehicles too hard to control with autopilot? > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * > Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From kimdu16 at earthlink.net Sat Mar 11 03:28:00 2006 From: kimdu16 at earthlink.net (Kara Devar) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:28:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: Hydrogen cars Message-ID: <0ed501c644bb$cd1e5c90$6401a8c0@feemullairone> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kara Devar" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:07 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cars >I love the "helicopter" idea, but it's a lot harder than it looks. I have >30+ hours on helicopters and although I did well, I regretfully decided I'd >better stop until I could at least afford to fly one with a huge amount of >horsepower ($1,000,000 purchase--before maintenance and insurance. Don't >even think about long-term rental.) I was training in a Robinson R22--$250 >per hour and one step above a lawn chair and a propeller-beanie. My >instructor and one of his other students were both body-builders. We're at >sea level, but they'd go out, sit on the roof, fire up the rotor, and walk >back disgusted because there just wasn't enough air that day. 100 lbs >under the designated weight, but still not safe to fly. > > Unfortunately, while the horsepower buys you out of some problems and time > to fix other problems, it's very expensive both in dollars and mechanical > complexity. The problems are: too many flight controls, too many weird > time lags in each control, long preflights, and an incredible sensitivity > to weather, ground affects and numerous other hard-to-quantify factors. > Compared to fixed-wing craft, helicopters are very intuitive and > incredibly unforgiving. (I think a pilot can have as little as 0.50 > seconds to stabilize a helicopter if it "settles in power"--basically > descends through its own rotor wash.) > > I'm not a fixed wing pilot, but my boyfriend (Chris) is completing his > commercial license. I fly with him and am constantly surprised at the > traffic issues, the navigation issues, the maintenance issues...etc. Even > in a $450K+ fully loaded computerized Cirrus (weather, terrain avoidance, > obstacle avoidance, parachute, traffic) we're shocked at how many other > craft go undetected and how many errors there are in the obstacle > databases. The parachute is nice, but plenty of people have died under an > optimally-deployed canopy. (It has saved some--yeah!) The raw technology > may be there to self-coordinate flights via GPS, but even in 2006, the > economics and the distribution of the technology just aren't where they > need to be. Chris is also in the Air Force Reserves and stationed at > Edwards, so I've seen the Global Hawk and Predators in action. Talk about > PRINCESS aircraft! Unmanned but the maintenance/fussing requirements put > a Newport Beach girl like me to shame! > > Unfortunately, private flying still seems surprisingly complicated and > expensive. The only place I've seen it work on a commuting basis is > Alaska. They fly their planes like we drive our cars, but they're also > very skilled pilots (time, money, natural ability, education, dedication, > Darwinian selection, focus and guts all far beyond those of a normal > commuter). > > I heard about a test on the I-15 in California of automated car > control--that might be a more workable solution than flying cars. I know > driving a car in two dimensions is dangerous, but with flying cars, there > would be a long period of huge expenses and stunning fatality rates (think > of the lawsuits!). It's hard to get over that initial hump... > > Too bad! > > Kara > (Long-Time Lurker) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Emlyn" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:50 PM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cars > > >> On a mostly unrelated note, except it's still vaguely about cars, I've >> been wondering why they don't fly yet, and what to do about it. >> >> It seems to me (who is flying interstate a lot at the moment - it >> sucks!) that there are issues with flying cars (chiefly, how could >> people possibly pilot them in crowded airspace? Planes are hard to >> fly). But maybe they could be solved for the long haul trips (where >> they'd be really useful). >> >> It seems to me that if your car could fly & roll (rotors + wheels?), >> you could just use the flying for inter-city travel (aka the Moulton >> Aerocar, see here for a picture and some funky effort to make a modern >> version: http://www.aerocar.com/ ). To take the human element out, you >> would think heavily restricted and predetermined automated flight >> paths could work. It'd be like cable cars without the cable - you >> drive up to the launch point, the autopilot takes over, and flies you >> to your chosen destination (in a big stream of similar vehicles that >> are on the same flightpath), lands, and you drive off onto the roads. >> >> There'd be no need to get the autopilot really smart. For example, >> avoiding obstacles isn't necessary with a cable car, and it isn't >> necessary here, you just have to spend effort to make sure the flight >> corridor is always clear. So at best, maybe a panic mode that >> automatically lands you wherever you are, or even (or plus) an >> ejection/parachute mechanism. >> >> I don't know what flight mechanism you use. Fixed wing seems too >> tricky, maybe rotors would be good. You want something that can stop >> and hover, gives the autopilot more to work with. But are >> helicopter-type vehicles too hard to control with autopilot? >> >> -- >> Emlyn >> >> http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * >> Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > From hal at finney.org Sat Mar 11 04:05:53 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:05:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: Hydrogen cars Message-ID: <20060311040553.2F8B957FAF@finney.org> Kara Devar writes: >I love the "helicopter" idea, but it's a lot harder than it looks. I have >30+ hours on helicopters and although I did well, I regretfully decided I'd >better stop until I could at least afford to fly one with a huge amount of >horsepower ($1,000,000 purchase--before maintenance and insurance. Don't >even think about long-term rental.) I was training in a Robinson R22--$250 >per hour and one step above a lawn chair and a propeller-beanie. My >instructor and one of his other students were both body-builders. We're at >sea level, but they'd go out, sit on the roof, fire up the rotor, and walk >back disgusted because there just wasn't enough air that day. 100 lbs >under the designated weight, but still not safe to fly. That's a great story, Kara. Congrats on delurking. For those for whom the R22 is "too much helicopter" there are a couple of even smaller, experimental "personal helicopters" that I know of. Here is one from Japan, the Gen H-4: . However I don't know if they are still in business, it says it "will be" available in 2000. It could just be that the English language page hasn't been updated. One problem is that 150 pound pilot weight. That won't get far with Americans. Those on the heftier side will like the AirScooter II, . Like the Gen H-4 it has a coaxial blade, so no tail rotor is needed. However useful load is 350 pounds. It uses a much larger, four stroke engine so should be quieter; on the other hand the Gen H-4 has four small engines and can fly with only three of them. The AirScooter has gotten quite a bit of press this past year, I've seen a few articles on it. Both craft claim about 55 mph speeds, and the AirScooter claims a two hour endurance so you could go about 100 miles. It's not necessarily faster than a car but at least you could go in a straight line and maybe save time that way. Both would be considered experimental aircraft in the U.S. which would mean they could not be flown over "congested areas", meaning basically any urban or suburban region. Maybe if you stayed 40 feet in the air and just followed the freeways you could make a case for it being OK (unless the freeway was "congested" I guess!). The bottom line is that these are not really practical transportation systems, they are just for fun. The AirScooter is supposed to come out this year and sell for less than $50,000. The H-4 was going to be a little cheaper but I don't know what ever happened with it. Hal From kimdu16 at earthlink.net Sat Mar 11 05:45:54 2006 From: kimdu16 at earthlink.net (Kara Devar) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:45:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recreational Technologies References: <20060311040553.2F8B957FAF@finney.org> Message-ID: <0fac01c644cf$11b82e40$6401a8c0@feemullairone> That air scooter looks like a hoot! Probably slightly more risk than an out-of-traffic-motorcycle. (Oh boy--me on just a bicycle is enough entertainment for the neighbors and don't get me started on the new "Land Rollers." As a child I never learned to skate but at age 42, I discovered this great improvement to Rollerblade technology and spend four days at "skate camp for middle-agers" in Hilton Head. (Okay--old farts.) What a blast! I look like the Michelin man, but I have a great time. I highly recommend "Land Rollers" to anyone who likes the Roller Blade concept but appreciates small companies implementing better designs.) Anyway, for the air scooter I'd gear up as for motocross, train-up and have a blast! (No wind blasts, thank you.) I appreciate your interesting information and your kind response. Thank you! Kara ----- Original Message ----- From: ""Hal Finney"" To: Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 8:05 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fw: Hydrogen cars > Kara Devar writes: >>I love the "helicopter" idea, but it's a lot harder than it looks. I have >>30+ hours on helicopters and although I did well, I regretfully decided >>I'd >>better stop until I could at least afford to fly one with a huge amount of >>horsepower ($1,000,000 purchase--before maintenance and insurance. Don't >>even think about long-term rental.) I was training in a Robinson >>R22--$250 >>per hour and one step above a lawn chair and a propeller-beanie. My >>instructor and one of his other students were both body-builders. We're >>at >>sea level, but they'd go out, sit on the roof, fire up the rotor, and walk >>back disgusted because there just wasn't enough air that day. 100 lbs >>under the designated weight, but still not safe to fly. > > That's a great story, Kara. Congrats on delurking. > > For those for whom the R22 is "too much helicopter" there are a couple of > even smaller, experimental "personal helicopters" that I know of. Here is > one from Japan, the Gen H-4: . > However I don't know if they are still in business, it says it "will > be" available in 2000. It could just be that the English language page > hasn't been updated. One problem is that 150 pound pilot weight. That > won't get far with Americans. > > Those on the heftier side will like the AirScooter II, > . Like the Gen H-4 > it has a coaxial blade, so no tail rotor is needed. However useful load > is 350 pounds. It uses a much larger, four stroke engine so should be > quieter; on the other hand the Gen H-4 has four small engines and can > fly with only three of them. The AirScooter has gotten quite a bit of > press this past year, I've seen a few articles on it. > > Both craft claim about 55 mph speeds, and the AirScooter claims a two > hour endurance so you could go about 100 miles. It's not necessarily > faster than a car but at least you could go in a straight line and maybe > save time that way. > > Both would be considered experimental aircraft in the U.S. which would > mean they could not be flown over "congested areas", meaning basically > any urban or suburban region. Maybe if you stayed 40 feet in the air > and just followed the freeways you could make a case for it being OK > (unless the freeway was "congested" I guess!). > > The bottom line is that these are not really practical transportation > systems, they are just for fun. The AirScooter is supposed to come out > this year and sell for less than $50,000. The H-4 was going to be a > little cheaper but I don't know what ever happened with it. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Mar 11 05:18:20 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:18:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode In-Reply-To: <5F8881E6-B193-4B38-A972-1CCCEEB4BA4A@mac.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310095941.02cba310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060309093703.02b79468@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060310095941.02cba310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310183316.02cb6df0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:01 PM 3/10/2006 -0800, you wrote: >On Mar 10, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > At 01:31 AM 3/10/2006 -0800, samantha wrote: > > > >> On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > >>> > >>> The unexplained freakin' out of the Libertarians over "Memes, > >>> MetaMemes and > >>> Politics" is perhaps due to these paragraphs being seen as an > >>> attack on the > >>> fundamental Libertarian belief that people are (or at least > >>> should be) > >>> objective and rational > >> > >> What freakin' out was that? > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-February/ > > 025367.html > >Druids are cool. :-) But I can see a neutral explanation as to why >Reason gave the article a pass. It just isn't enough about what they >generally publish. Perhaps our evolved proclivity to read signs of >larger group approval or disapproval once quite important to our >survival leads to a preference for darker explanations. Possible. You can tell from the postings on the memetics list in 2002 that I was just baffled and didn't have parts of the story before then. >It is a really good article but I wouldn't expect to read it in Reason >magazine. Glad you liked it, but its's a *really* old article. The net sure changed things. It is possible that more people have read it on the net than Reason's circulation in those days. The other article my wife and I wrote for Reason in the 80s, "Star Laws," didn't have as much impact. (Sample at bottom.) There is another data point. The foundation that puts out Reason distributed copies of the other meme article I wrote that year, I think it might have been the CoEQ version, to half the high schools in the US for debate material. So either there was something specific about that article or there was a difference of opinion in the ranks. >I don't know why you got a hostile blast rather than a simple "not >interested" from "Liberty". Perhaps one of your religious examples >gored that particular person's ox. But all that doesn't explain why >it had continued influence and was remembered long afterward. >Perhaps people simply overreact to any notion that they are not in >control? Dunno. Libertarians as a group aren't unaware of how >people can become more or less enslaved to various ideas and >notions. It wasn't nearly so widely known in the mid 80s. Extropians grew up on memetics, it was probably new to Libertarians. >It is a puzzle to me. It was a puzzle to me for a long time and I am not sure I have a handle on it yet. > > Hal was the only one to respond directly. > > > >> I find such rather irrelevant myself > >> besides the annoyance of a contrived debunking using dubious > >> analysis. > > > > Whoh! This is not debunking Libertarians, this is at the meta > > level trying > > to understand something about partisan behavior. We have an > > observed fact: > > two groups of Libertarians had what can be considered a memetic > > "allergic" > > reaction, one that was still influential at Reason when Aaron > > Lynch's work > > came out ten years later. > >My sincere apologies. I had this confused with another post that I >don't have an URL for at the moment. Accepted, no problem. > >> Libertarians as a group have no fundamental belief that > >> people are or should be objective and rational. That is not a > >> definitive belief of libertarians. What made you think that it is? > > > > You need to distinguish between upper and lower case libertarians. > > I was > > not speculating about lower case libertarians, I am one myself and *I* > > didn't get an allergic reaction to the article. Don't know of any > > who did. > > > > As to "objective and rational" being a underpinning world view for > > upper > > case Libertarian, that's the result of knowing a bunch of > > Libertarians and > > their less social memetic neighbors Objectivists. It isn't stated, > > just > > assumed. > >Well I guess you can count me as a little "o" objectivist. I believe >there is objective reality and I believe that rationality is pretty >axiomatically required to make the best choices leading to more of >what we value in the context of objective reality. Thus you could >fairly say that I believe people should be rational, or at least they >should if they are going to optimize their happiness. I also believe >that rationality is required in choosing and/or tuning one's values. I agree with everything you say here. The problem is that people were not shaped by evolution for happiness. They were shaped by the raw drive of the genes to get copies of themselves into the next generation. If from time to time that required suicidal sacrifice to save relatives, then genes built mental mechanisms to do it. I see rational thinking mode and optimized happiness as what unstressed humans do. Ones facing starvation or under attack are in a non-rational mode, though this mode *is* rational from their gene's viewpoint. > > I vividly remember (by name) a person who was somewhere toward the > > Objectivist end of the Libertarian spectrum telling me in 1985 that > > if it > > came to a choice between saving his ass and the rest of the world, the > > rational thing would be for everyone else to die. > >Hmm. I guess you had to be there. No comment for now. There is >something to be said for having the ability to maximize one's own >well being regardless for how irrationally and even dangerously the >rest of the world may be behaving. But the above seems empty and >not worth a lot of analysis as it is a pretty unimaginable contrived >hypothetical situation. Contrived yes, but also just wrong. Your genes (on average) have evolved to build your brain to evaluate cost an benefits to *genes.* You really must understand Hamilton and Haldene on inclusive fitness to understand this point. In a crunch people take terrible risks, but if you look at such stories, it is a fine calculation. They are far more likely to lay down their lives for close relatives or those they have been fooled into regarding as fellow tribe members. (See capture-bonding as it relates to military training.) That's why "save me" at the expense of everyone else is wrong, it is just not the way we are wired. If the crunch came, chances are these people would dump what they call "rational" and die to save members of their family and/or tribe. > >> Do you have any positive tools from your study of EP beyond dark > >> understanding of the seeming inevitability of it all? > > > > Yes. The situation is analogous to being in a truck hurtling toward a > > cliff. Apply the brakes! > > > > In my war paper I connect the fading out of the IRA to the *Irish > > women* > > who a generation ago cut the population growth to where economic > > growth got > > ahead of population growth. It is my clam based on EP that this > > damped > > down the gain on memes supporting the IRA. > >This is interesting as a factor but it is doubtful to me that it was >the primary determinant. If you have a better idea, I would love to hear it. Can send you a copy of the paper if you have not read it. > > Of course this happened long before anyone had a clue about EP. > > > > The problem with the situation in much of the Islamic world is like > > being > > in a truck doing 70 mph and only 50 feet from the brink. Even if you > > understand the problem, can you do anything about it? > > > >Probably not much more than: > >a) get out the truck and out of its way; >b) don't add nitro to its fuel; >c) quickly set up barriers near the brink preferable to all concerned >to going over the brink; >d) encourage those in the truck to detour. > >A set of memes like fundamental Islam certainly will grow stronger if >directily opposed by a foreign memeset the infected parties >associate strongly with their own multi-level oppression and >subjugation. That adds nitro to the tank and greatly increases >their adherence to their current memeset. Not that long ago I would have agreed with you. Now I have come to see all religions, not just Islam, as xenophobic meme seeds for wars. Come even anticipation of bad times, these memes flower into vicious "kill the different ones" memes. Consider the hollowing out of the middle class in the US and the concurrent rise of the religious right and rapture fringe. In that model, there is virtually nothing we can do to make the social instability in fundamentalist Islam better *or* worse. The current problems there stem from a population grown too large for the economy/resources to support them. The declining "income per capita" flips a psychological switch for higher gain on the more xenophobic variations of the memes and eventually leads to war or related social disruptions like the IRA bombing or 9/11. By this model it won't do a bit of good to kill OBL, the situation simply calls for such a person and another would take his place. Same with Pol Pot and Hitler. > >> How can we > >> unprogram, reprogram or channel our programming into less disastrous > >> outcomes? > > > > I don't know. > > > > I am not even certain that my EP based analysis is accurate. More > > critical > > thought in this area would sure help. Formal simulation models > > would also > > be of great value. If someone would like to collaborate on a model > > let me > > know. > > > > If this EP based model is correct, and you want to save the current > > population from a huge die back, then economic growth faster than > > population growth is the only way I can see to raise the income per > > capita > > and shut off war mode. > >Even if the EP model is not the best explanation I agree strongly >with this point. I believe that engineering better memes is very >important but I also believe we are hurtling toward the brink and >there is little time for alternative memes to be produced and gain >sufficient adherents. It's long range, but the liberation of Islamic women will have to come about at some point. That may be impossible to do from the outside. I don't know enough of the early history of how it happened in the western countries to be able to even make a suggestion. Perhaps Japan would be a more instructive model. >I think that a major economic "correction" is >inevitable before 2010. We seem to be on the brink of what I >believe actually amounts to Energy Wars (imho the "war on terror" is >a cover for positioning and preliminary moves). Unless we get a >large infusion of very cheap energy or a major technological advance >(such as MNT or SAI) soon I think we are in for a major crisis. If you go to pebble bed reactors, they can be safe enough and efficient enough to supply vast energy at an acceptable cost. It is a terrible shame we got caught in a water reactor dead end. There would still be still *major* problems, but the oil won't run out all at once even if we are at peak oil. Nanotube/skyhook/SPS is another route. Engineers probably could stretch things out long enough for nanotechnology to get going. The problem is stressed people going into non rational mode and starting a war instead of fixing the resource problems. > > Nanotechnology in the self replicating mode would do that. > > > > Can it happen in time? > >Dunno. It is quite a cliffhanger. > > > > Can we do anything to make it happen faster? > > >We can do our own technical work that may be germane or help, >contribute to the work of others, continue to attempt to understand >and improve ourselves and others including building and fielding >hopefully more helpful memes. As you probably expect, I think having a few million people who understand this EP/memes/war business would be helpful. Unfortunately it is hard to spread this meme even among people who have most of the background. Best wishes, Keith PS STAR LAWS [Editorial comment--It won't be long till people are living and working in space, but existing space law makes short shrift of human rights.] by H. Keith Henson and Arel Lucas With tears in his eyes, the commander of the US moon base spoke to the woman begging for asylum. "Sonya, my personal sympathies are with you. But I have my authorities above me. I have to do what is required. You will have to return to your base." "Please!" pleaded Sonya. "They will kill me. I will not go back." The commander reluctantly left his office and admitted the Russians. Dr. Gale Roberts, one of the civilian scientists at the base, later recounted the incident to the press. "We could here the woman's cries for help. She was on her knees praying and crying, 'Oh God help me.' The Russians came in. Sometimes I couldn't see her, but I could hear her screaming. Then she ran to the upper deck. Her face was all bloody. "She hid for a while, but three more Russians were let in. They found her, beat her unconscious. Then they tied her in a blanket and carried her out the airlock. "We're not even sure they put a suit on her in the airlock," said Dr. Roberts. "Nobody was permitted to look.'' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Hypothetical overstatement? Not at all. Change "Sonya" to "Simas," and moon base to Coast Guard Cutter *Vigilant*, and you have an incident that occurred in November 1970. The US ship and a Russian ship . . . . http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.space.policy/msg/3654d08deee4f4f0?hl=en& From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Mar 11 03:40:29 2006 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:40:29 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat] The Longevity Dividend References: Message-ID: <02a201c644bd$8ae74d80$cc83e03c@homepc> Hal wrote: > Olshansky has also been an outspoken opponent of over-optimistic life > extension claims. But now he has come forward with a proposal for a > major research into not life extension, but health extension, which he > calls The Longevity Dividend. > > http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/3/1/28/1/ > >> What we have in mind is not the unrealistic pursuit of dramatic increases >> in life expectancy, let alone the kind of biological immortality best >> left to science fiction novels. I wonder why Olshansky thinks a 7 year decrease is realistic as a sort of goal. I don't disagree that such *seems* inherently more realistic than say aiming to eliminate aging altogether, but I'm still left with the question who does Olshansky think is going to set it as a goal for itself. I'm wondering if Olshansky is not mistaken in thinking that those sort of goals can be shared by communities or polities in the world as it is currently configured. Sure individuals want extended healthspans for themselves and those they care about, and I don't doubt that there are also some individuals who would be unfortately in a small minority in most existant nation states that would genuinely imagine that the healthspan could be and ought be increased for all, - but here is the kicker, existing systems are just not set up for those sort of minority aspirations to be able to be effectively shared widely enough. Rather, it seems to me, that what drives incremental progress from the supply side is the profit motive. Companies want to profit from extending the healthspan. And companies don't aspire in particular to expending the healthspan in order to do their nations citizens a public service. Unfortunately, I think Olshanskys hope that we (some existing community or polity) might set the increase of the healthspan for *all* members or citizens is probably naive. I think that governments and oppositions running for government set policy that is aimed at the public interest (ie the voter) not companies, and that there are forces that drive governments and oppositions to avoid wild romantic schemes aimed at the betterment of all when those schemes cannot be implemented within an electoral cycle. I wish I was more optimistic than that, but I don't think I can be. The sense of working for the good of the public (of the citizens of ones countries) seems to have been sent into history. I'm inclined to think that the great privatisation push (Thather, Reagan etc) that I think you commented on a couple of years ago Hal (perhaps in the context of it seeming like a sort of intergeneration asset grab) may have seen off most of those who held public service sentiments as though it was mere foolish sentimentality. Market forces seem to me to have become too strong now for governments to aim at the sort of goal Olshansky lauds, and commercial forces aren't that interested in the public good so will pursue only those gains that will make them a return on investment. - This doesn't mean no progress, nor does it mean no trickle down effects, but it does mean I think that the sort of radical growth or advances one sees in command economies (like China perhaps used to be) are not going to be available. > Olshansky and his team call for a $3 billion government program: 1/3 to > go to basic research on aging; 1/3 for research on age related diseases; > 1/6 for clinical trials of anti-aging medicine; and 1/6 for a preventive > medicine program that would cover accidents and lifestyle issues. Alas I think Olshansky may be dreamin. > Olshansky provides a footnote to buttress his claim that a "growing > chorus of scientists agrees" that his 7 year objective is feasible. Its my impression that a growing numbers of scientist could hardly fail to agree if they are focussed only on the scientific and the technological. Scientist can hardly fail to see that we know more about aging. Unfortunately scientists as a class aren't to my eye anyway much better at reading how politics in democratic systems acts as a sort of sheet anchor to pure technological progress. Technophiles as a rule seem to be lousy leaders of public opinion. Just my two cents. BTW: I've switched over to reading the Exi-list in digest form to save time and will be curious to see if I manage to post this back successfully Good to see Lee Corbin posting again, he does sort of belong on this list. Brett Paatsch From hal at finney.org Sat Mar 11 07:30:01 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:30:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Recreational Technologies Message-ID: <20060311073001.EDDC257FAF@finney.org> Kara Devar writes: > That air scooter looks like a hoot! Probably slightly more risk than an > out-of-traffic-motorcycle. (Oh boy--me on just a bicycle is enough > entertainment for the neighbors and don't get me started on the new "Land > Rollers." As a child I never learned to skate but at age 42, I discovered > this great improvement to Rollerblade technology and spend four days at > "skate camp for middle-agers" in Hilton Head. (Okay--old farts.) What a > blast! I look like the Michelin man, but I have a great time. I highly > recommend "Land Rollers" to anyone who likes the Roller Blade concept but > appreciates small companies implementing better designs.) Anyway, for the > air scooter I'd gear up as for motocross, train-up and have a blast! (No > wind blasts, thank you.) Those do look cool. I have tried rollerblading a little but never got too good at it. BTW there is a recall notice at www.landroller.com in case you have one of the ones that could have the wheel fall off! >From the sound of it though these would be good at the one problem I have with the rollerblades, hitting a twig or pebble on the ground. They really get knocked back from that and my balance isn't that strong. My attempt at recreational technology are my Powerisers, jumping stilts. I'll go ahead and give the link to a video of me trying them out. My wife Fran is running along beside me for part of it. Nobody outside my family has seen it so try not to laugh! This was just a couple of weeks after I got them. I got a little better using them but in the end I stopped, it was too scary. It may not look like much but you feel like you're really up high, and there's just no way to fall safely. They're strapped to your shin and you'd just have to come down on your knees and wrists. At my age I'm afraid something would break. A couple of times on them I've stumbled a little, caught my foot/stilt, but I've always recovered in time. Scared me though. Anyway here's the video: http://www.finney.org/~hal/PoweriserWeb.mov Hal From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Mar 11 07:59:18 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:59:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Are vaccinations useless? was Re: Failure of low-fat diet In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060310183943.024748c0@gmu.edu> References: <7641ddc60603061407x25401316t6c98b5960b1b015e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060306174613.024859b0@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60603101403u19055c7cpcf68c949db689a0a@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60603101405j4f0fd3c1vab902e58aa2a5568@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060310183943.024748c0@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Mar 10, 2006, at 3:50 PM, Robin Hanson wrote: > >> This would >> mean a reduction of an estimated lifetime prevalence from close to >> 90% >> down to, say 1%, solely from the collateral effects of affluence. >> If you indeed believe this, then you would need to explain how a 100% >> reduction of the prevalence of smallpox occurred in all those >> countries which did not achieve affluence, or even experienced >> worsening of their economic circumstances, including Afganistan, >> China >> of the Great Leap Forward period, and others. > > In response to my saying that the data suggests medicine only > contributed > a small fraction to the reduction in mortality over the last few > centuries, I was > asked what did it. I said I was very unsure. When I was asked to > at least > give an example of what might be plausible, I offered the > stress-wealth theory. > I was not intending to offer a grand theory making precise predictions > about the rates of each disease in each nation at each time, and to > then > challenge others to present data to prove me wrong. > I believe it is up to the proponent of a new hypothesis to show that their idea covers the relevant observations before the new hypothesis is worth much scrutiny from others. It is not up to others to prove it incorrect. This is reminiscent of asking atheists to prove their isn't a god. You know better than this. > I don't know the details of smallpox in poor counties - perhaps > that is an > area where medicine had a larger than usual effect. > The simpler explanation is that the hypothesis is all wet. - samantha From hal at finney.org Sat Mar 11 08:15:24 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:15:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Are vaccinations useless? was Re: Failure of low-fat diet Message-ID: <20060311081524.24A3957FB0@finney.org> Samantha writes: > I believe it is up to the proponent of a new hypothesis to show that > their idea covers the relevant observations before the new hypothesis > is worth much scrutiny from others. It is not up to others to prove > it incorrect. This is reminiscent of asking atheists to prove their > isn't a god. You know better than this. Who gets to decide which hypothesis gets the benefit of the doubt as the established belief, and which has the burden of proof expected of a new idea? Consider the question of whether advances in health and longevity are largely due or are not due to medicine. Should we use the common-sense answer of yes, and demand that someone who argues otherwise take up the burden of proof? Or should we use the accepted answer in the public health field of no, and demand that proponents of medicine's effectiveness prove it? Which is the null hypothesis, and which is the one we test? I would say that we should use the ideas from the scientific community as our basis, over beliefs of the average person, where they disagree. This is true not only on this question, but on such other controversies as evolution, global warming, effects of international trade, etc. Hal From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Mar 11 08:15:53 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:15:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] My apologies In-Reply-To: <20060311011447.9860.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060311011447.9860.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mar 10, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > I have never in any post suggested that I was a genius, but I don't > think > being rude is the best antidote for this list or any others. I don't believe attempting to wake you to the problem some of us have at times with your posts or the way I did it was all that rude. I have also gone to bat for you more than once. > I might not > be at the level of education that I would like to be but don't > underestimate > people, it might one day come back and bite you in the ass. Whatever you mean by that I don't see where it is helpful. > I'm learning because I like and want to learn, even if at times I > look stupid > or irrational (sorry Samantha), I mean in no way any harm to anyone. I don't believe and never said you were stupid or meant anyone any harm. But you were imo being too sloppy in your thinking and communication to actually get much out of being here. I am happy for you to be here as long as you make some effort to think through what you are saying a bit more. > If that's not Extropian then what is? Wanting to learn per se and not intending to harm anyone is true of a lot of people who aren't particularly extropic. > And Emlyn, I was always told by mother don't judge a book by it's > cover. > > Thanks to everyone that didn't think I was a lunatic:) and took > their time > to answer my posts, it made my day! > Sigh. Please grow up. I don't think you are a lunatic. If I did I would not have bothered to write what I did to you. What you don't seem to get is that I would never write that to you if I did not believe you are fundamentally intelligent and honest enough to hear the truth in what was said and adjust your approach accordingly. - samantha From scerir at libero.it Sat Mar 11 07:20:30 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 08:20:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Black Holes not -- really Dark Energy Stars? Message-ID: I'd like to see a list of the papers this is based on if they have been submitted. Robert Lubos says something here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/03/chapline-black-holes-dont-exist.html and there are also these papers: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503200 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0109035 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012094 From alito at organicrobot.com Sat Mar 11 08:02:44 2006 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:02:44 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Longevity Dividend In-Reply-To: <20060311005003.EC39657FAF@finney.org> References: <20060311005003.EC39657FAF@finney.org> Message-ID: <1142064164.15567.229.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 16:50 -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Well, they better get going pronto if they are going to help baby boomers, > some of whom are turning 60. Not a lot of time left for some magic > drug that's going to buy them 7 years. But surely the prospects are > more promising for interventions that could be applied at a younger age. > At the current rate of life expectancy improvement in developed countries, 7 years would take somewhere between two and three decades, which matches the remaining life expectancy of the baby boomers, so this objective could probably be achieved by doing whatever we are doing already. The remaining life expectancy wouldn't be increased by 7 years at all stages of life, but the effect would still be that, on average, the mortality at any specific age would be halved. Would Olshanky claim the objective met if the current trend continued? From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Mar 11 08:55:40 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:55:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Are vaccinations useless? was Re: Failure of low-fat diet In-Reply-To: <20060311081524.24A3957FB0@finney.org> References: <20060311081524.24A3957FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <6A1E08A4-AC00-4326-8A06-BF796DD2411D@mac.com> On Mar 11, 2006, at 12:15 AM, Hal Finney wrote: > Samantha writes: >> I believe it is up to the proponent of a new hypothesis to show that >> their idea covers the relevant observations before the new hypothesis >> is worth much scrutiny from others. It is not up to others to prove >> it incorrect. This is reminiscent of asking atheists to prove their >> isn't a god. You know better than this. > > Who gets to decide which hypothesis gets the benefit of the doubt as > the established belief, and which has the burden of proof expected of > a new idea? > Does this new hypothesis cover as much of the observed data as the old one? It doesn't seem to. So why consider it as possibly better or equal? To answer your question all hypothesis need to meet such criteria. If science is working well the established hypotheses have already met such criteria in the context of then existing knowledge and observations. But all are required to meet the same burdens of proof. > Consider the question of whether advances in health and longevity are > largely due or are not due to medicine. Should we use the common- > sense > answer of yes, and demand that someone who argues otherwise take up > the burden of proof? Or should we use the accepted answer in the > public > health field of no, and demand that proponents of medicine's > effectiveness > prove it? > We already have a pretty large body of observations and experiment supporting the current notions. A viable new model would have to cover at minimum the existing covered observation as well and have at leas as good predictive power. Effectiveness of medicine has been proved sufficiently to get us this far. > Which is the null hypothesis, and which is the one we test? > Wrong question. - samantha From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Mar 11 12:25:07 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 07:25:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060311081524.24A3957FB0@finney.org> References: <20060311081524.24A3957FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060311071950.02470600@gmu.edu> At 03:15 AM 3/11/2006, Hal Finney wrote: > > I believe it is up to the proponent of a new hypothesis to show that > > their idea covers the relevant observations before the new hypothesis > > is worth much scrutiny from others. ... > >Consider the question of whether advances in health and longevity are >largely due or are not due to medicine. Should we use the common-sense >answer of yes, and demand that someone who argues otherwise take up >the burden of proof? Or should we use the accepted answer in the public >health field of no, and demand that proponents of medicine's effectiveness >prove it? To elaborate, the answer of no is not only the accepted answer in public health, it is also the accepted answer in the economics of health, and in the sociology of health. It is only some in medicine who say otherwise. I am not a lone crank trying to prove an odd hypothesis - I am just a bearer of news about the academic consensus. 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 Sat Mar 11 14:51:44 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:51:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat] The Longevity Dividend In-Reply-To: <02a201c644bd$8ae74d80$cc83e03c@homepc> References: <02a201c644bd$8ae74d80$cc83e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On 3/10/06, Brett Paatsch wrote: Brett, there are a couple of points that you miss... Sure individuals want extended healthspans for themselves > and those they care about, ... existing systems are just > not set up for those sort of minority aspirations to be able > to be effectively shared widely enough. You should go read the Wiki entry on the Gates Foundation [1,2] and research some of the efforts they are funding. The Gates Foundation programs are largely focused on the non-aging related causes of death (AIDS, malaria, hookworms, etc.). In contrast the Ellison Medical Foundation [3] does have very specific efforts related to aging and biogerontology. You could Google on the Sam and Ann Barshop Institute for Longevity and Aging Studies @ U. Texas San Antonio or efforts by Eli and Edythe Broad of the Broad foundation which include the "Broad Institute" at Harvard & MIT and the "Broad Institute for Integrative Biology and Stem Cell Research" at USC.** I tend not to discuss it but much of what EMF is doing, in terms of promoting information sharing and research in biogerontology mirrors to a significant extent what I attempted to do with Aeiveos Corporation in the 1992-1995 time frame. I consider myself to be in part indirectly responsible for the EMF because I doubt Larry would have put his attention on and committed funds to the area if I had not actively worked to get him to see that aging was a problem which could really be taken apart *and* solved. People should understand that the combined net worth of the top 400 richest people in the U.S. (alone) is more than $1 Trillion. You don't have to share the ideas "widely" if they are shared among the right people. I would observe that the wealthiest people, in terms of both quality and quantity, have the most to lose by failing health (aging) and death. As a group, many of them are also relatively unencumbered by concepts involved in the disempowerment of a critical support base that robust lifespan extension would likely facilitate [4]. So the wealthy generally have a lot to gain and relatively little to lose by extending the human lifespan. People *will* commit resources to the area of postponing or eliminating death because (a) they feel it is a noble thing to do and represents a contribution they can make to humanity; or (b) it is in their own self-interest. Both of those concepts, IMO, may motivate many people to begin to asking why we are devoting more funds to "putting people on Mars" than extending human health and longevity by 7 (or more) years? Unfortunately scientists as a class aren't to my eye > anyway much better at reading how politics in democratic systems > acts as a sort of sheet anchor to pure technological progress. Scientists "as a class" don't have to read the "politics in democratic systems", all they have to do is get a significant number of people to start clamoring -- "You can put men on the moon -- Why can't you stop aging?" It is also important to keep in mind that the people having the debate currently are *not* the people who will solve the problem. Jay Olshansky is a demographer (a very good one) and as such is perhaps poorly qualified to comment on what can and cannot be done with respect treating and eliminating aging. You generally do not turn to people who are experts at comprehending complex systems (scientists) as the people who will offer the best insights into how to put solutions together (engineers) -- particularly if the solutions one most desires to engineer may have little in common with the systems being taken apart [5]. Also see [7]. Robert 1. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_Foundation 3. http://www.ellisonfoundation.org/index.jsp 4. The significant extension of human lifespan potentially disempowers those who believe in and are supported by concepts involving "souls", "afterlives", "heaven" & "hell", etc. If one is going to live hundreds, thousands (or trillions(!)) of years, the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" have much less throw weight. Conservative parties which have strong religious subgroups are likely to have significant problems when mere humans start to have control over "life" and "death" (an area formerly the exclusive domain of "gods"). 5. For an extreme example, an analysis of how telomere shortening does or does not contribute to aging (say among all of the scientists who are experts on telomeres) contributes *very* little towards building nanorobotic vasculoid systems [6] that can be implanted in the human body and would eliminate heart attacks, strokes and cancer as causes of death. 6. Freitas, R. A. & Phoenix, C. J., "Vasculoid: A Personal Nanomedical Appliance to Replace Human Blood", Journal of Evolution and Technology 11 (Apr 2002). http://www.jetpress.org/volume11/vasculoid.html http://www.jetpress.org/volume11/vasculoid.pdf 7. As a child I grew up in a relatively unique environment. I got to take lots of things apart -- pinball machines, old radios and oscilliscopes, motorcycle and automobile engines, geological formations, etc. I also got to put things together things such as tinkertoys or erector set projects, plastic car, boat and airplane models, relatively complex HO model train systems, model rockets, various electronic projects and chemistry experiments and of course the motorcycle and automobile engines (hopefully in better condition than before they were taken apart). My first "real" job was at a florist facilitating the assembly of complex biological systems, usually geraniums and my second "real" job was taking apart and putting together stepping motor electronic driver boards and the stepping motors themselves. (This was all before the age of 18). It is my firm belief that one cannot *really* discuss the problems of aging and lifespan extension with people who do not have significant experience with *both* taking relatively complex things apart and putting them together. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Sat Mar 11 19:35:56 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:35:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Collapse, by Jared Diamond Message-ID: <20060311193556.2741257FAF@finney.org> A few weeks ago we had some discussion of the book Collapse, by Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs and Steel. Diamond discusses a number of cases of failed social systems, identifying resource exhaustion as a common theme, with possible implications for our own ecological challenges. One of his examples is Easter Island, aka Rapa Nui, where a civilization arose that created phenomenal sculptures of giant heads that dot the island, only to collapse. It is particularly puzzling because half of the heads were apparently abandoned in mid construction in the quarries. The conventional explanation, as cited by Diamond, is of resource exhaustion in the form of deforestation. A few researchers have challenged that view, and now there is a new report in Science which turns the Easter Island chronology on its head. The article requires a subscription but here is a news report about it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060309/sc_space/viewofeasterislanddisasterallwrongresearcherssay > The first settlers on Easter Island didn't arrive until 1200 AD, up to > 800 years later than previously thought, a new study suggests... > > The finding challenges the widely held notion that Easter Island's > civilization experienced a sudden collapse after centuries of slow > growth. If correct, the finding would mean that the island's irreversible > deforestation and construction of its famous Moai statues began almost > immediately after Polynesian settlers first set foot on the island. > ... > > Crucial to the conventional account of events on Easter Island is the > time when settlers first arrived. If colonization didn't begin until > 1200 AD, then the island's population wouldn't have had time to swell > to tens of thousands of people. > > "You don't have this Garden of Eden period for 400 to 800 years," Hunt > said in an accompanying Science article. "Instead, [humans] have an > immediate impact." > > Also, the few thousand people Europeans encountered when they first > arrived on Easter Island might not have been the remnants of a once great > and populous civilization as widely believed. The researchers think a few > thousand people might have been all the island was ever able to support. > > "There may not have actually been any collapse," Lipo told > LiveScience. "With only 500 years, there's no reason to believe there > had to have been a huge [population] growth." > > Europeans and rats to blame > > The researchers also dispute the claim that Easter Island's human > inhabitants were responsible for their own demise. Instead, they think the > culprits may have been Europeans, who brought disease and took islanders > away as slaves, and rats, which quickly multiplied after arriving with > the first Polynesian settlers. > > "The collapse was really a function of European disease being introduced," > Lipo said. "The story that's been told about these populations going > crazy and creating their own demise may just be simply an artifact of > [Christian] missionaries telling stories." > > At a scientific meeting last year, Hunt presented evidence that the > island's rat population spiked to 20 million from the years 1200 to > 1300. Rats had no predators on the island other than humans and they > would have made quick work of the island's palm seeds. After the trees > were gone, the island's rat population dropped off to a mere one million. > > Lipo thinks the story of Easter Island's civilization being responsible > for its own demise might better reflect the psychological baggage of > our own society than the archeological evidence. > > "It fits our 20th century view of us as ecological monsters," Lipo > said. "There's no doubt that we do terrible things ecologically, but > we're passing that on to the past, which may not have actually been the > case. To stick our plight onto them is unfair." This last point is interesting. We do have a tendency to interpret the world in the context of "stories", and science is not immune to this. Right now the story is popular of man as the "ecological monster" described here, and interpretations of the past in that context are common. Another example is the supposed extermination of large American mammals by the actions of humans, while other evidence blaming climate change is downplayed because it doesn't fit the story. (Actually, climate change is a major new story - I've even heard it applied to Mars - so I'll bet we will see this extermination history reinterpreted.) It's easy to see the influence of these stories when we look at scientific history. The racism and jingoism of European culture had a strong influence on sociological analyses of "primitive" cultures in the 19th century, and we easily scorn the limited vision of those scientists. But in some ways we are not free of this tendency today. It is good to see this self-consciousness of story-driven interpretations as described in this article. I wonder if they made it into the Nature report. Becoming conscious of these kinds of bias is the first step in being able to compensate for them in scientific reasoning. Hal From benboc at lineone.net Sat Mar 11 20:58:18 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:58:18 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy, Mass and my mother In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441339EA.8070908@lineone.net> Emlyn wrote: > Samantha wrote: > >> Assertion of various non-sensical things is asking for help? Even if >> it is the above question about the purpose of the list remains. >> >> >> - samantha >> > I agree with Samantha... those posts are not about asking for help. > They're like the output of a markov chaining bot which has been primed > with new age gobbledegook. > > Learning things is really cool. But a systematic, rational approach to > inquiry is necessary before you're going to get anywhere. I couldn't agree more. But, (unlike Lee), i think that's an approach it's possible to learn. Is this the right place to start learning that? Maybe, maybe not. It's helped me, i think. I've definitely learned things from this list. The fact that that's not it's stated purpose is irrelevant. The list doesn't have a purpose any more than the genes controlling my fat metabolism do. It's people that have purposes, and just as i have one for my fat genes, and one for this list, so does everyone else have a purpose for the list. I can't speak for Anna, maybe she isn't asking for help as such, but she has a purpose in being here. It's a bit harsh calling her a troll, as long as she isn't causing a problem - i.e. her purpose for the list conflicting with that of most others on it. We have had genuine trolls here in the past, i don't need to mention any names. Does Anna compare? I hardly think so. Anyway, we have a List Despot for those decisions. I feel there's a big difference between "Anna you're talking rubbish, go away", and "Anna, you're talking rubbish, please go and get yourself an education in basic physics/whatever, and come back so we can maybe have a meaningful discussion". OK, maybe this isn't the appropriate place to get such an education (but it's a great place to learn about flying cars, hydrogen power, why we have genocidal tendencies, what the real C-word is, etc.). I used to be a hippie. I got better. ben From hal at finney.org Sat Mar 11 22:35:49 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:35:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Longevity Dividend Message-ID: <20060311223549.B496D57FAE@finney.org> Alejandro Dubrovsky writes: > At the current rate of life expectancy improvement in developed > countries, 7 years would take somewhere between two and three decades, > which matches the remaining life expectancy of the baby boomers, so this > objective could probably be achieved by doing whatever we are doing > already. The remaining life expectancy wouldn't be increased by 7 years > at all stages of life, but the effect would still be that, on average, > the mortality at any specific age would be halved. Would Olshanky claim > the objective met if the current trend continued? That's a good point; life expectancy at birth has been increasing 2-3 years per decade so you're right, in another 20-30 years we could easily see an increase of 7 years. However Olshansky is not interested in life expectancy per se, he is interested in postponing the aging process in general. While this might have the side effect of increasing life expectancy, his main goal is to delay the onset of old-age related diseases and degeneration. How are we doing on that? Have our increases in life expectancy been accompanied by an increase in healthy-life years? Have we managed to push out the age at which cancer or heart disease tends to strike? I'd like to hear more about how trends have been in those areas. Hal From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Mar 11 23:48:15 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:48:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Longevity Dividend In-Reply-To: <20060311223549.B496D57FAE@finney.org> References: <20060311223549.B496D57FAE@finney.org> Message-ID: I haven't tried to look up the URL for the report, but the NY Times has some comments that may be relevant. See: "Census Report Foresees No Crisis Over Aging Generation's Health" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/national/10aging.html The basic message seems to be that there are decreasing numbers of "chronically disabled". However you could ask *what* that may be costing us? See: "A Cancer Drug's Big Price Rise Disturbs DOctors and Patients" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/12price.html?ei=5094&en=3bdec083598e50d4&hp=&ex=1142139600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print That article suggests there is little connection between drug prices and manufacturing costs or product development cost amortization. Instead prices seem to be primarly "what the market will bear" (whether or not the drugs are on *or* off patent). Not directly related but interesting is the perspective that if everyone had body filled with cells with the perfect "non-aging" genetic program, then health care costs which are an increasingly non-trivial part of personal, corporate and/or national budgets would be determined entirely by the accident rate (and the severity of those accidents). And before everyone goes screaming that medical care has to be expensive, I would remind us that in a "fair" world we are each limited to ~10 kg of nanorobots due to the hypsithermal limit and 10 kg of nanorobots should, according to Drexler's cost analysis, cost about $5.00 per person (ignoring design costs). So nanorobots designed to install the "perfect" genome into each and every cell in our bodies need not be unaffordable for anyone -- even people currently living at or below the poverty line in the third world. (Also, after my nanorobots have finished upgrading my own personal genome I'd be happy to loan them to others for their own personal genome lifespan extension upgrades.) Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Mar 11 19:57:15 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:57:15 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] MEDIA: Transhumanism in UK Guardian Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060311135355.02e16100@pop-server.austin.rr.com> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1728514,00.html#article_continue Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston 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 pgptag at gmail.com Sun Mar 12 14:15:41 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:15:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist day in Madrid Message-ID: <470a3c520603120615m3b0b1854y2715bcf2c94fb5f@mail.gmail.com> The "Segundas Jornadas sobre Convergencia Ciencia-Tecnolog?a" took place in the University of Alcal? (near Madrid) from 6 to 10 March 2006. On March 9 there was a panel on "TRANSHUMANISMO: UNA VISI?N ?TICA DE LA TECNOLOG?A PARA LA EXTENSI?N DE LA VIDA" (Transhumanism: an ethical vision of life extension technology) with many transhumanist speakers. I think the event was very successful, with more than 500 students who listened to the presentations (I could notice only a few people asleep in the audience) and asked sensible questions. I am receiving letters from students to thank the lecturers for opening their eyes on the transhumanist worldview. One letter says: "until now I viewed our mortal lives as something with a beginning and an end, and nothing more. But now I believe in Man and in his technology, and this gives me hope". It is very intersting that we did not have any abstract ethical questions on whether human enhancement is "right", God's plans, respect for nature, reverence for our mortality, etc. The word "God" was not pronounced even once. But we had a lot of concrete ethical questions on the social impact of life extension, human enhancement and NBIC technologies. My impression is that young students in Spain accept that human enhancement technologies will be developed and deployed, perhaps sooner than most people think, and that they are willing to consider this as a positive or at least acceptable trend. But they want to hear "the rest of the story": how to solve other, more urgent problems of our world like war, poverty, hunger, public health etc. Full report (under development) at: http://futuretag.net/index.php/Alcala090306 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Mar 12 17:27:47 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:27:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Computer Security Message-ID: While most people receiving this note are probably aware of the topic, I thought I would bring it to everyone's attention again as it is from a relatively reliable source [1] and provides some hard numbers. "Among the other data in Symantec's report are new "time to compromise" figures that try to gauge how long an unpatched, unprotected computer would last before it has snatched by a hacker. Windows XP Professional, said Symantec, stays safe just one hour and 12 seconds, while the Windows 2000 Server (with SP4) made it an hour and 17 minutes. An unpatched Windows Server 2003 system lasted somewhat longer. In contrast, unpatched Linux installations of both Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 and SuSE Linux 9 Desktop were never compromised during their month-and-a-half exposure to attackers. Patched Windows systems, however, remained untouched throughout the test, backing both its and Microsoft's advice to patch regularly, and patch promptly. "Applying patches in a timely manner is an important component of an effective security strategy," the report read." The article does have some related discussion about browser bugs (IE vs. Firefox) and various ways of evaluating risks. Of course the only part which seems to be left out of the discussion is how long you have to remain connected to the net to fetch and apply the various patches to the unpatched installations and what ones relative risk is during that "window of opportunity". Feel free to forward it to people you know. Robert 1. Keizer, G., "Firefox Whips Internet Explorer in Vulterability Tally". TechWeb.com, reported by Yahoo 3/8/06. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20060308/tc_cmp/181501722&printer=1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at mark-lyons.com Sun Mar 12 19:51:06 2006 From: mark at mark-lyons.com (Mark Lyons) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:51:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hello Fellow Extropians, Just found out about this addition to diet... heard of this? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6460e$4e5d6d70$0202a8c0@ml4e4492ca79f3> Say, I just wanted to share this with all of you: Since we are all into the latest good health discoveries, I accidentally found out about this. Before I give you the link. I'd like to let you know the current state of medical knowledge in America and the way in which they treat the hardening of arteries is really primitive. Currently the use of statin drugs is prescribed because the medical community sees a ***statistical**** correlation between hardened arteries and LDL/HDL cholesterol levels. The major problem is that there are a small number of people who have great LDL/HDL levels but still have calcification (hardening) of the arteries. The medical community simply explains this away by saying this is due to genetic factors, but they have yet to produce any genetic assay that ties any specific gene to this anomaly! Here's where it gets interesting. These folks have discovered a new form of life that has characteristics of both bacteria and viruses, but lies somewhere in between the two: http://www.nanobac.com/ They believe these organisms explain the mystery of the underling cause of calcification (Hardening) of the arteries. Their treatment consists of destroying the organism's calcium walls, and then killing it with antibiotics. Then I came across this. http://www.webmd.com/content/article/102/106690.htm Which claims that "Pomegranate Juice May Clear Clogged Arteries". I'll be reading up on this some more, but if all looks good I'll be adding this to my daily diet, as a preventative while I undergo the aging process. I just wanted to share that with you. Best regards, -Mark From mark at mark-lyons.com Sun Mar 12 20:02:51 2006 From: mark at mark-lyons.com (Mark Lyons) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:02:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Emlyn mentioned flying cars.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c6460f$f261d770$0202a8c0@ml4e4492ca79f3> Since Emlyn brought up the subject of flying cars: www.skycar.com Enjoy! From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Mar 12 20:36:43 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:36:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Recreational Technologies In-Reply-To: <0fac01c644cf$11b82e40$6401a8c0@feemullairone> References: <20060311040553.2F8B957FAF@finney.org> <0fac01c644cf$11b82e40$6401a8c0@feemullairone> Message-ID: <59641.72.236.103.102.1142195803.squirrel@main.nc.us> > As a child I never learned to skate but at age 42, I discovered > this great improvement to Rollerblade technology and spend four days at > "skate camp for middle-agers" in Hilton Head. Agreed, those LandRollers look like lots of fun! I also never learned to roller skate. My son bought me rollerblades in my late 50s and I go many Monday evenings to a local indoor rink. Good exercise and good for balance. There's really no place here for outdoor skating except the roads: full of holes, gravel, and pickuptrucks driven by folks who might enjoy squashing me like they do the possums, turtles, coons and snakes... :( Balance is very important for longevity, IMHO. For older folks, falls are a terrible danger and often presage the beginning of the end of active life. Regards, MB From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 13 01:06:10 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:06:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat] Hello Fellow Extropians... Message-ID: <20060313010610.C1B5957FB0@finney.org> Mark Lyons writes: > Here's where it gets interesting. These folks have discovered a new form of > life that has characteristics of both bacteria and viruses, but lies > somewhere in between the two: > http://www.nanobac.com/ Nanobacteria (sometimes spelled nannobacteria) are a fascinating topic. These are super-small (20-200 nm) spherical objects seen in a variety of biological and mineral substrates which resemble life forms. Whether they are actually living or not is still an open question. This company nanobac.com is strongly pushing the life theory but it is worth bearing in mind that there are opposing views. A good overview of the current situation is available at wired.com: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,66861-0.html Some of the contrary evidence has involved failure to find RNA or DNA, and there is at least limited evidence that crystalline materials may be able to "reproduce" in biological tissues. Of course it is well known that crystals grow, but perhaps not too obvious how 20 nm mineral spheres could reproduce. It is still very much a mystery. I can't help being reminded of perhaps the oddest theory around for the origin of life, that of Graham Cairns-Smith. Years ago I read his book Seven Clues to the Origin of Life, which advances the notion that the first life forms may have been composed entirely of inorganic minerals, in the form of clay. Clays, which are collections of small mineral crystals, are able to grow from saturated solutions, and the new material will copy the existing crystalline structure. Cairns-Smith argued that this replication-with-variation allowed for a form of natural selection and brought the possibility of Darwinian evolution among clays. He then hypothesized that certain clays could evolve the ability to catalyze organic reactions and increase their reproductive fitness. This would lead to a hybrid organism, part mineral and part organic. Finally the organic part got so efficient that the mineral part was abandoned and pure organic life forms were born. It is a very speculative theory although as I recall he made a surprisingly good case in his book. Nevertheless there has never been any direct evidence in its favor. However, reading about the strange properties of nanobacteria, where the dispute is whether they are mineral or organic, I can't help wondering if they could be vestigial Cairns-Smith organisms: perhaps pure mineral, or perhaps mineral with some associated, catalyzed organic reactions to aid in reproduction. There is a great "Nannobacteria Photo Gallery" at . It's frustrating to see the electromicrographs of these spheres and realize that we can't just cut them open to see what's inside! In some ways the world of the very small is as inaccessible as that of the distant stars. Hal From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Mar 13 04:21:38 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:21:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] mars orbiter inserted successfully! In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060311135355.02e16100@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <200603130457.k2D4vPYg009992@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Another Lockheeed Martin product, working as designed. {8-] http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/10/mars.orbiter/index.html Take the quiz: I hit 10 outta 12. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Mar 13 12:40:56 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:40:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Collapse, by Jared Diamond In-Reply-To: <20060311193556.2741257FAF@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060313072657.02d683e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:35 AM 3/11/2006 -0800, Hal wrote: > > "There may not have actually been any collapse," Lipo told > > LiveScience. "With only 500 years, there's no reason to believe there > > had to have been a huge [population] growth." The general belief is that the founders numbered about 20 and that the peak population was about 20,000. (Based on the productivity of the lithic mulched gardens that covered the hills.) A factor of 1000 is 10 doublings, or one every 50 years. Given that human populations are known to be able double in about 15 years, 500 years is plenty of time. I am surprised there is argument about timing. Was there no carbon dating done on the lake core material? Keith Henson From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Mar 13 15:24:31 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:24:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060313102425.02d5e270@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:25 AM 3/11/2006 -0500, Robin wrote: >At 03:15 AM 3/11/2006, Hal Finney wrote: > > > I believe it is up to the proponent of a new hypothesis to show that > > > their idea covers the relevant observations before the new hypothesis > > > is worth much scrutiny from others. ... > > > >Consider the question of whether advances in health and longevity are > >largely due or are not due to medicine. Should we use the common-sense > >answer of yes, and demand that someone who argues otherwise take up > >the burden of proof? Or should we use the accepted answer in the public > >health field of no, and demand that proponents of medicine's effectiveness > >prove it? > >To elaborate, the answer of no is not only the accepted answer in public >health, it is also the accepted answer in the economics of health, and in the >sociology of health. It is only some in medicine who say otherwise. > >I am not a lone crank trying to prove an odd hypothesis - I am just a bearer >of news about the academic consensus. I have known Robin for a long time and I don't doubt his statement about the academic consensus, but I have a hard time squaring "the consensus" with simple first order models, especially economic models. Smallpox used to infect virtually everyone. Depending on the variety it killed 10-35% of those infected. If the economic cost of feeding, clothing and housing a child up to an average age of being infected (say 5 years) was a dollar a day and the cost of vaccination was 10 dollars (which seems high), then the average saving per vaccination was at least 364x1x5x0.1/10 or at least 18 to one. Now obviously it isn't economically sensible to vaccinate against diseases that have much lower death rates or infect a much smaller segment of the population. And it could be noted that measles and chicken pox vaccines were developed *long* after smallpox vaccine perhaps for this very reason (the rising cost of raising children). But consider animal production. An awful lot of vaccines go into animal production. That's a very competitive business. It seems likely that vaccines are cost effective or producers would not use them. What am I missing that the academics see? Keith From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Mar 13 15:09:15 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:09:15 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Emlyn mentioned flying cars.... References: <000901c6460f$f261d770$0202a8c0@ml4e4492ca79f3> Message-ID: <008601c646b0$18190880$650fa8c0@kevin> I like this one. http://news.com.com/2300-11389_3-6040379-1.html?tag=nl From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 18:16:54 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:16:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Are vaccinations useless? was Re: Failure of low-fat diet In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060310183943.024748c0@gmu.edu> References: <7641ddc60603061407x25401316t6c98b5960b1b015e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060306174613.024859b0@gmu.edu> <7641ddc60603101403u19055c7cpcf68c949db689a0a@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60603101405j4f0fd3c1vab902e58aa2a5568@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060310183943.024748c0@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7641ddc60603131016o3f4dab88w4af6b673364d529b@mail.gmail.com> On 3/10/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > At 05:05 PM 3/10/2006, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >>On 3/6/06, Robin Hanson wrote about the impact of > >>vaccination on the prevalence of smallpox: > >> > To answer your exact question I'd guess 1 to 10% of the reduction is > >> > attributable to vaccination. > >To avoid misunderstanding, are you saying that even without > >vaccinations against smallpox, the lifetime prevalence of that > >particular disease today would be only about 1% to 10% of the lifetime > >prevalence observed in the years 1500 - 1700 in Europe? > > Regarding the United States, yes, that is my rough estimate. > > >This would > >mean a reduction of an estimated lifetime prevalence from close to 90% > >down to, say 1%, solely from the collateral effects of affluence. > >If you indeed believe this, then you would need to explain how a 100% > >reduction of the prevalence of smallpox occurred in all those > >countries which did not achieve affluence, or even experienced > >worsening of their economic circumstances, including Afganistan, China > >of the Great Leap Forward period, and others. > > In response to my saying that the data suggests medicine only contributed > a small fraction to the reduction in mortality over the last few > centuries, I was > asked what did it. I said I was very unsure. When I was asked to at least > give an example of what might be plausible, I offered the > stress-wealth theory. > I was not intending to offer a grand theory making precise predictions > about the rates of each disease in each nation at each time, and to then > challenge others to present data to prove me wrong. > > I don't know the details of smallpox in poor counties - perhaps that is an > area where medicine had a larger than usual effect. ### Very good, you agree then that a specific form of medical intervention, namely smallpox vaccination, had a "larger than usual effect" on morbidity in poor countries. Now to the next step - above you postulate that in the US there was no significant effect of smallpox vaccination on morbidity, simply because US citizens are too rich to get smallpox. Are you saying that the biology of smallpox is radically different for rich people and poor people? You are talking about a 99% difference in lifetime prevalence of the disease. At what per capita income does this biological effect manifest itself? Can you point to research observing a 99% drop in smallpox infection rate in unvaccinated humans who meet this economic criterion? I expect that you will be unable to point me to any such research, since if it existed, I would have have heard about it. What is more, I hope you are familiar with estimates of material wealth in rich countries in the 1850s. At that time even the citizens of Great Britain were hardly wealthier than Maoist Chinese were twenty years ago, and yet rates of smallpox were dropping precipitously in inverse relationship with vaccination rates. As Damien Sullivan noted in another post, other infectious conditions that can be vaccinated against have also exhibited significant declines, while infectious conditions that cannot be vaccinated against are still rampant in the same populations. I hope you do not hypothesize that wealth changes only the biology of smallpox, polio, and tetanus, while having no impact on herpes, or HIV. I think I need to ask you again about the basis for your belief that vaccinations in rich countries are 99% useless. Extensive interventional as well as correlative data indicate that this is not the case. Even the Bunker et al. reference you mentioned previously in this thread does not claim that vaccinations are useless (subsequently you disparage their research). Is your opinion based exclusively on analysis of aggregate longevity data versus aggregate healthcare spending? I am glad that you assign the confidence level "very unsure" to the economic explanation of dropping prevalence of certain infectious conditions. Leaving aside the question of mechanism for a while, what is your confidence level for the prediction that absence of vaccinations would have only minor, if any, effect on morbidity in this country? Rafal From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Mar 13 17:18:24 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:18:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060313121524.023de548@gmu.edu> At 10:24 AM 3/13/2006, Keith Henson wrote: > > >Consider the question of whether advances in health and longevity are > > >largely due or are not due to medicine. ... > > > >To elaborate, the answer of no is not only the accepted answer in public > >health, it is also the accepted answer in the economics of health, > and in the > >sociology of health. It is only some in medicine who say otherwise. > >I have known Robin for a long time and I don't doubt his statement about >the academic consensus, but I have a hard time squaring "the consensus" >with simple first order models, especially economic models. >Smallpox used to infect virtually everyone. Depending on the variety it >killed 10-35% of those infected. If the economic cost of feeding, clothing >and housing a child up to an average age of being infected (say 5 years) >was a dollar a day and the cost of vaccination was 10 dollars (which seems >high), then the average saving per vaccination was at least 364x1x5x0.1/10 >or at least 18 to one. > >Now obviously it isn't economically sensible to vaccinate against diseases >that have much lower death rates or infect a much smaller segment of the >population. And it could be noted that measles and chicken pox vaccines >were developed *long* after smallpox vaccine perhaps for this very reason >(the rising cost of raising children). > >But consider animal production. An awful lot of vaccines go into animal >production. That's a very competitive business. It seems likely that >vaccines are cost effective or producers would not use them. >What am I missing that the academics see? I didn't say that no vaccines are worth the cost. The main claim at issue in this discussion was whether medicine, including vaccines, are the main cause of reduced mortality in our modern world relative to our ancestors. 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 Mar 13 17:24:58 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:24:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Brain Awareness Week Message-ID: It's Brain Awareness Week :-) http://www.dana.org/brainweek/ "Brain Awareness Week is an international effort organized by the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives to advance public awareness about the progress and benefits of brain research. The Dana Alliance is joined in the campaign by partners in the United States and around the world, including medical and research organizations; patient advocacy groups; the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies; service groups; hospitals and universities; K-12 schools; and professional organizations." Some interesting-looking brochures: Q&A: Answering Your Questions About Brain Research http://www.dana.org/pdf/brainweek/qanda.pdf Advances in Brain Research: Conversations with seven leading neuroscientists. http://www.dana.org/pdf/other/pressbox_advances2005.pdf Their web site provides tons of brain information: http://www.dana.org/ Amara From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 19:20:18 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:20:18 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060311071950.02470600@gmu.edu> References: <20060311081524.24A3957FB0@finney.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060311071950.02470600@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7641ddc60603131120p54d7f79cv77b58378abd4ed8e@mail.gmail.com> On 3/11/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > At 03:15 AM 3/11/2006, Hal Finney wrote: > > > I believe it is up to the proponent of a new hypothesis to show that > > > their idea covers the relevant observations before the new hypothesis > > > is worth much scrutiny from others. ... > > > >Consider the question of whether advances in health and longevity are > >largely due or are not due to medicine. Should we use the common-sense > >answer of yes, and demand that someone who argues otherwise take up > >the burden of proof? Or should we use the accepted answer in the public > >health field of no, and demand that proponents of medicine's effectiveness > >prove it? > > To elaborate, the answer of no is not only the accepted answer in public > health, it is also the accepted answer in the economics of health, and in the > sociology of health. It is only some in medicine who say otherwise. > > I am not a lone crank trying to prove an odd hypothesis - I am just a bearer > of news about the academic consensus. ### As we seem to drift from the specific question of vaccine efficacy towards more general issues, and confusion about which consensus is meant could ensue, let me just say that there is absolutely no consensus whatsoever as to the uselessness of vaccines, to the contrary, there is consensus that they do reduce morbidity and save lives. Regarding the consensus that Robin is alluding to, I need to ask what is meant: Do you mean there is consensus among public health scientists, sociologists, and economists that medicine is largely useless? Point me to some position papers and recent reviews in reputable journals, please. Strangely, in all my years of contact with medicine, you are the only person I met who is trying to prove this hypothesis. Rafal From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 13 19:40:03 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:40:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Brain Awareness Week Message-ID: <20060313194003.354B257FB0@finney.org> The name of "Brain Awareness Week" is actually pretty funny. Since the function of the brain is to be aware, it is a somewhat redundant phrase. Next we could have "Heart Pumping Week", "Stomach Digestion Week", "Kidney Filtration Week", "Muscle Contraction Week", "Lung Breathing Week" and many others. When I was young, Readers Digest magazine ran a series of public health articles with names like "I am Joe's Heart", "I am Joe's Liver", and so on (satirized in the movie Fight Club). I don't remember if they did one, but imagine how different it would be to have an article, "I am Joe's Brain". Hearing from Joe's brain would be totally unlike hearing from Joe's heart or Joe's liver. After all, Joe's brain is who does all the talking for Joe, all the time! I could tell people, "I am Hal's Brain" and it would be true. That is who is writing this message. We are all brains, talking to each other. You are your brain. Once we start dividing the body up into organs and personifying each one, it becomes a bit paradoxical to apply it to the brain. The brain is already a person; in a way, it has a better claim to personhood than the body as a whole. I'll say one more thing about "Brain Awareness", a little more speculative. Can the brain really be aware of itself? In some ways I would say, no. Can the eye see itself? Can the ear hear itself? Not really. The eye could see a model of the eye; the ear could hear a description of the auditory system. And the brain can think about a representation of itself. But it is not aware of itself in raw form. Self-awareness is (just) another model constructed by the brain for its own purposes. The brain is fundamentally transparent to itself. Hal From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 19:46:31 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:46:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hello Fellow Extropians, Just found out about this addition to diet... heard of this? In-Reply-To: <000001c6460e$4e5d6d70$0202a8c0@ml4e4492ca79f3> References: <000001c6460e$4e5d6d70$0202a8c0@ml4e4492ca79f3> Message-ID: On 3/12/06, Mark Lyons wrote about nanobacteria and Nanobacteria Life Sciences (http://www.nanobac.com): Since we are all into the latest good health discoveries, [snip] Yes particularly those which do not have the faint odor of "snake oil" [1]. The major problem is that there are a small number of people who have great > LDL/HDL levels but still have calcification (hardening) of the arteries. > The medical community simply explains this away by saying this is due to > genetic factors, but they have yet to produce any genetic assay that ties > any specific gene to this anomaly! There are thousands of diseases which have been described but which currently still lack information regarding the specific gene(s) which cause them. See the OMIM database [2,3]. If you do not have a specific gene which causes a specific biophysical condition you cannot produce a "genetic assay" for it. Connecting specific biochemical conditions to specific genetic mutations is like looking for a needle in a haystack and can be a very difficult, time consuming and expensive process. The two diseases of accelerated aging, Werner's Syndrome [4] and Hutchinson-Guilford Syndrome (Progeria) [5] are two classic examples of diseases for which the researchers (and the people having those diseases) *really* wanted to know the genetic basis (for decades). It wasn't however until 1996 and 2003 respectively that the phenotype-genotype linkages were pinned down. This is still a complex and ongoing process for common conditions which may involve dozens of underlying genes such as diabetes or asthma and of course cancer and heart disease. Here's where it gets interesting. These folks have discovered a new form of > life that has characteristics of both bacteria and viruses, but lies > somewhere in between the two: http://www.nanobac.com/ Directly from their web site... "Nanobacteria are Calcifying Nano-Particles (CNPs), which are known for their ability to create and propagate calcium phosphate coated vesicles." If they studying "calcifying nanoparticles" then why not name the company "CalcNanoPart" or something similar? We have a *very* good working understanding of "bacteria" which includes such features as the fact that they are complex nanosystems based upon a DNA information carrier which require a minimum of ~250 genes/proteins for self-replication. Their minimal size is 250+/-50 nm [6]. If one uses the standard definitions of "nano-" as meaning 10^-9, or the extended NSF definition of anything less than 100nm, when combined with the word "bacteria" yielding 'nanobacteria" one has a term which comes close to being an oxymoron. One cannot physically have a nano-anything where by definition to be "anything" requires a complete "anything". At least for me, considering the word "nanobacteria" and a company based around it, such terms as "disingenuous" or perhaps "specious" come to mind. If you investigate the history of nanobacteria [briefly in 7] one finds it is controversial to say the least. At first they were treated with great interest, but when the curtain started to be pulled back [8, 6 and refs therein] it became clear that there were significant problems. Indeed [8], points out the problems with Kajander's initial work identifying nucleic acids in the samples and finds the probable cause of previous observations to be "nonliving macromolecules and transferred on 'subculture' by self-propagating microcrystalline apatite". So concepts involving "life" (and the term "bacteria") are not required. I.e. we are not dealing with a pathogen (bacteria or virus) in calcification, at least in kidney stones, but instead simple biophysical processes. Now, returning to "Nanobac Life Sciences", we discover that their testing services are from "Nanobac Oy Clinical Laboratory, under the direction of Olavi Kajander, M.D., Ph.D. The laboratory is fully accredited by the Social Health Ministry of Finland." Dr. Kajander played a key role in attempting to link nanobacteria and human disease [9] though he is not the source of the term [10]. Looking at the string of Nanobac press releases (which span several years) one finds it is an OTC BB stock (Symbol: NNBP) [11] which if I'm reading the 5 year chart correctly would seem to suggest the company could serve as a front and center player on a "Penny Stocks -- How to lose your shirt" poster. The final icing on the cake appears to be their product list which includes (1) a book "The Calcium Bomb: The Nanobacteria Link to Heart Disease" (published in 2004, long after [8] pretty much 'dissed the "bacteria" idea); (2) An oral supplement (ingredients undisclosed); and (3) an EDTA suppository. EDTA [12] is a chelating agent designed to bind to and remove metals from solutions (including calcium) -- though EGTA [13] is a better calcium chelating agent and so one has to wonder why they aren't using that instead? Chelation therapy, using EDTA, is a controversial medical therapy at this time, in part because it is non-specific -- i.e. it will tend to bind and remove metals important in many biological processes. I suspect there are diseases involving excessive metal accumulation, such as Hemochromatosis [14] (excess iron) and Wilson Disease [15] (excess copper) where chelation therapy could be useful. [In both of these cases there are other therapies which are preferred because they can target specific metal excesses.] It may be the case that Nanobac is attempting to remove excess calcium which may contribute to the microcrystalline apatite [16] using EDTA and perhaps uses oral (mineral) supplements to restore any Mg & Cu (or other elements) that may be removed by the EDTA. However I would consider this a questionable strategy for the general population. Further PubMed investigation shows that a lot of research has been done on hydroxyapatite, calcium phosphate, and carboxy apatite. This leads such disease terms as "chondrocalcinosis" and "hypocalciuric hypercalcemia" which turn out to be diseases involving improper calcium metabolism. These are associated with the loci CCAL1, #CCAL2 and #HHC1, HHC2, HHC3 [17-21]. Those two loci with #'s have been determined to be specific gene mutations. So it simply isn't true that we don't at least some of the causes of calcium metabolic disorders. Whether we know all of the specific genes involved in such metabolic disorders, particularly those that might contribute to calcification of the arteries I do not know. Even if we did know them all, I am sure that at this time testing for them at the clinical level would be prohibitively expensive. They believe these organisms explain the mystery of the underling cause of > calcification (Hardening) of the arteries. Their treatment consists of > destroying the organism's calcium walls, and then killing it with > antibiotics. This is silly. If there is no "organism" one cannot destroy it with antiboiotics, particularly if it is a "new" form of "life" and common antibiotics that are extremely specific towards inhibiting *known* bacterial processes such as bacterial cell wall formation or bacterial ribosome translation. If one has a genetic defect in the regulation of hydroxyapatite, or poorly evolved genetic system dictating where and/or how much hydroxyapatite is deposited, one gets a simplified atherosclosis paradigm [22] as part of the problem of aging along the lines of: 1. Circulating cholesterol becomes oxidized. 2. Macrophages go after OxChol and form foam cells in arterial plaques. 3. The foam cells alter the biochemical environment contributing to calcification (esp. in those with genetic susceptibilities). 4. Peridontal disease (or even aggressive brushing of teeth) allows bacteria normally attached to the hydroxyapatite in the teeth to enter the bloodstream and become attached to hydroxyapatite accumulating in the arteries. 5. The macrophages get even more upset over the new invading bacteria than they did over the oxidized cholesterol and contribute to greater inflammation in the body (with a host of side effects a.k.a. collateral damage). 6. The process continues (accumulating foam cells, hydroxyapatite, bacteria, inflammation, etc.) until such time as the arteries become completely blocked or burst (heart attacks & strokes). The EDTA chelation therapy is probably of little help in reducing already calcified arteries with accumulated hydroxyapatite, at best it may slow down the rate of accumulation while creating significant risks of disrupting other biochemical processes. The antibiotic therapy isn't impacting the so called "nanobacteria" but may be diminishing the oral bacterial load contributing to peridontal disease and subsequent blood stream dissemination. Antibiotics may as well minimize subsequent replication of the bacteria in the arteries reducing inflammation and/or calcification. Of course long term antibiotic treatment will likely produce antibiotic resistant bacteria which simply ignore such therapies. If the above model is reasonable it leads to some interesting questions regarding lifespan increases during the 20th century because there are are at least 3 different factors providing different contributions to the primary causes of death in different population groups at different periods of time: 1. dental hygeine; 2. antibiotic consumption; 3. calcium consumption (esp. from milk). The net of this is that we should all not run off and start using chelators to decrease our calcium levels or antibiotics to reduce bacterial load because there are nontrivial downsides to such approaches. The type of therapy that Nanobac is promoting (for those who still believe nanobacteria are "real") should only be considered by people after ultrasound diagnosis (or other tests) indicate that calcification is indeed taking place and in those people whose family history or personal symptoms place them at greater risk from heart attack or stroke compared with osteoporosis. For those who really do want to "believe" in ultra-small bacteria (< 200nm in size), I would offer [23]. Robert 1. Though to be fair, given the recent health benefits associated with the EPA & DHA found in fish oil and the fact that snakes must remain reasonably active at low temperatures (similar to the cold water fish species with high levels of EPA & DHA), one might suspect that a reexamination of the health benefits of "snake oil" derived from specific species could be of interest. 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Omim/omimfaq.html 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Omim/mimstats.html 4. Werner's Syndrome: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=277700 5. HGS/Progeria: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=176670 6. Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms: Proceedings of a Workshop (1999) National Academies Press http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309066344/html/2.html- discusses the gene/size limits 7. Discussed in "Nanobacteria: not a life-form?" http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover14.html 8. Cisar, J. O. et al, PNAS (Oct 2000): http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/21/11511 9. Kajander, E. O. et al, PNAS (Jul 1998): http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/14/8274 10. "Nannobacteria" appears in Sillitoe, Folk & Saric in Science in May 1996. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8662449 11. http://www.otcbb.com/ 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_disodium_EDTA 13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGTA 14. Hemochromatosis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=235200 15. Wilson Disease: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=277900 16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatite - apatite in the body is typically Ca 5(PO4 )3(OH). 17. CCAL1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=600668 18. CCAL2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=118600; ANKH: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=605145 19. HHC1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=145980; CASR: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=601199 20. HHC2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=145981 21: HHC3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=600740 22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis 23. There was one portion of the Size Limits document [6] which would have allowed the information density (genome packing) limits to be transcended allowing "nanobacteria" collectives to exist. That required that the "bacteria" exist as multi-celled collectives where each individual cell only contained as much DNA as was required to produce part of the collective organism's proteome. The cell colony/cluster would be required to export (pass around) the DNA, RNA or proteins required for a fully functional system. This seemed highly improbable result of natural evolution although one could imagine constructing such a system using "intelligent design". (Your local car garage doesn't have to have a duplicate set of tools for each mechanic.) If one steps very far back, one can kind of view species which require sex to reproduce as being based on such a system because certain essential sex-specific material (e.g. the SRY gene [22]) which is required for complete species self-replication is being carried around by a specific subset of the genome copying agents. 24. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 13 20:43:16 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:43:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? Message-ID: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> This is a great subject, that demonstrates many important and surprising effects. One is the problem with the oft-stated idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Who decides what is extraordinary? Another is our emotional resistance to the possibility that medicine may not be very useful. This leaves us feeling powerless and vulnerable. Even back in the 19th century doctors were regarded with awe for their healing powers, powers we now know to be almost non-existent. Yet another issue is the difficult question of how to become informed about the full scope of scholarly understanding of the value of medicine. This is not an area which has been communicated well to the public. And there is an associated "meta" issue. How best to update our personal beliefs about the matter? Should we accept the scholarly consensus at face value, or should we attempt to become experts on public health, epidemiology, the history of medicine, and the many other factors necessary to achieve a good understanding of the issues? On top of everything, it's an issue of personal importance. Unlike political questions in foreign or economic policy, where the average person's opinion have essentially no impact, each of us needs to decide when to go to the doctor, to take family members, and to recommened medical intervention to others. >From my perspective, the most important thing I would like to understand is the 3rd issue above, what exactly is the scientific consensus about the value of medicine in general and specific medical interventions in particular? Has their been a failure on the part of the academic community to clearly communicate their skepticism regarding the value of medicine, in a way that lay readers can understand and put into practice? Most advice about medicine comes from doctors, who are generally not disinterested parties on these questions, particularly not the big question of the overall value of medicine. It's possible that the academic community has attempted to send their message, only to find it falling on deaf ears. People may just refuse to believe that it could be true, as we have seen in many responses here. Or, it could be that the Big Medicine and Big Pharma have somehow been able to suppress this message in order to protect the benefit they receive from the enormous sums spent on medical treatment. Robin does have a bunch of links on his page , including a section on "How Much Does Medicine Help Health?". I'm going to try to track down some of the references and check into some of the textbooks. It looks like I will have to do a bit of my own work to get a better understanding of the acadmic consensus, rather than have it spoon-fed to me. That's OK, but not many people will be willing to go to this much trouble. Hal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 21:50:18 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:50:18 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> On 3/13/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > This is a great subject, that demonstrates many important and surprising > effects. Am I the only one who feels this is rather like someone coming into a space discussion list and saying the academic consensus is the Apollo landings were a hoax, and a bunch of people nodding and agreeing it's a great subject? :P No offense intended to Robin, whose writings are usually of excellent quality, but this is just silly. At least the "we never went to the moon" crowd offer an alternative explanation, however bad it may be. And there is an associated "meta" issue. How best to update our personal > beliefs about the matter? Should we accept the scholarly consensus at > face value, or should we attempt to become experts on public health, > epidemiology, the history of medicine, and the many other factors > necessary to achieve a good understanding of the issues? Read a bit about the history. The French tried to build a Panama Canal; the effort was abandoned because the workers died of yellow fever faster than they could ship in replacements. The American effort would have been abandoned for the same reason except at the last moment someone figured out what was going on, and they started an anti-mosquito campaign that was effective enough to tip the balance. DDT has been credited with saving tens of millions of lives - some estimates run into hundreds of millions - in areas where malaria had been endemic. To this day, millions die each year for lack of the stuff. In Ireland in my parents' day, survival was in large part a matter of not dying of TB (which killed rich and poor alike, contrary to the "it's because we got richer" theory - effects of wealth per se on disease presumably exist, but are marginal second-order effects, far too small to explain the eradiation of disease). Polio was even more terrible, because it didn't quite kill. How many deaths did smallpox account for in the course of history? I don't know either, it's that many. The eradication campaign using vaccines worked. We could believe a) the vaccines really worked in the field the way they did in tests or b) it was all a coverup and what was really going on was psychic waves from Zeta Reticuli got rid of smallpox, coincidentally just when vaccines were being used. I find the first explanation more plausible. As one writer put it, hospitals used to be stuffed with men, women and children dying of random bacterial infections while doctors just watched helplessly; antibiotics put an end to that. Today, there are an awful lot of people walking around alive and healthy who had cancer that a few decades ago would have been terminal. We've a long way to go against cancer yet (and of course being primarily a disease of old age curing it doesn't do as much as curing diseases of childhood) but we've made definite progress. There's a reason Pestilence is one of the four horsemen; after we dealt with Famine, it was the major cause of death, and the inroads we've made against it are the main reason for the improvement in health and longevity, to the point where we're now actually at the stage that old age is by far the main killer. Now the proposition that spending more money on health care today is useless is a different one, and much more plausible; we have nothing yet that works against the fourth horseman, so it mostly just prolongs suffering (particularly since ineffective treatment tends to be the most expensive sort). But the appropriate response to that is to work harder on finding treatments that will work, not try to rewrite the last two hundred years of history. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Mar 13 22:07:43 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:07:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.co m> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060313165742.023de548@gmu.edu> At 04:50 PM 3/13/2006, Russell Wallace wrote: >Am I the only one who feels this is rather like someone coming into >a space discussion list and saying the academic consensus is the >Apollo landings were a hoax, and a bunch of people nodding and >agreeing it's a great subject? :P No offense intended to Robin, >whose writings are usually of excellent quality, but this is just >silly. At least the "we never went to the moon" crowd offer an >alternative explanation, however bad it may be. ... >Read a bit about the history. ... anti-mosquito campaign that was >effective enough to tip the balance. >DDT has been credited with saving tens of millions of lives .... >In Ireland in my parents' day, survival was in large part a matter >of not dying of TB ... >How many deaths did smallpox account for in the course of history? I >don't know either, it's that many. ... >As one writer put it, hospitals used to be stuffed with men, women >and children dying of random bacterial infections while doctors just >watched helplessly; antibiotics put an end to that. >Today, there are an awful lot of people walking around alive and >healthy who had cancer that a few decades ago would have been terminal. ... >Now the proposition that spending more money on health care today is >useless is a different one, and much more plausible; ... You never say what claim it is that you think is "just silly." If it is the claim in the subject line, that is not a claim that I ever made - Rafal Smigrodzki created that subject line. As I keep repeating, the main claim that this thread has been discussing is as Hal Finney says " whether advances in health and longevity are largely due or are not due to medicine". You may have heard many claims made about that topic over the years, but take an intro class in public health (or health econ, or health sociology) if you want to learn the non-doctor academic consensus on this subject. I'm off to the Oxford conference, so I won't be posting again to this list until at least next Sunday. 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 Mar 13 22:12:21 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:12:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/13/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > Am I the only one who feels this is rather like someone coming into a space > discussion list and saying the academic consensus is the Apollo landings > were a hoax, and a bunch of people nodding and agreeing it's a great > subject? :P No offense intended to Robin, whose writings are usually of > excellent quality, but this is just silly. At least the "we never went to > the moon" crowd offer an alternative explanation, however bad it may be. > Obviously vaccination has saved millions of lives. But if you include the huge scale of medical fraud, worthless treatments, unnecessary surgery, 'snake-oil' concoctions, useless supplements, etc. etc., then Robin may have a point that 'overall' there isn't much benefit. But I feel that including all this fraud is a mistake. There are many medical treatments and operations with obvious life-saving benefits. You just have to stay away from the hucksters and conmen (and Mexican cancer hospitals). Robin's claim is like saying you should not bother getting your car serviced or repaired because there are so many mechanics ripping people off, that 'overall' you might as well stay away from car workshops. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 22:23:32 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:23:32 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060313165742.023de548@gmu.edu> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060313165742.023de548@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603131423j5a98b72bye68a9ec91a40ce50@mail.gmail.com> On 3/13/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > > You never say what claim it is that you think is "just silly." If > it is the claim in the subject line, that is not a claim that I ever > made - Rafal Smigrodzki created that subject line. As I keep > repeating, the main claim that this thread has been discussing is as > Hal Finney says " whether advances in health and longevity are > largely due or are not due to medicine". Specifically, I'm claiming that the difference in health and longevity between now and a couple of hundred years ago is primarily due to medicine in the broad sense (including vaccines, antibiotics, disinfectants, insecticides, hygiene and sanitation); the denial of this is what I'm calling silly. (Caveat: I'm talking about the First World; in the Second World, a case could be made that people not being herded into gulags anymore makes a bigger difference, and in the Third World the major advances in food production came later than they did for us, so again that might have made a bigger difference; I'm not familiar enough with the data to weigh the relative effects there.) You may have heard many > claims made about that topic over the years, but take an intro class > in public health (or health econ, or health sociology) if you want to > learn the non-doctor academic consensus on this subject. I have higher priority demands on my time, but I have actually read about the history of the subject, not just what is claimed. If there's really an academic consensus on the above denial, that says something pretty appalling about academics. To repeat the analogy, this is literally on the level of saying academics in astronomy and related fields have a consensus that the Moon landings were a hoax. I'm off to the Oxford conference, so I won't be posting again to this > list until at least next Sunday. > Enjoy the conference! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 22:24:36 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:24:36 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603131424m2650a9a1m6d0acc813bfe3f17@mail.gmail.com> On 3/13/06, BillK wrote: > > But if you include the huge scale of medical fraud, worthless > treatments, unnecessary surgery, 'snake-oil' concoctions, useless > supplements, etc. etc., then Robin may have a point that 'overall' > there isn't much benefit. Oh, sure; that isn't what he said, but if the claim were changed to "the majority of the dollars spent on medicine don't do much good", then that would be much more reasonable. But I feel that including all this fraud is a mistake. There are many > medical treatments and operations with obvious life-saving benefits. > You just have to stay away from the hucksters and conmen (and Mexican > cancer hospitals). > > Robin's claim is like saying you should not bother getting your car > serviced or repaired because there are so many mechanics ripping > people off, that 'overall' you might as well stay away from car > workshops. > Absolutely! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 13 23:51:34 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:51:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? Message-ID: <20060313235134.ADF0057FB0@finney.org> I was able to get a copy of one of the references Robin cited, : "Improving Health: Measuring Effects of Medical Care", by Bunker, Frazier and Mosteller; Milbank Quarterly, 72(2), 1994. Unfortunately I could not find the text online; I had to xerox it at the library, so I can't easily make it available. But I will type in here their discussion of immunization. Their goal in this section is to evaluate the contribution of medicine to life span since 1900. During this time average life span in industrialized countries went from 45 to 75 years, a gain of 30 years. The authors divide their analysis into preventive and curative services. Immunizations fall into the preventive category. Their analysis attributes approximately 18 months of life expectation increase to immunization. Here is the text of the analysis (typos are mine!): > Infectious disease, the most common cause of death in childhood at > the beginning of the century, has become a rare cause of death today. > In 1900 the annual death rates of diphtheria, measles, and pertussis > were 40, 13 and 12 per 100,000 respectively, whereas by 1960 there were > no deaths reported for diphtheria, and only 2 and 1 per 100,000 for > measles and pertussis. Most of the fall in death rates from measles and > pertussis occurred before the introduction of their respective vaccines > or the availability of antibiotics (McKeown 1979), and we can only credit > the introduction of diphtheria antitoxin and subsequent immunization > for the observed fall in mortality, equivalent to an increase in life > expectancy of approximately 10 months. > > Death rates from poliomyelitis and tetanus before the introduction of > immmunization against each were less than for measles, diphtheria, and > pertussis; the rate for poliomyelitis varied between 0.4 and 1.8 per > 100,000 in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s; and that for tetanus, between > 0.7 and 1.7 in the 1920s and 1930s. Their virtual elimination following > the achievement of nearly universal immmunization represents an increase > in life expectancy of about three weeks for both combined. > > What conclusions can we draw regarding the contribution of immunization > practices to health today? Measles offers a case in point. Although > death attributed to measles is rare in the United States, the recently > reported marked upsurge in cases of measles in unvaccinated, preschool > children in the inner city raises the possibility of the return of > measles-related death, deafness, and mental retardation (Hersh et > al. 1992), as we discuss elsewhere (Bunker, Frazier, and Mosteller 1994). > A waning appreciation for the importance of, and declining confidence in, > immunization gives added cause for concern. Koplan et al. (1979) have > explored the potential effect that curtailment of pertussis vaccination > might produce. Using decision analysis, he and his colleagues predicted > that there would be a 71-fold increase in numbers of cases and an almost > 4-fold increase in deaths were pertussis immunization to be discontinued. This last paragraph kind of undercuts the overall conclusion that immunization has not made a very large contribution towards the 30 years of lifespan extension. They do have nice things to say about the practice, although it is not clear that their comments are fully grounded in the data. This may be the kind of attitude that caused Robin to consider them somewhat overly generous in their assessment. I can also show an excerpt from their Taqble 1, which estimates the gain in life expectancy from various interventions, including immunization. The columns are: "Clinical preventive service (immunization)"; "Individuals affected by condition in the absence of preventive service"; and "Gain per individual receiving preventive service". All of the 2nd-column incidence rates are per year: Diphtheria 40 deaths 10 months per 100,000 Poliomyelitis 2,500 deaths 3 weeks (polio+tetanus) Tetanus 2,500 deaths Smallpox NA 3-6 months Influenza 10,000-40,000 3 weeks deaths Pneumococcus 400,000 cases 6 weeks Hepatitis-B 21,000 cases 1.5 - 2 weeks I added these myself to get the figure I reported above of approximately 18 months out of 30 years of improvement. They have a couple of footnotes on the smallpox line. The incidence is NA, footnoted as "not applicable following worldwide eradication". And the life extension level is footnoted "Limited to this century only". Since the smallpox vaccine was introduced in the 19th century it lies outside the "window" of life extension that the authors are analyzing. I'm not sure what exactly the 3-6 months means; maybe this is due to either improvements in the smallpox vaccine or an increase in its use. It's worth noting that diphtheria immunization provided the biggest improvement, an average of 10 months of life per person. This is actually the single largest value of all of the preventive or curative measures they analyze. The next most effective preventive measure is screening for hypertension, which they estimate adds 1.5-2 months per person. And on the curative side, the most effective are diabetes treatment, worth 6 months per person; appendicitis, 4 months; hypertension treatment, 3.5-4 months; and infant respiratory failure (in premature babies), 3-4 months. Note that these values are not the benefit to the people being treated, but are in effect discounted by the incidence rates within the population. Modern medicine is of great value if you get diabetes, with an estimated gain of 25 years of life; but only one person in 50 has diabetes so medicine only gets credit for 1/2 year of benefit. The bottom line is that they estimate that preventive and curative medicine together account for five years of life expectancy gain, out of 30 which have been observed. I haven't read the whole paper yet; the next section is about improvements in quality of life rather than lifespan. But I think this gives the flavor of their analysis. Probably the most important factor is that the incidence of measles and pertussis fell a great deal even before their vaccines were introduced, or antibiotics. So medical treatment gets zero credit for the increase in lifespan due to these therapies. In a way, you can see how they might be too generous in some measures. Diphtheria's vaccine gets most of the credit; but if that vaccine had not been available until the 1960s, chances are the rate of diphtheria would have fallen just like measles. In that case we would not credit diphteria vaccination with adding 10 months of life. So to some extent it looks like a matter of timing and luck as to whether a treatment came along early enough to get credit or was so late that other factors appeared to be responsible. And the puzzle remains; how could medicine only be good for 5 years out of 30? Or maybe it's not a puzzle. Obviously there are a host of reasons why people live longer today: improved nutrition, sanitation, safety, and so on. A priori there is no particular reason why medicine should get the lion's share of the credit, over all these other factors. Maybe there are six things that are each good for 5 years' worth of benefit. In that case the limited value of medicine should not come as so much of a surprise. Hal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 00:12:44 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:12:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060313235134.ADF0057FB0@finney.org> References: <20060313235134.ADF0057FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603131612s3a396284m637ab09963e4823c@mail.gmail.com> On 3/13/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > In a way, you can see how they might be too generous in some measures. > Diphtheria's vaccine gets most of the credit; but if that vaccine had > not been available until the 1960s, chances are the rate of diphtheria > would have fallen just like measles. In that case we would not credit > diphteria vaccination with adding 10 months of life. So to some extent > it looks like a matter of timing and luck as to whether a treatment > came along early enough to get credit or was so late that other factors > appeared to be responsible. > *nods* Hygiene, sanitation and disinfectants probably together did a lot more than antibiotics, maybe more than vaccines. Behavioral measures to prevent the spread of disease too. I remember how I learned the word "quarantine" as a child - reading books written in earlier decades, where it was a common occurrence for a character to be spending a fortnight in quarantine recovering from some disease. It's hard to put numbers on it, but I suspect such measures had a substantial effect. One thing I do have some numbers on: the 1918 flu epidemic is officially blamed for 20 million deaths, but most of the toll in the Third World wasn't added up; I've seen estimates of the true figure as high as 60 million. It was an open question for a long time how the world in later years would cope with another such pandemic. SARS gave us our answer: it was even deadlier than the 1918 flu, but it was stopped by quarantine, despite the lack of a vaccine or cure. No way of knowing how many lives were saved thereby, but it has to be tens of millions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 14 00:55:02 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:55:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Lifeboat Foundation awared to Freitas, Joy Message-ID: <20060314005502.418E457FB1@finney.org> Via slashdot I found this article about an award to Robert Freitas and Bill Joy: http://lifeboat.com/news.cgi?40 I've never heard of this Lifeboat Foundation but they have a lot of big names on their advisory board, maybe some readers here. I'm sorry, I know I'm probably going to offend people by what I'm about to say, but I couldn't believe this introductory statement from the page above: "The Lifeboat Foundation Guardian Award is annually bestowed upon revered scientists or public figures who have heralded the coming of a future fraught with danger and encouraged provision against its perils." For some reason I find this hilarious! The pomposity of the "revered scientists" is juxtaposed with the image of someone cowering beneath his bed sheets at fear of a future "fraught with danger". It just seems like such a negative view of the future, that all our focus should be on "provision against its perils". At least we have our new Guardians here to protect us. Anyway, I guess congratulations are due Freitas and Joy for their accomplishments in helping reassure these fretful futurists. I just hope this will help the poor Lifeboaters to sleep at night, faced with a future... fraught with danger. Hal From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 14 00:09:32 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:09:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanobacteria (was Hello Fellow Extropians...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060314000932.34613.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> I tend to agree with Robert that the case for autonomously replicating nanobacteria is pretty weak at best. There are fairly well characterized organisms that could be thought of as "half way between viruses and bacteria". These organisms are called mycoplasmas. Mycoplasmas however are obligate intracellular pathogens. That is to say that they can only replicate and metabolize inside of a host cell. They then bud from their host cells to infect other cells. They are much smaller than bacteria and have an incomplete genome, ergo their dependence on a host. However they are larger than viruses and have membranes and certain other characteritics of bacteria. If one is looking for an etiologic agent of artherosclerosis, I think it would be more fruitful to explore the link between gingivitis/peridontal disease and heart disease. There is already a statistical relationship between the two (sorry don't have time for a link but google and you will find tons of references). Futhermore calculus (the stuff dentists scrape off your teeth during cleaning) is calcified dental plaque. Thus if artherosclerotic plaques are also calcified, as previous posts in this thread seem to indicate, there may indeed be a direct pathogenic link. Maybe flossing is good for your heart! Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science [...] Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress" - St. Darwin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 14 00:56:25 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:56:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060314005626.29108.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Most advice about medicine comes from doctors, who > are generally not > disinterested parties on these questions, > particularly not the big > question of the overall value of medicine. Surgeons and emergency medicine by themselves save countless lives every year that would normally be lost. Moreover they improve the quality of life tremendously. My maternal grandfather was run over by a bus in the 1920's and lost his leg as a result of it. I was ran over by a semi tractor-trailer on my motorcycle almost two years ago (it literally ran over my legs) and the paramedics, orthopedic surgeons, antibiotics, and other aspects of medical care helped me to walk again in 3 months time. You can sit there and hem and haw about how many months a particular treatment or vaccine may add to a person's life, but if you ARE that person you will realize that medicine today is orders of magnitude better than it was at the turn of the last century. I am not even an M.D. so I can only imagine what Rafal and the others who are, must feel when they read this stuff. Medicine is far from perfect and it can't extend life beyond, for lack of a better term, the body's design specifications YET, but it certainly has its uses. Whether that utility justifies its enormous cost is separate matter of debate, but I will stand by the field of medicine as a whole as being a true good of modern society. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science [...] Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress" - St. Darwin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From alito at organicrobot.com Tue Mar 14 03:10:59 2006 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:10:59 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1142305859.15567.281.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 21:50 +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 3/13/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > And there is an associated "meta" issue. How best to update > our personal > beliefs about the matter? Should we accept the scholarly > consensus at > face value, or should we attempt to become experts on public > health, > epidemiology, the history of medicine, and the many other > factors > necessary to achieve a good understanding of the issues? > > Read a bit about the history. > You are going to argue against numbers with stories? You sound like newspaper titles that claim "Countless die every year in drink driving accidents". eg > In Ireland in my parents' day, survival was in large part a matter of > not dying of TB (which killed rich and poor alike, contrary to the > "it's because we got richer" theory - effects of wealth per se on > disease presumably exist, but are marginal second-order effects, far > too small to explain the eradiation of disease). Polio was even more > terrible, because it didn't quite kill. > Do you have numbers of the death rate attributed to TB in Ireland in the period mentioned? Do you have numbers of death rate in affluent families compared to the poor families? Or is this, as I assume, pure emotional baggage granted extra credence because it was handed down through the family? From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 03:45:48 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:45:48 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <1142305859.15567.281.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> <1142305859.15567.281.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603131945p464560c5oab4d8ecb32b5a330@mail.gmail.com> On 3/14/06, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > > You are going to argue against numbers with stories? You sound like > newspaper titles that claim "Countless die every year in drink driving > accidents". > I've quoted such numbers as I could recall off the top of my head, feel free to Google more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 14 05:11:59 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:11:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? Message-ID: <20060314051159.DE06D57FB0@finney.org> One of the other sources I found at the library was a health economics textbook that Robin recommended on his web page for his students: The Economics of Health and Health Care, by Folland, Goodman, and Stano. This has a nice overview of the areas of consensus and controversy regarding the causes of the dramatic decline in mortality over the past 250 years. I have taken the liberty of typing in a couple of pages of the text, starting at page 100. I kept the main discussion intact, and then included a few relevant paragraphs from the next two sections of the textbook. I felt that the overall discussion was remarkably gentle; it almost reminded me of breaking the news to a child about the state of affairs with regard to Santa Claus. Keep in mind that this is a beginning level textbook and that this is what is filling the minds of budding health care economists. It is pretty long, so if you are impatient I recommend skipping down to "WHAT CAUSED THE MORTALITY RATE DECLINES?" and reading three paragraphs there, then skipping to the final four paragraphs which summarize the current state of knowledge and its implications. Again, typos are mine. Hal > On the Historical Role of Medicine and Health Care > > Among many medical historians, it is agreed that practitioner-provided > medical interventions played only a small, perhaps negligible, role in > the historical decline in population mortality rates in countries where > data are available. Effective medicine is a fairly recent phenomenon, > and the delivery of effective medical interventions on a scale sufficient > to affect population health indicators most likely appeared only well > into the twentieth century. Though the magnitudes of other causes > of mortality declines are still disputed, it is clear that a larger role, > perhaps the most significant one, might be attributed to public health > measures and the spread of knowledge of the sources of disease. However, > at least one provocative scholar in this field attributes the lion's > share of the credit to improvements in environment, particularly to the > greatly increased supply of foodstuffs that became available due to the > agricultural and industrial revolutions. > > THE RISING POPULATION AND THE ROLE OF MEDICINE > > The notion that medicine played a relatively minor historical role is > certainly not new, and it has been asserted by researchers of various > ideologies. This point of view is associated with the work of Thomas > McKeown (1976) who focused on the dramatic rise in population in England > and Wales from 1750 to modern day. > > The pattern over time of world population growth, including population > growth in England and Wales, is one that has posed a significant research > question to many scholars including McKeown. World population is hard to > estimate for the distant past, but recent research by the United Nations > (1996) and others make some things clear: something extraordinary has > happened during the last 300 years. At the time of Christ, the population > probably reached a record of roughly 300 million people. For a thousand > years thereafter, until the era of Viking ships, little or no change > occurred. By the Age of Enlightenment, starting just before 1700, the > population may have risen to 600 million. Then things began to change. > Within a single century, the world population passed 1 billion people. > The next 5 billion arrived within a mere 200 years. What had happened? > > Returning to the history of England and Wales, the large rise in their > populations in the period roughly following 1750 is to a large degree > a story of the population's health. Population increase comes from > three sources: increased birthrates, reduced mortality, or increased > net in-migration. Migration was probably not an important source of > population increase in England and Wales; when accurate birthrate and > deathrate data became available from 1841, these data alone proved able > to account for the population change. Likewise, fertility probably did > not account for the change because recorded birthrates declined during > the period since data became available. Declines in birthrates are a > common finding in countries undergoing industrialization or modernization. > In contrast, recorded mortality rates did decline substantially. > > To assess the role of medicine, McKeown began by investigating which > diseases contributed to the decline in death rates. Mortality data > are often limited prior to the mid-1800s, but from available records he > produced an emerging picture. Table 5.1 shows death rates by disease > category for three different time periods. The table shows that airborne > infectious diseases account for the largest single portion of mortality > reduction, and waterborne infectious diseases also make up a substantial > portion of known causes. Regarding the airborne diseases, other data > suggest that the main airborne diseases showing a decline in mortality > include tuberculosis, bronchitis, pneumonia, and influenza. > > WHAT CAUSED THE MORTALITY RATE DECLINES? > > Many presume that the declines in mortality rates were due to improvements > in medical science provided to the public through medical practice. > Nevertheless, counter-arguments to this proposition bring this presumption > into question. In most cases, an effective specific medical intervention > was not available until late in the period, well after the greater part > of the mortality decline had occurred. > > For example, the argument can be illustrated for the cases of respiratory > tuberculosis and a group of three upper respiratory diseases - bronchitis, > pneumonia, and influenza. Mortality rates for these diseases fell to > relatively low levels prior to the availability of effective medical > interventions, whose availability occurred respectively after 1930, and > for some cases well into the 1950s and 1960s. The picture is shared > by waterborne diseases. About 95 percent of the mortality declines > in cholera, diarrhea, and dysentery occurred prior to the 1930s when > intravenous therapies became available. Likewise, typhoid and typhus > mortality already had fallen to low levels by the beginning of the > twentieth century. > > The pattern McKeown found for England and Wales also can be illustrated > for the United States. McKinlay and McKinlay (1977) provided data for > the United States from 1900 to 1973. Figure 5.2 shows these patterns for > several infectious diseases. In most cases, as shown, the availability > of the effective medical intervention occurs well after the majority of > the mortality decline. > > One of the most important changes in mortality in the twentieth century > was the decline in infant mortality. Does this type of mortality follow > the same pattern? A highly readable account of the modern historical > pattern of infant mortality is offered in Victor Fuchs' Who Shall > Live? (1974). Fuchs noted that infant mortality rates in New York > City improved markedly from 1900 to 1930 and that this decline was due > significantly to declines in deaths from "pneumonia-diarrhea" complex. > Fuchs concluded as follows: > > It is important to realize that medical care played almost no role in > this decline. While we do not know the precise causes, it is believed > that rising living standards, the spread of literacy and education, > and a substantial fall in the birth rate all played a part... (p.32) > > In the 1930s, antimicrobial drugs were introduced. During the period 1935 > to 1956, the fall in infant death rates accelerated. Fuchs proposed that > during this period "both medical advances and rising living standards > contributed to the reduction in infant deaths" (p. 32). Declines in > infant deaths flattened somewhat beginning about 1950 but resumed a > stronger decline about 1965. > > Returning to McKeown's work, if specific effective curative medicines > were not largely responsible for mortality declines, is it nevertheless > possible that other tools in the physician's black bag were effective? > The problem is that there probably were few effective tools in the > physician's metaphorical black bag until well into the twentieth century. > > ON THE ROLE OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND NUTRITION > > If medicine cannot be credited with the large declines in population > mortality rates after 1750, what then can be credited? Other alternative > candidate causes seem together sufficient to explain the decline: > reduction in exposure to infection and improvement in the human host's > ability to resist infection. Of these two, reduction in exposure was the > primary method through which public health measures could be effective. > The role of public health measures is of interest in itself. > > The magnitudes of the effects of these alternative causes, including the > role of public health, are open to dispute - a dispute whose settlement > lies largely outside of an account of health economics.... > > WHAT LESSONS ARE LEARNED FROM THE MEDICAL HISTORIAN? > > The study of historical declines in mortality rates is thus one of > controversy over the relative importance of public health measures > versus nutrition and other environmental factors. The consensus is > fairly clear over the minor role of medical practice.... > > If the inferences from history are sometimes overdrawn or even > invalid, what, then, have we learned from history that we can apply to > modern policy? Perhaps the best result of this overview is a healthy > skepticism toward the effectiveness of any given medical practice, and > more importantly, to its significance and benefits to the population. > It is in this spirit that the U.S. government has increasingly come > to fund outcomes studies. Outcomes studies are intended to address the > effectiveness and appropriateness of specific medical practices on patient > outcomes. The studies attempt to reduce the prevalent uncertainties in > medical practice, and they offer important inquiries into the wisdom of > using the marginal billion dollars on health care delivery, particularly > in terms of costs and benefits to the population as a whole. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 05:17:13 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:17:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060314051159.DE06D57FB0@finney.org> References: <20060314051159.DE06D57FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603132117g65b4ad07web558c086279940a@mail.gmail.com> On 3/14/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > One of the other sources I found at the library was a health economics > textbook that Robin recommended on his web page for his students: The > Economics of Health and Health Care, by Folland, Goodman, and Stano. > This has a nice overview of the areas of consensus and controversy > regarding the causes of the dramatic decline in mortality over the past > 250 years. Good article, thanks! Not very specific about actual causes, but it would seem consistent with the idea that things like hygiene, sanitation and quarantine account for the largest part of the improvement (with improved nutrition helping, but not enough to account for the bulk). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 14 05:35:16 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:35:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060314051159.DE06D57FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060314053516.25114.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > >In most cases, an effective > specific medical intervention > > was not available until late in the period, well > after the greater part > > of the mortality decline had occurred. > > > > For example, the argument can be illustrated for > the cases of respiratory > > tuberculosis and a group of three upper > respiratory diseases - bronchitis, > > pneumonia, and influenza. Mortality rates for > these diseases fell to > > relatively low levels prior to the availability of > effective medical > > interventions, whose availability occurred > respectively after 1930, and > > for some cases well into the 1950s and 1960s. The > picture is shared > > by waterborne diseases. About 95 percent of the > mortality declines > > in cholera, diarrhea, and dysentery occurred prior > to the 1930s when > > intravenous therapies became available. Likewise, > typhoid and typhus > > mortality already had fallen to low levels by the > beginning of the > > twentieth century. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that medicine was as narrowly defined at the turn of the 20th century as it is now. Back then microbiology was not strictly its own discipline as it is today. Instead it was subsumed under medicine. Koch's postulates and Germ Theory, (both crucial in the development of medicine) was sufficient to allow sewage treatment and other public health measures against airborne and waterborne pathogens before more disease specific interventions came into being. You would have to understand the archaic theories of "bad humor", "miasma", and "vapors" as causes of disease to really appreciate how huge of an impact germ theory had on public health and medicine. For what it is worth MOST of the early proponents of Germ Theory (with the exception of Louis Pasteur who was a chemist) were medical scientists as were many of the pioneers of public health. If you throw nutrition and epidemiology into the mix, you pretty much have most of your life expectancy increase accounted for. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science [...] Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress" - St. Darwin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 14 05:58:35 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:58:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta Transhumanism and Axx Rxxx In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060218095354.02d546d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060314055835.17657.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> My offering, quick and dirty. Social creatures -- humans among them -- live in groups because of the survival benefit derived, and manifest strong instinctive loyalty-to-the-group behaviors. In humans this is tribalism, with tribal loyalty taking the form "My tribe right or wrong." Social groups -- herds, packs, tribes -- need identity markers for members. For humans, the memes of a belief system constitute one set of identity markers. YMMV. Best, Jeff Davis --- Keith Henson wrote: > At 07:23 PM 2/18/2006 +1100, Marc Geddes wrote: > > snip > > >You know a person reading on the net or hanging out > >with high IQ folks can be inundated with bullshit > if > >one is not careful. > > snip > > Would you, would the list, be up to a Meta level > discussion of *why* the > evolved social primates known as humans believe > mutually incompatible > things? Why they believe anything at all? Why they > kill each other over > beliefs? Why people resist learning about these > subjects? (MetaMeta level!) > > I *think* I know some of the reasons, but good > discussion (which is hard to > find) files the rough edges off the memes. > > Keith Henson > > PS. If you think that serious life extension will > *ever* happen, then > "we're only haggling over the price." :-) > > (old joke) > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Tue Mar 14 07:44:42 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:44:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Brain Awareness Week Message-ID: Amara's brain here. Hal, writing one of the funniest posts I've seen all of the years on this extropy list says: >The name of "Brain Awareness Week" is actually pretty funny. Since the >function of the brain is to be aware, it is a somewhat redundant phrase. >Next we could have "Heart Pumping Week", "Stomach Digestion Week", >"Kidney Filtration Week", "Muscle Contraction Week", "Lung Breathing Week" >and many others. >When I was young, Readers Digest magazine ran a series of public health >articles with names like "I am Joe's Heart", "I am Joe's Liver", and >so on (satirized in the movie Fight Club). I don't remember if they >did one, but imagine how different it would be to have an article, >"I am Joe's Brain". Hearing from Joe's brain would be totally unlike >hearing from Joe's heart or Joe's liver. After all, Joe's brain is who >does all the talking for Joe, all the time! Here is Joe's Liver, talking from the Reader's Digest: http://www.happyrobot.net/words/ornith.asp?r=4430 Ratcliff, J.D. "I Am Joe's Liver." Reader's Digest. 95. 569. (1969): 81-84. For about $1000, you can get most of Joe! http://www.pyramidmedia.com/college.php3?alpha=I I Am Joe Series VHS 979.00 I Am Joe's Ear VHS 95.00 I Am Joe's Eye VHS 95.00 I Am Joe's Foot VHS 95.00 I Am Joe's Hand VHS 95.00 I Am Joe's Heart VHS 95.00 I Am Joe's Kidney VHS 95.00 I Am Joe's Liver VHS 95.00 I Am Joe's Lung VHS 95.00 I Am Joe's Skin VHS 95.00 I Am Joe's Spine VHS 95.00 I Am Joe's Stomach VHS 95.00 (Based on the classic Reader's Digest "I Am Joe's..." series, these programs provide an informative and absorbing journey through the leading character's body. These full-motion videos take viewers on a guided tour of the heart, spine, stomach, lungs, kidney, liver, and skin. 26 minutes each.) So the women don't feel left out: there is one "I am Jane's Uterus". This inventive soul collected links that one sees when that's typed into a search engine: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=I%20am%20Jane%27s%20Uterus and goes on to further describe poor Joe: (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=437615) I am totally Joe's Gallbladder. I am Joe's Raging Bile Duct. I am Joe's Grinding Teeth. I am Joe's Inflamed Flaring Nostrils. I am Joe's White Knuckles. I am Joe's Enraged, Inflamed Sense of Rejection. I am Joe's Clenching Bowels. I am Joe's Boiling Point. I am Joe's Blood Boiling Rage. I am Joe's Smirking Revenge. I am Joe's Broken Heart. I am Joe's Cold Sweat. I am the Pit of Joe's Stomach. :-) -- ******************************************************************** 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 deimtee at optusnet.com.au Tue Mar 14 07:49:44 2006 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (deimtee) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:49:44 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603132117g65b4ad07web558c086279940a@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060314051159.DE06D57FB0@finney.org> <8d71341e0603132117g65b4ad07web558c086279940a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44167598.7030808@optusnet.com.au> One of the things that hasn't been mentioned so far is that as well as extending life, medicine can shorten it. Misdiagnosis, incompetent surgery, hospital infections and adverse drug reactions go into the negative side of the ledger. I found this on an alternative medicine site, ( http://www.cancure.org/medical_errors.htm ) but I assume they're quoting accurately. -deimtee. *The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by *Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States. The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause). Russell Wallace wrote: >On 3/14/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > >>One of the other sources I found at the library was a health economics >>textbook that Robin recommended on his web page for his students: The >>Economics of Health and Health Care, by Folland, Goodman, and Stano. >>This has a nice overview of the areas of consensus and controversy >>regarding the causes of the dramatic decline in mortality over the past >>250 years. >> >> > > >Good article, thanks! Not very specific about actual causes, but it would >seem consistent with the idea that things like hygiene, sanitation and >quarantine account for the largest part of the improvement (with improved >nutrition helping, but not enough to account for the bulk). > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Mar 14 10:27:56 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:27:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060313165742.023de548@gmu.edu> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060313165742.023de548@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Robin Hanson wrote: > You never say what claim it is that you think is "just silly." If > it is the claim in the subject line, that is not a claim that I ever > made - Rafal Smigrodzki created that subject line. As I keep > repeating, the main claim that this thread has been discussing is as > Hal Finney says " whether advances in health and longevity are > largely due or are not due to medicine". You may have heard many > claims made about that topic over the years, but take an intro class > in public health (or health econ, or health sociology) if you want to > learn the non-doctor academic consensus on this subject. > Why would I care about a non-medical consensus on the efficacy of medicine? I have asked, as have others, for how other theories might cover the facts and have received no answer of sufficient quality to make it seem at all worthwhile to pursue these alternate notions further. So what else is there to say? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Mar 14 10:22:38 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:22:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> Message-ID: On Mar 13, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > This is a great subject, that demonstrates many important and > surprising > effects. > > One is the problem with the oft-stated idea that "extraordinary claims > require extraordinary evidence". Who decides what is extraordinary? That is not the question. Claims that go against what we have held to be true to the best of our knowledge must at least do as good a job of covering the data as the theory they would displace and as good a job at prediction if applicable. Otherwise there is little point in considering dropping the old theory for the new. Why the long insistence on some kind of fairness or arbitrariness being involved when it has already been argued that this is not the case and not a relevant issue? > > Another is our emotional resistance to the possibility that > medicine may > not be very useful. This leaves us feeling powerless and vulnerable. > Even back in the 19th century doctors were regarded with awe for their > healing powers, powers we now know to be almost non-existent. > Irrelevant again. > > It's possible that the academic community has attempted to send their > message, only to find it falling on deaf ears. People may just > refuse to > believe that it could be true, as we have seen in many responses here. > Or, it could be that the Big Medicine and Big Pharma have somehow been > able to suppress this message in order to protect the benefit they > receive from the enormous sums spent on medical treatment. > The academic community or the scientific and medical community. I highly doubt the latter hold that vaccination is useless. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Mar 14 10:34:28 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:34:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603132117g65b4ad07web558c086279940a@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060314051159.DE06D57FB0@finney.org> <8d71341e0603132117g65b4ad07web558c086279940a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: What accounts for the largest part of overall health/longevity increase is a VERY different question from the subject line. I would point out that many of the supposed non-medicinal contributors were invented or greatly strengthened and perfected due to our understanding of medical science. - samantha On Mar 13, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 3/14/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > One of the other sources I found at the library was a health economics > textbook that Robin recommended on his web page for his students: The > Economics of Health and Health Care, by Folland, Goodman, and Stano. > This has a nice overview of the areas of consensus and controversy > regarding the causes of the dramatic decline in mortality over the > past > 250 years. > > Good article, thanks! Not very specific about actual causes, but it > would seem consistent with the idea that things like hygiene, > sanitation and quarantine account for the largest part of the > improvement (with improved nutrition helping, but not enough to > account for the bulk). > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 12:30:57 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:30:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lifeboat Foundation awared to Freitas, Joy In-Reply-To: <20060314005502.418E457FB1@finney.org> References: <20060314005502.418E457FB1@finney.org> Message-ID: On 3/13/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > Via slashdot I found this article about an award to Robert Freitas and > Bill Joy: http://lifeboat.com/news.cgi?40 [snip] I saw this. My initial reaction was also "Who is Lifeboat?" Further investigation seemed to suggest it was an organization wanting to preserve humanity from both natural and self-created hazards. That in and of itself seemed reasonable. However, I was struck by how long the Board list was, particularly given the fact that a number of years ago I had asked Ray to be on the SAB for Robiobotics and he had declined. Now perhaps his thinking was different back then, but one would expect a person interested in the risks of biotechnology would want to be on the SAB of a company proposing to facilitate "whole genome engineering". Why participate in Lifeboat and not Robiobotics? I also know some of the people listed on the Board (Freitas, Fahy, More, Vita-More, Annisimov, Yudkowsky, de Grey, Fossel, Rose, etc.) and know that they have relatively high standards with respect to projects they would actively participate in and/or support. So a combination of the length of the Board list and my experience sent me on a fishing expedition. The "whois" on the domain lifeboat.com doesn't help much as it appears to be registered to one "Eric Klien" in Buffalo, NY. So I thought "relative" of Bruce Klein (?) of the Immortality Institute but the last name spelling is different. Now, from the /. article it does appear that "Eric Klien" was involved in "The Atlantis Project" (aka the Oceania project) [1] which dates back to 1990's and seems to have some roots in Libertarian politics/philosophy. Now, a bit of digging in the Internet Archive, suggests that up until sometime in 2001/2002, "Lifeboat.com" was a company specializing in "secure credit card solutions for Internet transactions" [2]. After that it seems to have "morphed" into the "Lifeboat Foundation" out to "save humanity". Interestingly, if one looks carefully through the Internet Archive, the first member of the Board [3] appears to be Dr. Niklas J?rvstr?t. And I thought, boy that names seems familiar. Sure enough he was mentioned as PhysOrg.org today as the primary person behind Swedish efforts to build a self-sustaining colony on the moon [4]. (Now they plan to apparently sustain themselves by exporting He3 to Earth to supply fuel for fusion reactors -- that haven't been designed or built yet... don't get me started.) So the whole thing starts to seem a bit fishy particulary when one takes into account their (1) lack of transparancy with regard to who created the "Lifeboat Foundation" and what their background(s) are; and (2) their emphasis on "matching donations" [5]. The Lifeboat Foundation appears to be a nonprofit organization located in Minden, NV. Interestingly its stated corporate address according to Google Maps & Mapquest is in a relatively rural area east of Lake Tahoe and according to the SBN.com yellow pages appears to be colocated with several attorneys. That leads me to really want to know who are its founders, officers, shareholders, etc.? And most importantly for me -- are all of the people listed on the "board" aware of who is behind the organization and have they explicitly said that they will actively participate in the board? I've participated in a number of corporate board meetings as well as scientific advisory board meetings and there is absolutely no way that a "real" management or advisory board can productively function with the number of people they currently list. Being optimistic I would say we have we may have a well-intentioned individuals with a extropian/transhumanistic perspective trying to promote reasonable ideas in line with reducing the overall hazard function for humanity. Being pessimistic I would say we have someone who may be using (abusing?) the reputations of people many of us know and respect (best case) or what may be an extremely elaborate con game (worst case). I would strongly urge people to review the board [6] and confirm or deny their active participation and/or the use of their reputations by the Lifeboat Foundation. Those finding that their names are being used without approval may wish to post comments to the ExI list and/or the /. article [7]. For those wishing to attempt to contact them, the contacts page claims: Lifeboat Foundation, 1638 Esmeralda Ave, Minden, NV 89423. Phone: (775) 783-8443; Fax: (775) 783-0803; Email: admin at lifeboat.com. Robert --------- 1. http://www.oceania.org/ 2. http://web.archive.org/web/20010516220939/http://www.lifeboat.com/ 3. http://web.archive.org/web/20021204114050/lifeboat.com/ex/board 4. http://www.physorg.com/news11669.html 5. http://lifeboat.com/ex/donations.matching.info 6. http://lifeboat.com/ex/board 7. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/21/1453253 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hemm at openlink.com.br Tue Mar 14 12:43:20 2006 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:43:20 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Testing (sorry, please ignore this message) Message-ID: <010501c64764$e2813ca0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Sorry to bother you with this message. I've sent two messages recently to this list and they simply never arrived (eiter that or I am being moderated). So I'm testing my SMTP. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 12:44:22 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:44:22 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: References: <20060314051159.DE06D57FB0@finney.org> <8d71341e0603132117g65b4ad07web558c086279940a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603140444h2911607s83c84ddaf5e8350d@mail.gmail.com> On 3/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > What accounts for the largest part of overall health/longevity increase is > a VERY different question from the subject line. I would point out that > many of the supposed non-medicinal contributors were invented or greatly > strengthened and perfected due to our understanding of medical science > Oh absolutely; like I said earlier, I'm including things like hygiene and sanitation (informed by the germ theory of disease) under the heading of medicine in the broad sense. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Mar 14 12:11:36 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:11:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603132117g65b4ad07web558c086279940a@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060314051159.DE06D57FB0@finney.org> <8d71341e0603132117g65b4ad07web558c086279940a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <60371.72.236.102.111.1142338296.squirrel@main.nc.us> > On 3/14/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: >> >> One of the other sources I found at the library was a health economics >> textbook that Robin recommended on his web page for his students: The >> Economics of Health and Health Care, by Folland, Goodman, and Stano. >> This has a nice overview of the areas of consensus and controversy >> regarding the causes of the dramatic decline in mortality over the past >> 250 years. > > > Good article, thanks! Not very specific about actual causes, but it would > seem consistent with the idea that things like hygiene, sanitation and > quarantine account for the largest part of the improvement (with improved > nutrition helping, but not enough to account for the bulk). > Fascinating! Thanks. :) All these new ideas, delightful stuff. Makes sense too! :) Questions in my mind... earlier in this discussion the issue of Quarantine was raised. I remember hearing of it in my youth, and I think I recall its being put into use in our neighborhood (for what??? measles/rubella? I was very young). And someone said/suggested that SARS was effectively stopped by quarantine. I've heard from various considerably older folks some bitter comments about the spread of AIDS and the lack of quarantine... that when they were young quarantine's what would have happened, but oh no, we can't do that now, it might offend those who are ill. (All said with considerable venom, much to my astonishment.) Also I think of TB sans: my area is full of huge old buildings that were originally for that purpose. These pretty effectively quarantined TB patients. Does anywone think quarantine might/would have made a difference in the spread of HIV or AIDS (either or both, I don't know)? For sure, quarantine is a public health measure. Regards, MB From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 14:30:00 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:30:00 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lifeboat Foundation awared to Freitas, Joy In-Reply-To: References: <20060314005502.418E457FB1@finney.org> Message-ID: On 3/14/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > However, I was struck by how long the Board list was, particularly given the > fact that a number of years ago I had asked Ray to be on the SAB for > Robiobotics and he had declined. Now perhaps his thinking was different > back then, but one would expect a person interested in the risks of > biotechnology would want to be on the SAB of a company proposing to > facilitate "whole genome engineering". Why participate in Lifeboat and not > Robiobotics? I also know some of the people listed on the Board (Freitas, > Fahy, More, Vita-More, Annisimov, Yudkowsky, de Grey, Fossel, Rose, etc.) > and know that they have relatively high standards with respect to projects > they would actively participate in and/or support. > The SAB has been split into subgroups, each advising on a different subject. > So a combination of the length of the Board list and my experience sent me > on a fishing expedition. The "whois" on the domain lifeboat.com doesn't > help much as it appears to be registered to one "Eric Klien" in Buffalo, NY. > So I thought "relative" of Bruce Klein (?) of the Immortality Institute but > the last name spelling is different. Now, from the /. article it does > appear that "Eric Klien" was involved in "The Atlantis Project" (aka the > Oceania project) [1] which dates back to 1990's and seems to have some roots > in Libertarian politics/philosophy. > Yea, he was described as one of the Libertarians trying to set up their own state, island, ship, floating city, etc. outside the reach of t' guvermint. :) The Lifeboat Foundation is designing space Arks of 1,000 people each. But I cannot find any information on how they plan to organise the social structure of these Arks. Are they like military ships, with a captain and crew running things? Or are they like Israeli kibbutz? Or, is he still going with the Libertarian mini-state idea? Maybe it is to be decided later on, if it ever gets to the stage that they might actually build an Ark. BillK From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Tue Mar 14 15:33:28 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:33:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: World Forum webcasts starting Message-ID: James Martin is speaking in the first plenary session of the James Martin Institute World Forum 2006, which has just started and is being webcast live: http://www.martininstitute.ox.ac.uk/jmi/forum2006/Forum+2006+Webcast.htm He will be followed by Lord Martin Rees and Joel Garreau. -------------------------------------------- James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director World Transhumanist Assoc. Inst. for Ethics & Emerging Tech. http://transhumanism.org http://ieet.org director at transhumanism.org director at ieet.org Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology http://jetpress.org Mailing Address: Box 128, Willington CT 06279 USA (office) 860-297-2376 From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 15:44:43 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:44:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: World Forum webcasts starting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520603140744ma29fa68sa049f039c5cab041@mail.gmail.com> And the quality is pretty good! On 3/14/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > James Martin is speaking in the first plenary session of the James > Martin Institute World Forum 2006, which has just started and is being > webcast live: > > http://www.martininstitute.ox.ac.uk/jmi/forum2006/Forum+2006+Webcast.htm > > He will be followed by Lord Martin Rees and Joel Garreau. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 16:18:45 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:18:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060313165742.023de548@gmu.edu> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060313165742.023de548@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7641ddc60603140818k70f505f3u5ee19b5471d50575@mail.gmail.com> On 3/13/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > You never say what claim it is that you think is "just silly." If > it is the claim in the subject line, that is not a claim that I ever > made - Rafal Smigrodzki created that subject line. As I keep > repeating, the main claim that this thread has been discussing is as > Hal Finney says " whether advances in health and longevity are > largely due or are not due to medicine". You may have heard many > claims made about that topic over the years, but take an intro class > in public health (or health econ, or health sociology) if you want to > learn the non-doctor academic consensus on this subject. > ### I created the subject line to address a very specific question that you first alluded to in the original thread. In this thread you made very clear, quantitative statements regarding the impact of vaccination on the lifetime prevalence of smallpox in rich countries. Whatever other claims you make, you also did say that vaccinations produced no more than 1 to 10% of the reduction in lifetime prevalence of smallpox, which would make them nearly useless (since the gains in survival attributable to them would be measured in days). You cannot reasonably say that it is a claim you never made. Rafal From amara at amara.com Tue Mar 14 18:10:51 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:10:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Penumbral Lunar Eclipse TONIGHT (March 14) beginning 21:21 UT Message-ID: There is a beautiful Full Moon tonight, that goes into eclipse (first contact is at 21:21 UT, about 3 hours from now, it will lie completely inside the Earth's shadow for one hour starting at 23:18 UT, that is, ~5 hours from now.) http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/OH/image1/LE2006Mar14-Fig1.GIF Penumbral Lunar Eclipse of March 14 http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/OH/OH2006.html "The first lunar eclipse of 2006 is a deep penumbral event best visible from Europe and Africa. First and last penumbral contacts occur at 21:22 UT and 02:14 UT (Mar 15), respectively. The Moon's path through Earth's penumbra as well as a map showing worldwide visibility of the event is shown in Figure 1. Observers throughout most of North America will find the eclipse already in progress as the Moon rises on the evening of March 14. However, no eclipse will be visible from westernmost North America (Yukon, British Columbia, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California) since the event ends there before moonrise. This particular event is unusual since it is a total penumbral eclipse. The whole Moon will lie completely within the penumbral shadow from 23:18 UT to 00:18 UT (Mar 15). According to Belgian eclipse expert Jean Meeus [1997] this is one of only five such events during the 21st century. Greatest eclipse occurs at 23:48 UT with a penumbral magnitude of 1.0565. At that instant, the Moon will stand midway in the penumbral shadow. The Moon's northern limb will lie 1.6 arc-minutes from the shadow's outer edge while the southern limb be 1.6 arc-minutes from the edge of the umbra." "Penumbral eclipses are difficult to observe, especially during the early and late stages. Nevertheless, a subtle yet distinct shading should be visible across the southern half of the Moon, especially during the two hour period centered on greatest eclipse." -- *********************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, CNR - ARTOV, Via del Fosso del Cavaliere, 100, I-00133 Roma, ITALIA tel: +39-06-4993-4375 | fax: +39-06-4993-4383 Amara.Graps at ifsi-roma.inaf.it http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/ ************************************************************************ "We came whirling out of Nothingness scattering stars like dust." --Rumi From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Mar 14 19:10:58 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:10:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603131424m2650a9a1m6d0acc813bfe3f17@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0603131424m2650a9a1m6d0acc813bfe3f17@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060314191058.GA16448@ofb.net> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:24:36PM +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: > Oh, sure; that isn't what he said, but if the claim were changed to > "the majority of the dollars spent on medicine don't do much good", > then that would be much more reasonable. This could be slightly distorted by the US spending a lot more on health care while living somewhat less long than other First World countries. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Mar 14 19:12:17 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:12:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603131423j5a98b72bye68a9ec91a40ce50@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060313165742.023de548@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0603131423j5a98b72bye68a9ec91a40ce50@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060314191217.GB16448@ofb.net> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:23:32PM +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: > (Caveat: I'm talking about the First World; in the Second World, a > case could be made that people not being herded into gulags anymore > makes a bigger difference, and in the Third World the major advances I thought Second World, or at least Russian, life expectancy was falling, actually. I don't know if this is from old numbers having been inflated, loss of the Soviet health system, or stress/loss-of-status factors. -xx- Damien X-) From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 19:16:38 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:16:38 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060314191217.GB16448@ofb.net> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060313165742.023de548@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0603131423j5a98b72bye68a9ec91a40ce50@mail.gmail.com> <20060314191217.GB16448@ofb.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603141116w6b8bd21bo3cdf4e1cf8ee54ce@mail.gmail.com> On 3/14/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > I thought Second World, or at least Russian, life expectancy was falling, > actually. I don't know if this is from old numbers having been inflated, > loss > of the Soviet health system, or stress/loss-of-status factors. > I don't know what the sign of the difference is compared to, say, 1996; but I don't think anyone's in any doubt about what it is compared to, say, 1936. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Mar 14 19:26:46 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:26:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603141116w6b8bd21bo3cdf4e1cf8ee54ce@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060313165742.023de548@gmu.edu> <8d71341e0603131423j5a98b72bye68a9ec91a40ce50@mail.gmail.com> <20060314191217.GB16448@ofb.net> <8d71341e0603141116w6b8bd21bo3cdf4e1cf8ee54ce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060314192646.GC16448@ofb.net> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:16:38PM +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: > I don't know what the sign of the difference is compared to, say, > 1996; but I don't think anyone's in any doubt about what it is > compared to, say, 1936. I thought the bulk of Stalin and Mao's victims died due to lack of nutrition. :) -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Mar 14 19:30:23 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:30:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0603132117g65b4ad07web558c086279940a@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060314051159.DE06D57FB0@finney.org> <8d71341e0603132117g65b4ad07web558c086279940a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060314193022.GD16448@ofb.net> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 05:17:13AM +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: > Good article, thanks! Not very specific about actual causes, but it > would seem consistent with the idea that things like hygiene, > sanitation and quarantine account for the largest part of the > improvement (with improved nutrition helping, but not enough to > account for the bulk). Actually: > If medicine cannot be credited with the large declines in population > mortality rates after 1750, what then can be credited? Other alternative > candidate causes seem together sufficient to explain the decline: > reduction in exposure to infection and improvement in the human host's > ability to resist infection. Of these two, reduction in exposure was the > primary method through which public health measures could be effective. > The role of public health measures is of interest in itself. Reduction in exposure was the primary method through which *public health* measures *could* be effective, not necessarily the primary cause of the reduction of mortality. But if mortality rates were dropping from 1750, nutrition would seem like a bigger candidate, at least then, than public health. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Mar 14 19:40:56 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:40:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: References: <20060314051159.DE06D57FB0@finney.org> <8d71341e0603132117g65b4ad07web558c086279940a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060314194056.GE16448@ofb.net> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 02:34:28AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > What accounts for the largest part of overall health/longevity > increase is a VERY different question from the subject line. I would > point out that many of the supposed non-medicinal contributors were > invented or greatly strengthened and perfected due to > our understanding of medical science. Hygiene and nutrition may come under medical knowledge, and be practiced by doctors, but if the bulk of medical spending is to doctors in hospitals that could suggest the bulk of medical spending is of low (not non-zero) marginal effect. One thought about vaccinations: a series of childhood diseases, none of which actually kill, might still reduce lifespan by hampering growth, causing the body to fail at 60 instead of 75. This doens't affect "mortality rates falling since 1750" but might be a monkey wrench in some later numbers; smallpox vaccine would same some immediate lives, but might also extend the life of those who would have been survivors. On a contrary note, someone mentioned the use of antibiotics in cattle feedlots, and that they wouldn't be used if ineffective. That's probably true, but the whole practice of cattle feedlots goes against the reductions of exposure and stress that developed humans have benefitted from. Robin's consensus might be understandable not as medical practices being ineffective, but as their being effective, but having been largely pre-empted by hygiene and improved nutrition. There's more than one way to preserve a cat. Didn't post-Katrina New Orleans have surprisingly low disease rates, relative to what happens when South American water systems fail? If true (in both parts), that might be evidence of the effects of superior nutrition. (Or maybe of the water being too toxic for water-borne germs to live.) -xx- Damien X-) From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 14 20:54:52 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:54:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? Message-ID: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> The excerpt I posted from the "Economics of Health Care" textbook yesterday was intended to confirm the point that the consensus in the field is that medical practice played a small or even insignificant role. The book goes on to discuss an area where there is genuine controversy, namely the relative contributions of public health measures such as improved sanitation, quarantines, and standards for the safety and handling of food, versus the role of improved nutrition. Both seem to have played a part but some researchers emphasize nutrition and others give more credit to public health efforts. A counter-argument to the nutrition theory is that rich people and royalty always had plenty of food, but they have always gotten just as sick as everyone else. Pro-nutritionists fire back that although they had plenty of calories, their diets were unhealthy by present day standards. The role of nutrition might then be seen as not so much in how much people eat, but in what they eat. In particular the introduction of two American foods, corn and potatoes, is cited as improving the quality of protein in English diets in this time frame. Overall, the book makes it clear that this is all still very much in dispute and the decline in mortality post 1750 must be considered a puzzle at this time. Samantha keeps demanding to know what is the alternative hypothesis. But you shouldn't need an alternative to decide that your existing hypothesis is contradicted by the data. Sometimes the fact is that you have to admit that you just don't know. You shouldn't cling to a contradicted theory just because you don't have something better. Several commenters here have noted with relief that the evidence I have presented does not seem to reject the role of medical and scientific research in improving longevity. I don't know that it necessarily confirms it, either, though. As I said, it is really still a mystery what effects played a predominant role. From what I have read it is possible that improved knowledge of germs and contagion has helped make health measures more effective. OTOH Robin has citations to research indicating, for example, that improved water supplies don't help. I've only spent a few hours studying this; he has spent years. In any case, I don't think we can justify a feeling of relief even if it does turn out that medical knowledge has helped. Go back to the strong claim that "medicine", defined as services delivered by doctors, has played an insignificant role in extending life. Redefining medicine to include washing your hands doesn't make this uncomfortable fact go away. Reset your mind to the state it was in a few days or weeks ago and I think you will find that this claim sounds completely insane. Russell compared our discussion to those who insist we never landed on the moon. Look at Robin's paper, "Fear of Death and Muddled Thinking: It Is So Much Worse Than You Think," . He really lays it on the line there. Most people's heads will explode when they read it. The two excerpts I posted yesterday both offered reasons why vaccination and antibiotics are thought to have been of relatively little benefit. Disease rates were falling even before the introduction of these measures. Even though they arguably helped, disease rates were generally so low by the time they were introduced that their enhancement of longevity was marginal at best. And in many cases, the rate of decline of disease rates barely changed when these treatments were introduced. Bearing in mind Robin's paper on "muddled thinking", how do you want to react to these facts? Do you want to accept them, to accept the expert consensus? Or will you refuse to believe it? Are you thinking rationally, or emotionally? Which way do you want to think? And the real sticking point Robin raises is this: even if you find this convincing, as I do, will you change your habits? Will you stop going to the doctor, and even harder, stop taking your kids or loved ones? That's a hard decision! I can feel my mind squirming, going into "excuse mode". That's what I call it when you don't want to accept the reality of something and you are searching for reasons to disbelieve. It's a very specific and noticeable mental state, if you pay attention. Frankly I suspect that many posters here have been spending time in excuse mode. Pay attention to your own thoughts and see if you can feel it happening. Hal From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Mar 14 21:21:14 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:21:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> References: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060314212114.GA23514@ofb.net> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 12:54:52PM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > In any case, I don't think we can justify a feeling of relief even if it > does turn out that medical knowledge has helped. Go back to the strong > claim that "medicine", defined as services delivered by doctors, has > played an insignificant role in extending life. Redefining medicine to > include washing your hands doesn't make this uncomfortable fact go away. Isn't the stereotype that past their pre-college checkup most men don't go to a doctor anyway unless they're really sick or broke something? Looked at that way, the fact shouldn't be that uncomfortable. > And the real sticking point Robin raises is this: even if you find this > convincing, as I do, will you change your habits? Will you stop going > to the doctor, and even harder, stop taking your kids or loved ones? Those aren't necessarily conclusions of the analysis, though. If the reduction in mortality is from far fewer people getting sick, that still leaves open what to do if you *do* get sick. And even if something probably wouldn't kill you, the doctor might be able to shorten the duration or to lessen your pain. The relevant statistics here are not global ones, but of the form "given 100 people with your problem, and half of them going to doctors and half not, what are the relative rates of recovery?" If you are the person with a heart problem, or antibiotic-susceptible TB, is there any rational reason not to go to the doctor? I don't see it. (Well, expected value and cost, maybe.) -xx- Damien X-) From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Mar 14 21:19:31 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:19:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> References: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <98149523-F143-454E-B258-F1AE9A97B5C4@mac.com> On Mar 14, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > The excerpt I posted from the "Economics of Health Care" textbook > yesterday was intended to confirm the point that the consensus in the > field is that medical practice played a small or even insignificant > role. Role in what precisely? > The book goes on to discuss an area where there is genuine > controversy, > namely the relative contributions of public health measures such as > improved sanitation, quarantines, and standards for the safety and > handling of food, versus the role of improved nutrition. Both seem to > have played a part but some researchers emphasize nutrition and others > give more credit to public health efforts. > Why choose between good and needed and good and needed? > > Overall, the book makes it clear that this is all still very much in > dispute and the decline in mortality post 1750 must be considered a > puzzle at this time. > Sounds like a pretty silly book. > Samantha keeps demanding to know what is the alternative hypothesis. As Rafal pointed out some wild claims were made the title of this long-winded thread and some swags at alternate theories were made and questioned. > But you shouldn't need an alternative to decide that your existing > hypothesis is contradicted by the data. What hypothesis? That vaccination is useful? That medical practice in general contributes to health and longevity? That it is even useful? > Sometimes the fact is that > you have to admit that you just don't know. You shouldn't cling to a > contradicted theory just because you don't have something better. > I have seen no strong contradictions. Science and more importantly applied science works by using the current best theory for the area in question. Would you have us stop vaccinations or various medical and hygienic practices as "questionable"? Exactly what do you think should be the outcome of this little discussion? > Several commenters here have noted with relief that the evidence I > have > presented does not seem to reject the role of medical and scientific > research in improving longevity. I don't know that it necessarily > confirms it, either, though. As I said, it is really still a mystery > what effects played a predominant role. From what I have read it is > possible that improved knowledge of germs and contagion has helped > make > health measures more effective. There is no room for doubt about this at all. > OTOH Robin has citations to research > indicating, for example, that improved water supplies don't help. > I've only spent a few hours studying this; he has spent years. > Drinking disease carrying or polluted water is just as good for you as drinking clean water? by what magic? By what theory of the nature of human nutrition, disease, and so on? If the data seems to say that there is little need for improved water supplies then either the data is wrong or spurious conclusions are being drawn from it. > In any case, I don't think we can justify a feeling of relief even > if it > does turn out that medical knowledge has helped. Go back to the > strong > claim that "medicine", defined as services delivered by doctors, has > played an insignificant role in extending life. Services extended by doctors is only one part of our medical knowledge and its application so this is not very acceptable. One can easily point to a large number of people who would be dead without the intervention of doctors. Again, where are you going with this? Should we have less doctors or stop going to them? > Redefining medicine to > include washing your hands doesn't make this uncomfortable fact go > away. What "fact"? > Reset your mind to the state it was in a few days or weeks ago and > I think > you will find that this claim sounds completely insane. Russell > compared > our discussion to those who insist we never landed on the moon. > > Look at Robin's paper, "Fear of Death and Muddled Thinking: It Is > So Much > Worse Than You Think," . He really > lays it on the line there. Most people's heads will explode when they > read it. > If it advocates some of what I've seen here it isn't worth my time. > The two excerpts I posted yesterday both offered reasons why > vaccination > and antibiotics are thought to have been of relatively little benefit. Okay. I am done with this pointless discussion. - samantha From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 23:06:53 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:36:53 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Emlyn mentioned flying cars.... In-Reply-To: <008601c646b0$18190880$650fa8c0@kevin> References: <000901c6460f$f261d770$0202a8c0@ml4e4492ca79f3> <008601c646b0$18190880$650fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <710b78fc0603141506l4e30987ei@mail.gmail.com> Nice one. You know, the long haul travel problem doesn't just have to be solved by airflight. The problem is to travel from city to city quickly, with minimum fuss at either end, and hopefully with your car with you when you get to the destination. How about some kind of automated mega-highway, where your car goes onto remote pilot and proceeds at 300mph or so, fully automated, to the other end? If it were enclosed (like a tunnel) obstacles like wildlife wouldn't matter so much. Emlyn On 14/03/06, kevinfreels.com wrote: > I like this one. > > http://news.com.com/2300-11389_3-6040379-1.html?tag=nl > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 00:19:17 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:19:17 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> References: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603141619s7a7c6cf5xc7a577dc98ca6b10@mail.gmail.com> On 3/14/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > Overall, the book makes it clear that this is all still very much in > dispute and the decline in mortality post 1750 must be considered a > puzzle at this time. Nonsense. There is reasonable grounds for debate about the exact relative importance of each of several important factors. That's very different from saying the whole thing is a puzzle. In any case, I don't think we can justify a feeling of relief even if it > does turn out that medical knowledge has helped. Go back to the strong > claim that "medicine", defined as services delivered by doctors, has > played an insignificant role in extending life. Redefining medicine to > include washing your hands doesn't make this uncomfortable fact go away. > Reset your mind to the state it was in a few days or weeks ago and I think > you will find that this claim sounds completely insane. Russell compared > our discussion to those who insist we never landed on the moon. I'll repeat, as I have said several times before, that the claim at which I levelled that charge of absurdity is that medicine _in the broad sense_ (all public and private measures aimed specifically at preventing, curing or alleviating disease - as opposed to things like improved nutrition which had other motives) hasn't played a large part in improved health and lifespan over the last couple of centuries. Though looking at medicine in the narrow sense, even the data provided by the skeptics confirms - as was admitted earlier in this conversation - that vaccines alone can be credited with years of extension to average lifespan. Bearing in mind Robin's paper on "muddled thinking", how do you want > to react to these facts? Do you want to accept them, to accept the > expert consensus? Or will you refuse to believe it? Are you thinking > rationally, or emotionally? Which way do you want to think? So will you accept the expert consensus that we never went to the moon, then, or will you refuse to believe it because it's not what you want to think? :) And the real sticking point Robin raises is this: even if you find this > convincing, as I do, will you change your habits? Will you stop going > to the doctor, and even harder, stop taking your kids or loved ones? > That's a hard decision! I can feel my mind squirming, going into "excuse > mode". That's what I call it when you don't want to accept the reality of > something and you are searching for reasons to disbelieve. It's a very > specific and noticeable mental state, if you pay attention. Frankly I > suspect that many posters here have been spending time in excuse mode. > Pay attention to your own thoughts and see if you can feel it happening. > *laughs* I'm familiar first-hand with excuse mode, but you're looking at the wrong guy if you think it's happening here - I'm one of those people who won't go near a doctor unless I'm at death's door. Anyway, this is more silliness on top of and quite independent of the other silly claims. Whether you should go to a doctor if you're sick depends on whether modern medicine can help your particular condition, not what its contribution to lifespan has been across the entire population. (Which again is independent of the more reasonable claim that most of the marginal dollars spent on health care today have little effect.) I'll bow out of this discussion with the following observation: 1750 is before the time period I mentioned, and into the earlier wave of mortality reduction (which was about nutrition). History since the fall of the Roman Empire can be seen as the progressive conquest of War, Famine and Pestilence in that order. (Yes, the wars of the 20th century were terrible by modern standards - but they were mere arguments by Dark Ages standards.) Looked at from that perspective, it's time we started making inroads against the fourth horseman. I think I'll use that argument next time I'm talking to a life-extension skeptic who takes the (in itself not unreasonable) position that history is a better guide than science to the future. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 00:37:28 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:37:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> References: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60603141637i34a87d7fx685520128c8b0084@mail.gmail.com> On 3/14/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: Go back to the strong > claim that "medicine", defined as services delivered by doctors, has > played an insignificant role in extending life. ### The term "insignificant" is quite vague. If five years is insignificant, compared to thirty years, then yes, medicine as defined above (or let's say, as delivered by doctors and nurses) indeed played an insignificant role in extending life. Mysterious factors, perhaps a combination of better nutrition with public health measures and changes in hygiene played a vastly greater role. If five years sound like a good deal you get for your insurance premiums, then no, medicine does not play an insignificant role. I took issue with Robin's claim that smallpox vaccination played a thoroughly insignificant role in the reduction of its prevalence, and so far Robin did not point me to any evidence in favor of this claim. The larger issue, that is the total impact of our current and future medical spending on our own survival is something we discussed last year primarily on wta-talk, although the last part of the exchange was posted to exi (at that time the peans to the North Korean way of doing things convinced me to unsub). Robin claimed that medicine does not have any definite positive net effect on survival. I hope that when he comes back he will give us some more arguments. BTW, the Rand study he quotes is junk. I am busy today but I'll try find my critique of that study somewhere in the archives. I think that it is much more important to talk about the usefulness of today's medicine to us (the subject of the discussion between Robin and me last year), than the usefulness (or uselessness) of 19th century medicine to our great-grandparents (the subject to which this thread seems to have drifted). The consensus among economists and historians is that medicine was not very useful two hundred years ago but is clearly useful now, although there are huge differences in the economic efficiency of various therapies. Robin's ideas on the history of medicine are mainstream but his extrapolation of these notions into present is far out of it. Rafal From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 15 01:05:21 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:05:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? Message-ID: <20060315010521.8BB4C57FB0@finney.org> Rafal Smigrodzki writes: > The term "insignificant" is quite vague. If five years is > insignificant, compared to thirty years, then yes, medicine as defined > above (or let's say, as delivered by doctors and nurses) indeed played > an insignificant role in extending life. Mysterious factors, perhaps a > combination of better nutrition with public health measures and > changes in hygiene played a vastly greater role. If five years sound > like a good deal you get for your insurance premiums, then no, > medicine does not play an insignificant role. Perhaps my word "insignificant" was too strong. The textbook I quoted states "The consensus is fairly clear over the minor role of medical practice" (in reference to the historical declines in mortality rates). Would you agree with that characterization? > I took issue with Robin's claim that smallpox vaccination played a > thoroughly insignificant role in the reduction of its prevalence, and > so far Robin did not point me to any evidence in favor of this claim. > The larger issue, that is the total impact of our current and future > medical spending on our own survival is something we discussed last > year primarily on wta-talk, although the last part of the exchange was > posted to exi (at that time the peans to the North Korean way of doing > things convinced me to unsub). Robin claimed that medicine does not > have any definite positive net effect on survival. I hope that when he > comes back he will give us some more arguments. It seems that the widely cited reference to the history from 1750-1900, when smallpox vaccination came into widespread practice in England and the U.S., is McKeown. His book was not available at the library but I ordered a used copy from Amazon. I will describe his arguments when I get it. > BTW, the Rand study he quotes is junk. I am busy today but I'll try > find my critique of that study somewhere in the archives. I did read the Rand book, too, a few months ago. I would be interested to hear your comments. > I think that it is much more important to talk about the usefulness of > today's medicine to us (the subject of the discussion between Robin > and me last year), than the usefulness (or uselessness) of 19th > century medicine to our great-grandparents (the subject to which this > thread seems to have drifted). The consensus among economists and > historians is that medicine was not very useful two hundred years ago > but is clearly useful now, although there are huge differences in the > economic efficiency of various therapies. Robin's ideas on the history > of medicine are mainstream but his extrapolation of these notions into > present is far out of it. Keep in mind that it was you who asked to focus on smallpox vaccinations! That inherently requires us to discuss the 19th century. What do you think about the evidence I quoted claiming that 20th-century vaccinations provided only a limited benefit, totally around 18 months of added lifespan? http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-March/025701.html Hal From matus at matus1976.com Wed Mar 15 00:12:37 2006 From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:12:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lifeboat Foundation awared to Freitas, Joy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c647c5$2b421bc0$6601a8c0@hplaptop> Hal Finney said: -------- "The Lifeboat Foundation Guardian Award is annually bestowed upon revered scientists or public figures who have heralded the coming of a future fraught with danger and encouraged provision against its perils." For some reason I find this hilarious! The pomposity of the "revered scientists" is juxtaposed with the image of someone cowering beneath his bed sheets at fear of a future "fraught with danger". ----------- I have been an active contributor to the Lifeboat Foundation for many years now, and in fact did all of the 3D graphics work for the web site and the design of the ?Ark I? autonomous space colony. I have mentioned it a few times on this list, and even criticized extropians for being so flagrantly and irrationally optimistic about the future, so optimistic that they absolve themselves of any cautious responsibility. A position which it appears you embrace. Your imagery is incredibly disingenuous and considering some of our board members and active participants, completely incorrect. Ray Kurzweil for one, just recently provided funding to sponsor an EM launch competition, and Kurzweil isn?t exactly known for his pessimistic outlook on the future. I am an extremely optimistic futurist, as any perusing of my posts on this forum or my web site will demonstrate, but being optimistic is not a justification for irrationality. Your imagery of someone cowering beneath the sheets is completely ridiculous and demonstrates only the limited skepticism you have applied to your own attitude and outlook on the future. The Lifeboat Foundation is not a group of pessimistic dystopians, it is a group of rationally optimistic futurists, which is why it is dubbed as an ?insurance policy? Perhaps you should consider what an insurance policy is and then consider how it relates to the future of humanity and indeed all sentient intelligent life we know of to exist so far in the universe before making blanket statements like that. The Lifeboat Foundation is not a group of couch potato futurists, waiting for someone else to solve all the problems of the world and usher in this singularitian utopia. Pompous is presuming axiomatically that absolutely nothing will possibly ever go wrong. Rationality is making reasonable plans and insurances in case something does. It is an attempt to mitigate the risks that could end intelligent life. Robert Bradbury said ------- ?My initial reaction was also "Who is Lifeboat?" Further investigation seemed to suggest it was an organization wanting to preserve humanity from both natural and self-created hazards. That in and of itself seemed reasonable.? ---- Hi Robert, I have been absent from the list for a little while and last time I was around you had left, so I am glad to see you here and posting again. I believe your assessment of lifeboat here is very accurate which is why I have become involved in the project. Far from being dystopian pessimists most members of the lifeboat team that I have conversed with (including the founder) are extremely optimistic and probably consider themselves extropians (as I do) I can not speak for members of the board who are cited but I was glad to see Max and Natasha on the list, as well as Yudkowsky, etc. perhaps they can speak of their interaction with Lifeboat. But I have regularly communicated with some advisory board members, Dr. Niklas J?rvstr?t, for instance, offered many useful comments on my graphics / design of the ARK I. I communicate frequently with the founder, Eric Klein, have worked for him for over three years, and have met him a few times. He has mentioned his pursuits in getting respectable scientist to give a rational amount of concern to these things and he works very hard in communicating with these people. He has flown to Europe and met with Richard Branson, who later sponsored a Lifeboat project to identify accurate ways to combat the spreading of infectious diseases through international flights. Branson will be building the space port to launch Burt Rutan's ships in nearby New Mexico. Frankly I have been surprised for the past three years that the Lifeboat Foundations efforts are not more prevalent among the extropy list members, although recently it seems to have been rapidly growing. The times I have mentioned it (once to be add to a list of extropian themed charities some time ago) it was pretty much ignored. I have posted on this list before criticizing the apparent lack of action by the futurists lovers of this list, who even though they are extremely intelligent seem to feel content to sit around and let someone bring the future about for them. That deferment combined with the irrational axiomatic optimism present here are the two biggest factors, I suspect, in keeping productive efforts like the Lifeboat Foundations out of this list. ----- ?Being optimistic I would say we have we may have a well-intentioned individuals with a extropian/transhumanistic perspective trying to promote reasonable ideas in line with reducing the overall hazard function for humanity.? ----- I think you would be correct in this assessment. Bill K said: ----- ?The Lifeboat Foundation is designing space Arks of 1,000 people each. But I cannot find any information on how they plan to organise the social structure of these Arks. Are they like military ships, with a captain and crew running things? Or are they like Israeli kibbutz? Or, is he still going with the Libertarian mini-state idea? Maybe it is to be decided later on, if it ever gets to the stage that they might actually build an Ark.? ----- As I mentioned, those are my graphics, design, and artwork. I and Eric have very strong libertarian (more accurately Objectivist) leanings on political philosophy, but as far as I understand, this is to be decided later on. Some arguments suggest that if such self sustaining space colonies were profitable endeavors by private organizations than space would be teaming with them. I call Fermi?s paradox to counter, and I suspect that we might be the first intelligent technological advanced life (or the first sound of such beings) to evolve in the galaxy, and as such the political structure of such stations would not be relevant to the observed lack of their presence. Either way we still have some time to figure out the governing structure of space arks. Speaking of the Fermi paradox, (as I mentioned the last time I brought lifeboat up on the extropy list) I cite it as a primary reason for even very optimistic futurists to support such insurance procedures. There are only 3 main explanations for the lack of observed intelligent beings in the galaxy. 1) none exist and we are the first (or first generation) 2) they are all around us but undetectable (indistinguishable from magic, etc) 3) they tend to destroy themselves or get destroyed by some natural disaster. Of these, explanations 1 and 2 require no action on our part to ensure our continuation. And if they are accurate then building such a space station, or hopefully series of space stations, will not have made much of a difference. However if scenario 3 is correct then we absolutely must devise such insurance policies, and if we do not than this could be the end that befalls all intelligent technological beings. Note I speak only of my impressions of Lifeboat Foundation and my dealings with some members of it, I do not speak officially for Lifeboat Foundation. Regards, Michael F Dickey (aka Matus) From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Mar 15 00:23:12 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:23:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta Transhumanism and Axx Rxxx In-Reply-To: <20060314055835.17657.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060218095354.02d546d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060314191917.02b908a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:58 PM 3/13/2006 -0800, you wrote: >My offering, quick and dirty. > >Social creatures -- humans among them -- live in >groups because of the survival benefit derived, and >manifest strong instinctive loyalty-to-the-group >behaviors. In humans this is tribalism, with tribal >loyalty taking the form "My tribe right or wrong." >Social groups -- herds, packs, tribes -- need identity >markers for members. For humans, the memes of a >belief system constitute one set of identity markers. > >YMMV. > >Best, Jeff Davis This is true, but you are still not down to the causal level. Humans got to their present physical and psychological state as a species by evolution. Can you restate this in such terms? (hint, inclusive fitness, evolutionary psychology) Keith Henson >--- Keith Henson wrote: > > > At 07:23 PM 2/18/2006 +1100, Marc Geddes wrote: > > > > snip > > > > >You know a person reading on the net or hanging out > > >with high IQ folks can be inundated with bullshit > > if > > >one is not careful. > > > > snip > > > > Would you, would the list, be up to a Meta level > > discussion of *why* the > > evolved social primates known as humans believe > > mutually incompatible > > things? Why they believe anything at all? Why they > > kill each other over > > beliefs? Why people resist learning about these > > subjects? (MetaMeta level!) > > > > I *think* I know some of the reasons, but good > > discussion (which is hard to > > find) files the rough edges off the memes. > > > > Keith Henson > > > > PS. If you think that serious life extension will > > *ever* happen, then > > "we're only haggling over the price." :-) > > > > (old joke) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >__________________________________________________ >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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 01:37:41 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 01:37:41 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lifeboat Foundation awared to Freitas, Joy In-Reply-To: <000001c647c5$2b421bc0$6601a8c0@hplaptop> References: <000001c647c5$2b421bc0$6601a8c0@hplaptop> Message-ID: <8d71341e0603141737k3e502fe5od50ca4f681af255e@mail.gmail.com> On 3/15/06, Matus wrote: > > Of these, explanations 1 and 2 require no action on our part to ensure > our continuation. And if they are accurate then building such a space > station, or hopefully series of space stations, will not have made much > of a difference. However if scenario 3 is correct then we absolutely > must devise such insurance policies, and if we do not than this could be > the end that befalls all intelligent technological beings. > I'm all in favor of such insurance policies, but you might want to be careful that in giving awards to people like Bill Joy who want to suppress the development of technology, you don't make your doomsday prophecy self-fulfilling - if the world follows Joy's advice, where do you expect the technology to build arks to come from? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Mar 15 05:33:19 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:33:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> References: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <185AAADC-B6D7-4043-9F11-718E7B4DF981@mac.com> On Mar 14, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > And the real sticking point Robin raises is this: even if you find > this > convincing, as I do, will you change your habits? Will you stop going > to the doctor, and even harder, stop taking your kids or loved ones? > That's a hard decision! I can feel my mind squirming, going into > "excuse > mode". That's what I call it when you don't want to accept the > reality of > something and you are searching for reasons to disbelieve. It's a > very > specific and noticeable mental state, if you pay attention. Frankly I > suspect that many posters here have been spending time in excuse mode. That you even bring up such a possibility is irrevocable proof that this has gone far over into the nut-job arena. I beg of you, do not jeopardize your health, that of your loved ones, or those that may be swayed by your words. This is very serious and dangerous business. - samantha From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 15 05:44:37 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:44:37 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] stardust discovery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603150622.k2F6MROT016347@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Cool! http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/14/stardust.results/index.html Specks of 'fire and ice' in comet dust Tuesday, March 14, 2006; Posted: 1:13 p.m. EST (18:13 GMT) (CNN) -- Scientists with NASA's Stardust mission said they have found "fire and ice" in dust from the tail of Comet Wild-2, findings they called surprising on Monday. "Remarkably enough, we have found fire and ice," said Stardust principal investigator Don Brownlee of the University of Washington. "In the coldest part of the solar system, we have found samples that have formed at extremely high temperatures. So, the hottest samples in the coldest place." Launched in 1999, the Stardust spacecraft orbited the sun on a long intercept course with Wild-2. On January 2, 2004, it flew through the comet's tail, collecting bits of dust in a tennis racket-shaped collector resembling an ice-cube tray, filled with a substance called aerogel -- a low-density silica glass, nearly as light as air. The aerogel cushioned the fast-moving particles for the trip back to Earth. On January 15 of this year, the Stardust spacecraft passed by Earth and jettisoned a 100-pound capsule containing the dust samples. It entered the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean traveling almost 29,000 miles per hour, and streaked across the sky over Oregon and Nevada on its way to its landing zone at the Air Force Utah Test and Training Range west of Salt Lake City. The sample canister was soon transported to NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, where it was opened and where the samples will be housed on a long-term basis. Scientists have pored over the samples for a little more than a month. So far, six of the 132 "cells" containing the aerogel have been removed, and the some of the larger dust particles have been extracted and analyzed. Scientists say the minerals found in the samples include magnesium olivine, and other compounds rich in calcium, aluminum and titanium. While none of these minerals are new to the scientists, they do express some surprise at finding them in a comet. Scientists believe comets are icy, rocky debris left over from the formation of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. While they orbit the sun, comets populate the frigid fringes of the solar system, and any minerals frozen inside them are preserved in a deep freeze. "We found mineral grains that are considered very high-temperature minerals -- they normally form under extremely high temperature conditions," Brownlee said. "And yet they were collected in a comet, the Siberia of the solar system." So how is it that these high-temperature minerals came to reside deep inside a comet, far from the blast furnace where they were formed? "There are two major possibilities," Brownlee said. "One that they formed in the innermost, hotter-most regions of our solar system when the sun and planets were forming, and they were thrown out -- all the way out to the Pluto region of the solar system. The other possibility is they were formed around other stars, in hot regions around other stars." The goal of the Stardust mission is to study how the solar system formed and evolved. This early analysis of the Stardust samples seems to be evidence that the early solar system was a dynamic, explosive place. "If these are really from our own sun, they've been ejected out, ballistically out, all the way across the entire solar system, and landed out there," said Stardust scientist Mike Zolensky. "These materials where basically on a big conveyor belt -- being shot out, and then gradually drifting in, and then being shot out again." "It's like everything else in science," he said. "You learn something about one thing, and it raises more questions somewhere else. So we can't write all the answers right now, it's just great we have new mysteries to worry about now." From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 15 07:39:10 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:39:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Plenty of room at the bottom Message-ID: <20060315073910.38326.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> Readers of this list will be familiar with Drexler's deference to Feynman's 1959 "Plenty of room at the bottom" (http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html) talk, as predating his own (Drexler's) awakening to the nanotech idea. Today, I ran across Asimov's "The Last Question" (http://adin.dyndns.org/adin/TheLastQ.htm), (Damien pointed me to it a couple of years ago, but I only just got around to finding it -- by accident) and was more than a little surprised to find that Asimov beat both Drexler and Feynman to the nanotech idea. In "The Last Question" published in 1954, Asimov writes about a series of ever more compact -- ie dimensionally smaller -- more sophisticated computers: The first generation computer fills an underground facility. The second generation is smaller: "...In place of transistors, had come molecular valves so that even the largest Planetary AC [Automatic Computer]could be put into a space only half the volume of a spaceship." Of the third generation computer he writes: "... It [the Galactic AC] was on a little world of its own, a spider webbing of force-beams holding the matter within which surges of submesons took the place of the old clumsy molecular valves. ..." Then, the forth generation computer is described as, "...a shining globe, two feet across, difficult to see." Most of which is in hyperspace. "In what form it is there I cannot imagine." ***************************** Clearly Asimov quickly came to understand the transistor's -- invented in 1947 -- miniaturizing implications for electronics. But more than that he also foresaw with striking accuracy the future trajectory for computers. Check out the story to see just how accurate. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 15 07:43:50 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:43:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta Transhumanism and Axx Rxxx In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060218095354.02d546d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060315074350.50053.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com> My offering, quick and dirty. Social creatures -- humans among them -- live in groups because of the survival benefit derived, and manifest strong instinctive loyalty-to-the-group behaviors. In humans this is tribalism, with tribal loyalty taking the form "My tribe right or wrong." Social groups -- herds, packs, tribes -- need identity markers for members. For humans, the memes of a belief system constitute one set of identity markers. YMMV. Best, Jeff Davis --- Keith Henson wrote: > At 07:23 PM 2/18/2006 +1100, Marc Geddes wrote: > > snip > > >You know a person reading on the net or hanging out > >with high IQ folks can be inundated with bullshit > if > >one is not careful. > > snip > > Would you, would the list, be up to a Meta level > discussion of *why* the > evolved social primates known as humans believe > mutually incompatible > things? Why they believe anything at all? Why they > kill each other over > beliefs? Why people resist learning about these > subjects? (MetaMeta level!) > > I *think* I know some of the reasons, but good > discussion (which is hard to > find) files the rough edges off the memes. > > Keith Henson > > PS. If you think that serious life extension will > *ever* happen, then > "we're only haggling over the price." :-) > > (old joke) > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Ola.Bini at ki.se Wed Mar 15 09:55:04 2006 From: Ola.Bini at ki.se (Ola Bini) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:55:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Plenty of room at the bottom In-Reply-To: <20060315073910.38326.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060315073910.38326.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060315105207.03a79120@mail.ki.se> > >Clearly Asimov quickly came to understand the >transistor's -- invented in 1947 -- miniaturizing >implications for electronics. But more than that he >also foresaw with striking accuracy the future >trajectory for computers. > >Check out the story to see just how accurate. > >Best, Jeff Davis Hi. It's a really good story, with some fun implications. As you say, Asimov was early in those thoughts, but he was still locked in the thinking that there was only a few big computers. It took some years until people realized the logical conclusion of the miniaturizing of components; that of many small, cooperatiing computers instead of one megacluster. But still, the storys conclusions come earily close to some nowaday scientific ideas. Regards Ola Bini From amara at amara.com Wed Mar 15 10:55:29 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:55:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] stardust discovery Message-ID: Stardust's discovery of crystalline silicates in the dust of comet Wild 2 implies either: (1) 1) that the dust formed above glass temperature (>>1000K) in the inner disk region around a hot young star, and was radially mixed in the solar nebula from the inner regions a larger distance from the star or 2) the dust particles condensed in the outflow of evolved red giants or supergiants stars (for example AGB stars eject 15% of their silicates in crystalline form) Discovering which tells us alot of the early formation of the solar system. Another complication is that crystalline silicates are rapidly converted into amorphous silicates in the interstellar medium and back to crystalline silicates in protoplanetary disks. Next question: does it match solar? Also, wasn't crystalline silicates was found in the spectra of comet Hale-Bopp? Then Stardust's discovery shouldn't be a surprise. Also, I read that calcium-aluminum-inclusions (CAI) were found, which are probably from the extremely early part of solar-system formation (or from the molecular cloud before), which are known to form quickly by a high temperature event (lightning, for example), cooling in an hour or a few hours. So the stardust comet samples indeed have 'hot' embedded in 'cold'... Amara (1) Xander Tielens: Interstellar and Circumstellar Dust http://presolar.wustl.edu/ref/Tielens2005c.pdf -- *********************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, CNR - ARTOV, Via del Fosso del Cavaliere, 100, I-00133 Roma, ITALIA tel: +39-06-4993-4375 | fax: +39-06-4993-4383 Amara.Graps at ifsi-roma.inaf.it http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/ ************************************************************************ "We came whirling out of Nothingness scattering stars like dust." --Rumi From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 16:46:40 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:46:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Emlyn mentioned flying cars.... In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0603141506l4e30987ei@mail.gmail.com> References: <000901c6460f$f261d770$0202a8c0@ml4e4492ca79f3> <008601c646b0$18190880$650fa8c0@kevin> <710b78fc0603141506l4e30987ei@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/14/06, Emlyn wrote: > You know, the long haul travel problem doesn't just have to be solved > by airflight. The problem is to travel from city to city quickly, with > minimum fuss at either end, and hopefully with your car with you when > you get to the destination. Emlyn, there are already long haul transport systems implemented. The TGV in France cruises at 300+ km/h and can reach 500+ km/h. The Shanghai Maglev train (from the Pudong airport to Shanghai proper cruises at 354 km/h (max: 434 km/h)) but web articles argue that it is losing a lot of money doing so given its construction cost. I don't think you are going to get much above those speeds, particularly for longer distances without an evacuated tunnel. These have been discussed for a long time. I think I've seen a TV show (Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel?, etc.) regarding one that people have thought about across/under the Atlantic Ocean (presumably something like NY to London). Nanomaterials would be nice but it could probably be done using current materials. The basic problem is construction cost. *That* in turn relates significantly to labor cost. I've never seen any cost estimates for a transatlantic evacuated Maglev train tunnel built using nanotechnology (carbon nanotubes, nanorobotic assemblers, etc.). It wouldn't be "free" but it would be very interesting to see the capital costs based on Drexler's $0.5/kg for the tunnel & the trains and the operating costs on a per trip basis (how efficient can nanotechnology really get for accelerating and decelerating large objects?). Of couse you *could* go faster in planes. I recall with some fondness in my younger days (:-)) watching the big LED display at the front of the passenger section of the Concorde (now no longer flying :-() hit Mach 1.0, then slowly climbed up to 1.7, maybe even 2.0 (this was 20 or so years ago I think) -- so we have had the technology to make this happen for a very long time (construction of the first Concordes began over 40 years ago). Leaving aside the sonic boom question however, I think you would need to have very refined GPS positioning, good weather, esp. wind velocity, prediction, regional total aircraft route planning and collision avoidance systems in all aircraft before you started flitting around the country at Mach 1.0-2.0... How about some kind of automated mega-highway, where your car goes > onto remote pilot and proceeds at 300mph or so, fully automated, to > the other end? If it were enclosed (like a tunnel) obstacles like > wildlife wouldn't matter so much. > You could easily drive a your low-velocity air-car onto a container-train (ferry?) in NY and off the train once it arrives in London. The only problem I foresee is having to rewire your brain to drive on the other side of the road twice a day for the NY<->London commuters. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giogavir at yahoo.it Wed Mar 15 17:35:36 2006 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:35:36 +0100 (CET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Emlyn mentioned flying cars.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060315173536.14341.qmail@web26210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> A possible solution is a system called TransNet, where all systems, personal vehicles, collective, cargo , pipelines , power and utilities are integrated in a single raised structure from the land. To optimize power needs the system should be capable of generating power locally with solar, wind or other potential sources (temperature difference?) and supply such power to the vehicles electrically. In this case the "road" will supply clean power on the spot, avoiding traditional fuel, pollution, power lines and all other systems that are damaging to the envioronment. As an added bonus such system would occupy only 0,3% of land area, compared to the cumularive land occupation of railroad, highway, power liners, pipelines. Rhe stystem, including a maglev parcel transportation system connected to domestic and distribution center terminals,will also eliminate most trips for shopping and other requirements. --- Robert Bradbury ha scritto: > On 3/14/06, Emlyn wrote: > > > You know, the long haul travel problem doesn't > just have to be solved > > by airflight. The problem is to travel from city > to city quickly, with > > minimum fuss at either end, and hopefully with > your car with you when > > you get to the destination. > > > Emlyn, there are already long haul transport systems > implemented. The TGV > in France cruises at 300+ km/h and can reach 500+ > km/h. The Shanghai Maglev > train (from the Pudong airport to Shanghai proper > cruises at 354 km/h (max: > 434 km/h)) but web articles argue that it is losing > a lot of money doing so > given its construction cost. I don't think you are > going to get much above > those speeds, particularly for longer distances > without an evacuated > tunnel. These have been discussed for a long time. > I think I've seen a TV > show (Discovery Channel, National Geographic > Channel?, etc.) regarding one > that people have thought about across/under the > Atlantic Ocean (presumably > something like NY to London). Nanomaterials would be > nice but it could > probably be done using current materials. The basic > problem is construction > cost. *That* in turn relates significantly to labor > cost. I've never seen > any cost estimates for a transatlantic evacuated > Maglev train tunnel built > using nanotechnology (carbon nanotubes, nanorobotic > assemblers, etc.). It > wouldn't be "free" but it would be very interesting > to see the capital costs > based on Drexler's $0.5/kg for the tunnel & the > trains and the operating > costs on a per trip basis (how efficient can > nanotechnology really get for > accelerating and decelerating large objects?). > > Of couse you *could* go faster in planes. I recall > with some fondness in my > younger days (:-)) watching the big LED display at > the front of the > passenger section of the Concorde (now no longer > flying :-() hit Mach 1.0, > then slowly climbed up to 1.7, maybe even 2.0 (this > was 20 or so years ago I > think) -- so we have had the technology to make this > happen for a very long > time (construction of the first Concordes began over > 40 years ago). Leaving > aside the sonic boom question however, I think you > would need to have very > refined GPS positioning, good weather, esp. wind > velocity, prediction, > regional total aircraft route planning and collision > avoidance systems in > all aircraft before you started flitting around the > country at Mach > 1.0-2.0... > > How about some kind of automated mega-highway, where > your car goes > > onto remote pilot and proceeds at 300mph or so, > fully automated, to > > the other end? If it were enclosed (like a tunnel) > obstacles like > > wildlife wouldn't matter so much. > > > > You could easily drive a your low-velocity air-car > onto a container-train > (ferry?) in NY and off the train once it arrives in > London. The only > problem I foresee is having to rewire your brain to > drive on the other side > of the road twice a day for the NY<->London > commuters. > > Robert > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it From amara at amara.com Wed Mar 15 19:13:20 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:13:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for a Female Iguana Message-ID: Today I saw a notice pinned to the community board, at my work's cafeteria. The notice said (in Italian): "Looking for a female iguana, to mate with a 6 year old male iguana." And the writer gave tabs underneath written with their phone number. First, I've never seen an iguana in a pet store here. Second, two of the tabs were missing.. ! (i.e. there was apparent interest in the notice) Made me laugh! Amara, who thinks iguanas are cool From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 15 19:59:39 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:59:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready In-Reply-To: <200602160711.k1G7Boqt027099@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060315195939.99138.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote various comments regarding Pluto landing techniques (shown below my post): Here's my two cents: CAVEAT: Yo no soy scientista de los roketas, y por eso mi opinion tenie el vale, probablemente, de dos centavos, no mas. First, employ an ion drive, with all the implications for higher velocities and weight savings. If this alone doesn't make an orderly terminal decelleration possible, then employ a grazing decelleration through the upper atmosphere of Uranus or Neptune or both. Then we're talking heat shield and post-decelleration course corrections. Naturally this requires either Neptune or Uranus to be so situated as to make this feasible. Does anyone know the current whereabouts of those two planets, and whether or not they are -- or would be -- available to be employed as I propose? Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles --- spike wrote: > So if we were to try an impact landing on Pluto, > we would still need to ...reduce the relative > ... if we attempt to land on Pluto, the required > deceleration is ... about 13.5 km/sec. > If we suggest something like ... drop a cable and allow the drag across the surface to decelerate the vehicle, ... > If you decide to go the route of chemical rocket > deceleration, you have a problem of how to keep > the fuel from freezing ... > Of all the possibilities, the one most attractive > to me is to send it out on a Hohmann orbit, ... > The ...drawback [being] that it takes > about 62 years to get there... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Mar 15 20:20:30 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:20:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] VIDEO: NanoFactory Message-ID: <380-220063315202030972@M2W078.mail2web.com> Marcene Sonneborn just posted to a list I am on the updated nano film. http://www.lizardfire.com/html_nano/themovies.html CRN also has a blurb about it on their site: http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2006/03/mustsee_movie_i.html Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Mar 15 21:34:07 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:34:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? (meta) In-Reply-To: <98149523-F143-454E-B258-F1AE9A97B5C4@mac.com> References: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060315155807.02d25e38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:19 PM 3/14/2006 -0800, Samantha wrote: >On Mar 14, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > > > The excerpt I posted from the "Economics of Health Care" textbook > > yesterday was intended to confirm the point that the consensus in the > > field is that medical practice played a small or even insignificant > > role. > >Role in what precisely? Lenghting average lilfe span. >If it advocates some of what I've seen here it isn't worth my time. > > > The two excerpts I posted yesterday both offered reasons why > > vaccination > > and antibiotics are thought to have been of relatively little benefit. > >Okay. I am done with this pointless discussion. I would like to go Meta on Samantha here. This is a reasonable discussion of a puzzle that is based on real numbers and the numbers lead to discounting a lot of what we thought was obvious--that medicine as practiced by doctors had a lot of influence on longer lives. Samantha, I wish you could see an fMRI scan of your brain while reading Hal's post. As a guess though, even *with* such evidence about being in "partisan mode" I don't know if you could invoke logical thinking. This isn't a personal attack, just an observation of a psychological characteristic that must have had significant evolutionary pressure to evolve in the EEA. Back to the topic, there is reasons (from bones) to believe hunter gatherers lived longer and healthier lives than early farmers. (Other than killing each other off in wars.) People who have looked into this think it was mostly due to dietary deficiencies in agricultural products. Additionally a number of very serious disease (mostly from livestock) were able to propagate in the higher density populations that would burn out in smaller groups with sparse contacts. What we might be seeing in the past few hundred years is not increase in life span, but a return from a depressed life span as transport and better understanding has been translated into a diet and disease exposure more like we had in the EEA. I.e., our starting baseline was wrong. Keith Henson From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 22:09:21 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:09:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready In-Reply-To: <20060315195939.99138.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200602160711.k1G7Boqt027099@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060315195939.99138.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Come on Jeff, you can Google as well as I can -- something like "planet positions in the solar system" or similar should yield something. I came up with http://www.fourmilab.ch/solar/ which appears to link to a viewer letting you specify the date and see where the planets are. I would bet NASA or others have some fancy web application that allow you to do slingshot calculations... After all this isn't rocket sci.... Oh wait, maybe it is... R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Mar 15 22:33:30 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:33:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready Message-ID: JPL just recently updated their web site and data for planetary ephemerides: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides Amara From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 15 23:21:13 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:21:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Plenty of room at the bottom Message-ID: <20060315232113.E6A5357FB0@finney.org> Asimov had an even more prescient vision in Fantastic Voyage. The miniaturized submarine and its inhabitants have been injected into an artery: > Owens said, "Arterial wall to the right." > > The Proteus had made a long, sweeping curve and the wall seemed about > a hundred feet away, now. The somewaht corrugated amber stretch of > endothelial layer that made up the inner lining of the artery was > clearly visible in all its detail. > > "Hah," said Duval, "what a way to check on atherosclerosis. You can > count the plaques." > > "You could peel them off, too, couldn't you?" asked Grant. > > "Of course. Consider the future. A ship can be sent through a > clogged arterial system, loosening and detaching the sclerotic regions, > breaking them up, boring and reaming out the tubes. Pretty expensive > treatment, however." > > "Maybe it could be automated eventually," said Grant. "Perhaps little > housekeeping robots can be sent in to clean up the mess. Or perhaps > every human being in early manhood can be injected with a permanent > supply of such vessel-cleansers..." This last idea in particular, that people could be injected with a permanent supply of housekeeping robots that would circulate in their blood stream and keep things clean and tidy, was 20 years ahead of Drexler proposing a similar idea. Hal From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Mar 15 23:16:50 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:16:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? (meta) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060315155807.02d25e38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20060315155807.02d25e38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5F1C98D6-16A5-4CE4-ACD0-A71FD894E2BC@mac.com> On Mar 15, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > At 01:19 PM 3/14/2006 -0800, Samantha wrote: > >> On Mar 14, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Hal Finney wrote: >> >>> The excerpt I posted from the "Economics of Health Care" textbook >>> yesterday was intended to confirm the point that the consensus in >>> the >>> field is that medical practice played a small or even insignificant >>> role. >> >> Role in what precisely? > > Lenghting average lilfe span. > >> If it advocates some of what I've seen here it isn't worth my time. >> >>> The two excerpts I posted yesterday both offered reasons why >>> vaccination >>> and antibiotics are thought to have been of relatively little >>> benefit. >> >> Okay. I am done with this pointless discussion. > > I would like to go Meta on Samantha here. This is a reasonable > discussion > of a puzzle that is based on real numbers and the numbers lead to > discounting a lot of what we thought was obvious--that medicine as > practiced by doctors had a lot of influence on longer lives. > The discussion has gone from being about which factors have how much effect on longevity, with more or less reasonableness, to being about medicine in several specifics or generally not being worth bothering with (including the idea of not going to doctors), to being at a meta level of how people supposedly deal with or don't deal with things that upset their prior beliefs. Toss in a smattering of hypotheses that don't seem as good as ones currently accepted. It has cycled among these things repeatedly and often unexpectedly when various participant attempt to pin one or another aspect down. I am out of energy and time for what seems to me to be a rather pointless intellectual game. - samantha From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu Mar 16 01:50:33 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:50:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thanks for listening Message-ID: <20060316015033.28966.qmail@web35507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Mar 10, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > I have never in any post suggested that I was a genius, but I don't > think being rude is the best antidote for this list or any other. Samantha wrote: I don't believe attempting to wake you to the problem some of us have at times with your posts or the way I did it was all that rude. I have also gone to bat for you more than once. + But you were imo being too sloppy in your thinking and communication to actually get much out of being here. I am happy for you to be here as long as you make some effort to think through what you are saying a bit more. >>Thank you and I know you have. A little push, might be at times, be >>very beneficial. >>I'll try to do more research next time I post, sometimes quick fingers >>take over you. >>But to be honest, I didn't think you where rude, I thougth Emlyn was:) >>A Troll makes a person feel unwanted, small (opposite of rather large) >>and dumb. Why would anybody want to make someone feel like that, >>especially without common knowledge about that person? >On Mar 10, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: >I might not be at the level of education that I would like to be but don't >underestimate people, it might one day come back and bite you in the ass. Samantha wrote: Whatever you mean by that I don't see where it is helpful. >>Again I was talking about Emlyn. I saw his website and acknowledged >>that he was an artist. I was just emphasizing that the world is small and >>don't go insulting people that one day may be beneficial for you, >>especially when you know nothing about them:) >Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > If that's not Extropian then what is? Samantha wrote: Wanting to learn per se and not intending to harm anyone is true of a lot of people who aren't particularly extropic. >>You are right, I've just started to learn about extropy and I'll probably >>make a few mistakes along the way. >>At the same time, I don't think people need to be criticized in any form. >>It's just a feeling, it might be wrong? Again, Sorry if I have offended anybody, I have a habit of that. I am in no way insulting Emlyn, I really liked his site, he's talented. I was just making a point that not all extropians have to be the same, and at the same time, take the time to know someone before you judge them:) Thanks for listening:) Anna --------------------------------- Have a question? Yahoo! Canada Answers. Go to Yahoo! Canada Answers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 16 03:30:12 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:30:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] jonano's group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603160339.k2G3d53N019468@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Greetings fellow ExI-ers, Jonathan Depres, also known as Jonano, has a chat group which he is advertising. His original post had some religious terminology in it which led me to filter it, however in the spirit of fair play, here is the site: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/futurologymovement/ This mention is in nooooo waay any kind of endorsement, by me or by ExI. spike From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Mar 16 05:30:38 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:30:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta Transhumanism and Axx Rxxx In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060314191917.02b908a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Jeff wrote first on 3/13 then---perhaps accidentally---exactly the same thing on 3/16: > My offering, quick and dirty. > > Social creatures -- humans among them -- live in > groups because of the survival benefit derived, and > manifest strong instinctive loyalty-to-the-group > behaviors. In humans this is tribalism, with tribal > loyalty taking the form "My tribe right or wrong." Isn't it rather obvious the benefits to the group of such tribalism? Is it really any mystery as to why it evolved? One of our chief concerns on a forum like this is to take proper note of a lot of the historical nastiness that is a direct consequence of "my tribe, right or wrong". Another chief concern is the way in which such loyalty cuts short---exactly as religious referents do ---careful and critical examination of certain issues. Yet these aspects of tribalism are often exhibited as though it arose as a mere, unfortunate pathological aberration. Nothing could be further from the truth. We see clearly today *exactly* what happens to groups that do *not* have sufficient tribal loyalty: it doesn't take evolution very long to get rid of them. It's for this reason that I temper my criticism of such loyalty. Something about the meme-set of the proponents is still working correctly, just as originally designed. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Mar 16 04:51:54 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:51:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? (meta) In-Reply-To: <5F1C98D6-16A5-4CE4-ACD0-A71FD894E2BC@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha writes > Keith Henson wrote: > > [Samantha wrote] > > > Okay. I am done with this pointless discussion. > > > > I would like to go Meta on Samantha here. This is a > > reasonable discussion of a puzzle that is based on real > > numbers and the numbers lead to discounting a lot of > > what we thought was obvious--that medicine as > > practiced by doctors had a lot of influence on > > longer lives. I agree with Keith to the extent that I find it very curious the way a number of posters have exercised so little caution in attacking Hal's conclusions. Indeed, Hal can hardly be blamed for wondering just what other effects are in play here. (I want to say that I'm excluding Rafal's well-written counter- points.) Samantha then sums up the situation nicely: > The discussion has gone from being about which factors have how much > effect on longevity, with more or less reasonableness, to being about > medicine in several specifics or generally not being worth bothering > with (including the idea of not going to doctors), to being at a meta > level of how people supposedly deal with or don't deal with things > that upset their prior beliefs... It has cycled among these things > repeatedly and often unexpectedly when various participant[s] attempt > to pin one or another aspect down. Nothing wrong with us doing that either. Discussing this meta-topic is *so* much more effective with a real case at hand. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Mar 16 04:36:52 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:36:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <20060314205452.39F7457FB0@finney.org> Message-ID: Hal wrote > Several commenters here have noted with relief that the evidence I have > presented does not seem to reject the role of medical and scientific > research in improving longevity. I don't know that it necessarily > confirms it, either, though. As I said, it is really still a mystery > what effects played a predominant role. From what I have read it is > possible that improved knowledge of germs and contagion has helped make > health measures more effective. OTOH Robin has citations to research > indicating, for example, that improved water supplies don't help. > I've only spent a few hours studying this; he has spent years. One thing I'm absolutely sure of: that I'm not the only one that really appreciates the work you've done here, even going so far as to copy lengthy paragraphs from off-line sources. Thanks! I do note that you began the above paragraph with reference to the feelings of certain readers. And here is more: > In any case, I don't think we can justify a feeling of relief even if it > does turn out that medical knowledge has helped.... > ... > Bearing in mind Robin's paper on "muddled thinking", how do you want > to react to these facts? Do you want to accept them, to accept the > expert consensus? Or will you refuse to believe it? Are you thinking > rationally, or emotionally? Which way do you want to think? This is one of those arenas where I'm pretty sure that I myself don't have any prior axes to grind, and it's not where my beliefs have been either strong or developed. It also so happens that I'm finding everything you're relating to be persuasive. Still, this focus on the "emotional" thinking that may or may not characterize certain people who dispute your conclusions is, I think, misguided. The best way to illustrate, perhaps, is to imagine how *you* would feel (or will feel) months or years from now if yet more evidence is presented on behalf of the viewpoint opposite to which you are inclining. And I use the word "feel" with great deliberateness. I am sure that we react negatively to information that challenges a view or views that we have held for some time; there are many obvious and not-so-obvious reasons for this. And I think that we *all* do it. And when this happens, it cannot be so simply put that we are merely reacting "emotionally". I reiterate that the dichotomy between emotional and non-emotional thinking has been dealt severe blows, and it's best for us to avoid characterizing our mental processes or stances in such stark terms. > And the real sticking point Robin raises is this: even if you find this > convincing, as I do, will you change your habits? Will you stop going > to the doctor, and even harder, stop taking your kids or loved ones? > That's a hard decision! I can feel my mind squirming, going into "excuse > mode". No kidding it's a hard decision! And I suspect that it is *not* one that can be arrived at entirely "rationally". That is, our long-term judgment, our intuition, and our experience must be---and will be--- brought to bear. I'll state it bluntly: anyone is a fool who is persuaded by strictly verbal arguments that his or her long term behavior has been entirely correct or incorrect. Moreover, I'll state that *no* one reading this actually behaves this way (i.e. hyper- rationally; we'll all continue to exercise our own prudent judgment in these matters, only allowing arguments and counter-arguments to have a limited effect. Yes, I will grant that some people *do* seem to react so viscerally to disagreeable information that they succeed in blocking it all out and rationalizing it away. But I don't know of any test to distinguish between doing that and simply being conservative with regard to coming to believe something entirely new, or distinguishing between that and the legitimate feeling of annoyance when one may have to rework his or her whole base of belief about something. > That's what I call it when you don't want to accept the reality of > something and you are searching for reasons to disbelieve. It's a very > specific and noticeable mental state, if you pay attention. Frankly I > suspect that many posters here have been spending time in excuse mode. > Pay attention to your own thoughts and see if you can feel it happening. Yes, I think that many of us *can* feel it happening, but I don't think that it's so specific. As I said above, I'll bet that it cannot be easily distinguished from the normal annoyance at the inconvenience of changing long-held positions (such as I invited you to imagine yourself some months hence, or perhaps already). (There are *so* many mechanisms at work here---from fear of loss of esteem that arises when one publicly changes his mind (closely related to fear of vacillation), all the way to normal skepticism of sudden new information. I won't try to list them all now.) Lee From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Mar 16 06:22:53 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:22:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appeal to Authority Message-ID: <20060316062253.23833.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> I can't find a good explanation of why "appeal to authority" is a fallacy or at worst something not properly done in argument. So here's my rough effort at articulating a possibly inherent vacuity in any appeal to authority during argument. This should apply as well to appeals to a consensus of authorities versus any dissenting authorities. Of course, comments are welcome. Why Appeal to Authority is a Null-Move in Argument Scientific statements are fundamentally testable descriptions of, or inferences from, empirical observations. Appeals to authorities in a field of science are scientific only in so far as they purport the existence of a higher success rate for statements of authorities a