From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon May 1 00:33:34 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:33:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Ned Late wrote: > Here's another spin on this: in the sixth paragraph you'll notice a > Ron Fisher wrote that participating in the darfur genocide protest > is a "socially responsible, good conscience thing to do". Feel > Goodism. That is to say it makes me feel better-- 'look at me, I'm > so decent I'll take time out from my day to go to a protest'. The vast majority of activism is exactly this. Why? Because it is cheap. It is a way to reap most of the social benefits of being an activist without the expense and discipline required to actually solve social problems. 80% of the personal benefit, 20% of the cost, and negligible impact on the underlying problem. Unfortunately, this type of behavior has a history of encouraging the perpetuation of the problem, as "solving the problem" becomes a cottage industry with a number of perks (c.f. Jesse Jackson). > Americans have so little savoir faire, no one ever went broke > underestimating the taste of Americans. Isn't taste to be > considered extropian? The problem with savoir-faire is that everyone thinks they have it, but I have yet to find a corner of the globe where most people can agree that it is a predominant feature of the local culture. Taste follows the same pattern; everyone thinks they have far more than they actually do. Nothing is more pointless than two groups of provincials each trying to disparage the other by labeling them "provincial". Genuinely superior cultures of any size will not have to tell me about their superiority as it will usually be self-evident from the global influence they wield. Relatively superior cultures tend to dominate their ecology, ultimately supplanted as even better cultures evolve. One of the classic blunders of history (beside never getting involved in a land war in Asia) is taking relative cultural superiority at some point in history to mean that the culture is superior in some absolute sense to which little improvement can be made. Cultures that do not encourage evolution invite decline. J. Andrew Rogers From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 02:09:53 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 22:09:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >> How many *instances* (not types) of "1" are there in "1+1"? >> Just give me a number. John K Clark: > It is difficult to answer because your question is not entirely clear. If you know anything about Computer Science this question couldn't be more clear. John K Clark: > That said the number you asked for is 1. So you see a single instance of "1" in "1+1"? Wow! And that was just basic math. I'm sorry but I refuse to be exposed to any more of this kind of silliness. The answer is 2. Always. S. P.S. I suggest googling for difference between an "instance" and "type" in the context of OOP. From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 1 01:54:54 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:54:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060430204833.051a6ae0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 03:50 PM 4/30/2006, Spike wrote: > >We have pretty much eschewed politics here, but if anyone has any ideas or >suggestions on how an extropian-minded person should look at this human >tragedy I would think it would be appropriate here. I think whoever must do whatever to stop genocide whenever. This is beyond partisan beliefs which tend to obfuscate issues rather than solve problems. This is not a matter of political parties, but of social responsibility. Remember Rwanda? Terrible, terrible. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer PhD Candidate, University of Plymouth - Planetary Collegium, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts 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 Mon May 1 02:34:18 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:34:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <445573AA.10006@pobox.com> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On Apr 30, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Ned Late wrote: > >>Here's another spin on this: in the sixth paragraph you'll notice a >>Ron Fisher wrote that participating in the darfur genocide protest >>is a "socially responsible, good conscience thing to do". Feel >>Goodism. That is to say it makes me feel better-- 'look at me, I'm >>so decent I'll take time out from my day to go to a protest'. > > The vast majority of activism is exactly this. Why? Because it is > cheap. It is a way to reap most of the social benefits of being an > activist without the expense and discipline required to actually > solve social problems. 80% of the personal benefit, 20% of the cost, > and negligible impact on the underlying problem. Unfortunately, this > type of behavior has a history of encouraging the perpetuation of the > problem, as "solving the problem" becomes a cottage industry with a > number of perks (c.f. Jesse Jackson). I agree. If you haven't signed up for your country's military or directly lobbied political decisionmakers to send forces to Darfur, and instead you're posting to the Extropian mailing list, you've already declared that your priority is transhumanism. That's a defensible decision. I doubt that Darfur will cause so much as two whole weeks worth of planetary casualties before playing itself out. So I concentrate on defeating death, the death of individuals and the death of worlds. I think that maximizes my leverage. If I'm wrong about that, I guess I've damned myself. And if you choose to concentrate on Darfur and choose wrongly, sacrifice planet-hours and tens of thousands of lives for the sake of a warm fuzzy feeling, that damns you even more thoroughly. So live up to the choice you've already made. Focus hard on what you believe is more important than an ongoing genocide. If it's more important than an ongoing genocide, it surely deserves your full attention. If other people look at you funny, all the more reason to keep up your focus. Because those other people won't do your work, and it's all up to you. But don't pretend that yelling about Darfur accomplishes spit. That disrespects the dead. Find some other way to get your warm fuzzies than showing off how hard you can cry. If you care more about Darfur than anything else, then get off this mailing list and into uniform. If you don't care enough to do that, then shut up so you can concentrate on whatever it is you think is more important. Try not to damn yourself and good luck with that. Sincerely, Eliezer. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 03:22:53 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:22:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060430214927.38082.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Heartland wrote: > "That illusion will happen as part of a > verifiably different *instance* of mind process than the original instance of > that > same *type* of process. As people, we are instances, not types. That's the > biggest > misconception people bring to this kind of debate, namely, that people are > types." Jeffrey Herrlich: "I don't think that Space/Time trajectory is sufficient to distinguish any specific instance of mind-process from any other. The key to my objection here lies with the necessary mind-*process*. As I pointed out in an old post, a vitrified brain retains a Space/Time trajectory that is every bit as real and valid as a trajectory followed by a living brain (A living brain and a vitrified brain are both "4-D"). While a brain is vitrified it is *not* conducting a mind-*process* at all. So, upon very close examination, the "original" mind-process (original instance) *cannot* at all be distinguished by Space/Time trajectory, from the "copied" mind-process (copied instance) - it is the *same* brain. I realize this paragraph may be difficult to follow, but I couldn't find a way to make it more straightforward." The mistake in your reasoning is that you equated mind object with the brain object and mind trajectory with brain trajectory. These objects and their trajectories would be completely different even though similar by virtue of the same volume of time and space they would occupy (but different locations within that volume). When mind process stops, a trajectory of that mind stops while trajectory of the brain might still be continuous for some time while trajectories of individual atoms might be continuous forever. A total of 3 different trajectories parallel to time axis. The end of trajectory of original instance of mind process would not be the start of a trajectory of future instance of mind process. The line would be not be continuous along time axis. (Brain trajectory doesn't "connect" two mind trajectories since the brain trajectory is altogether different one). There would be 2 unconnected trajectories representing 2 different instances of a mind-type object. These 4-D trajectories would be sufficient in making all objects, including multiple instances of the same type of object, verifiably distinguishable. S. From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Mon May 1 03:16:15 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:16:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44557D7F.2010407@goldenfuture.net> Ned Late wrote: > Americans have so little savoir faire, no one ever went broke > underestimating the taste of Americans. And no American ever went broke selling American culture to anyone else. They watch our movies, they eat our Big Macs and make reruns of "Dallas" the #1 rated TV show in some countries. Who's the bigger bumpkin? The bumpkin? Or the bumpkin who pays to have him on TV all the time? Joseph From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 1 03:13:23 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 22:13:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <445573AA.10006@pobox.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <445573AA.10006@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060430220648.0519a998@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:34 PM 4/30/2006, Eli wrote >So I concentrate on defeating death, the death of individuals and the >death of worlds. Death, be it physical or mental, performs the biggest genocide against the tribe of humanity. It does not matter what pants it wears or name it uses. It is still death. Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Mon May 1 03:10:11 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:10:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44557C13.5080305@goldenfuture.net> Hughes, James J. wrote >Seriously, a world that can't find the political will to defend people >from genocide - which will of course requires sacrifices of blood, >sweat, tears and treasures, and maybe even some taxes - is not a world >prepared for the existential threats we face from technologies of mass >destruction, and the political conflicts that will be exacerbated by the >emerging technologies we all talk about here. The answers are not >mysterious. They are just political. Send in the blue helmets, and >defend the people of Darfur. > Yeah! Because they're doing so well with Iran... Joseph From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 1 03:13:29 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:13:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:50 PM 4/30/2006 -0700, spike wrote: >We have pretty much eschewed politics here, but if anyone has any ideas or >suggestions on how an extropian-minded person should look at this human >tragedy I would think it would be appropriate here. > >http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/30/us.sudan.ap/index.html > >As long as we keep out of the tiring old republicans this and democrats >that, keep it as a high level world-as-participants discussion, we are all >ears. > >Counter-suggestions welcome. Unfortunately . . . these events have been happening perhaps back to before the split between our line and the chimpanzees since chimps carry out wars of extermination against neighboring groups. The reason we have not seen more of it in the last two generations than we have is that technology has caused the economy to run ahead of the population increases in a lot of places. That keeps war mode or "wipe out the neighbors" mode switched off. You can blame the Pope or the memes for human reproduction to be jammed full on. The long version is here: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 The short version is that population builds up till people see a bleak future, that causes xenophobic memes to build up, and there is a massive population reduction from tribes fighting it out. The traits evolved in the stone age. It is easier for xenophobic memes to build up against a different group of people, Jews, Tutsi, etc, but a homogenous group can fracture like happened on Easter Island or Cambodia if the conditions are right. I have been thinking about these problems in detail because I am writing a singularity novel that stretches over the next 100 years. You don't need to be a high powered AI or uploaded human to see the problem, but fixing it in low tech societies opposed to birth control is probably beyond our current ability. If anyone wants to comment on a 7200 word chapter where the AIs completely depopulation Africa (without killing anyone) let me know. But at the current level of technology, I can only suggest you don't watch. :-( Keith Henson From mstriz at gmail.com Mon May 1 04:36:25 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 00:36:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 4/30/06, Keith Henson wrote: > You can blame the Pope or the memes for human reproduction to be jammed > full on. > > The long version is here: > > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 > > The short version is that population builds up till people see a bleak > future, that causes xenophobic memes to build up, and there is a massive > population reduction from tribes fighting it out. The traits evolved in > the stone age. It's an interesting essay. While your model can account for some wars, it certainly doesn't account for all of them. Power grabs and religious/cultural differences account for a lot of violence as well. Moreover, it seems to account for tribal warfare much more than the wars have occurred in the last century. You also write: "Empowering women and other factors such as reliable birth control methods that go with the globalized high-tech life style has the effect of lowering the birth rate to near or even below replacement. Why isn't entirely obvious. The usual response of a species finding itself in a rich, well-fed environment is to have lots of offspring. Sarah Hrdy (Hrdy 1999) has given this topic a lot of thought without reaching a firm conclusion." The standard explanation involves industrialization, not globalization per se. Children are an asset in agrarian societies, because they provide extra hands for labor, and they produce more than they cost. Children are a liability in industrialized societies, where they produce little until they are adults but cost a lot to rear. In short, in industrialized socities, parents lose money on their children, which makes large families prohibitively expensive. Martin From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon May 1 04:47:50 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:47:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Crows Invent Machine Message-ID: <445592F6.1070300@mindspring.com> On Apr 30, 2006, at 2:36 AM, Terry W. Colvin fnarded: > Regarding this most amazing report: > let me propose this > > ARGUMENT: the example above constitutes the use and > *invention* of a machine by crows. The machine is a > function M that accepts the input of a properly placed > nut n that is then processed by the weight of rolling > automobile tires into the target output M(n) of a > cracked-open nut. Crows not only use this machine but > they invented it assuming that the invention of > machine X need only constitute its original conception > and comprehension followed by physical proof that > input y does in fact yield the target output X(y). I > believe the crows have satisfied those criteria of > machine invention. It seems to me like most instances of associative learning and/or operant conditioning would satisfy the same criteria. Pigeon inputs a peck to the correctly-colored key, output is a food reward. That sort of thing. The crow example is more impressive by virtue of its conceptual complexity, of course, but they all require the functional equivalent of abstracting the system somehow. > The proposition of invention may seem a stretch given > that the crows did not manufacture any cogs in their > nut-cracking machine. If you'd like instances of that, there are plenty of examples. I posted this a while ago: http://www.orenhasson.com/EN/bait-fishing.htm Crows fishing with bait (bread). They modify the bait, tearing off small chunks at a time and dropping them in the water, rather than just tossing the whole slice in. New Caledonian crows seem to be the reigning kings of corvid tool use & manufacture, mostly focused on extracting food from holes and tubes. They use sticks to push food out, choosing length and diameter to match the dimensions of the hole and distance of the food; they agitate beetle larvae and get them to bite down on the stick, then pull them out; they tear strips off pandanus leaves and pull out food with the barbed edge. Social learning seems to be involved; the juveniles closely watch adults using the tools, and local populations make pandanus-leaf tools of characteristic shapes. Moreover, at least one crow, when given straight pieces of wire, innovated the technique of bending the end into a hook (which is impossible with any of the natural materials they're familiar with) and using it to retrieve food. There's a research group website with lots of info at: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.shtml --Anton Mates -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From jonkc at att.net Mon May 1 06:24:46 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 02:24:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > If you know anything about Computer Science this question > couldn't be more clear. Couldn't be more clear? I couldn't fail to disagree with you less. Mr. Heartland sir you have so far not demonstrated the slightest hint of knowledge of Computer Science or philosophy or even logic, perhaps you are really a master of these subjects but if so you have kept it very well disguised. > So you see a single instance of "1" in "1+1"? Wow! Wow indeed. I must add reading comprehension to your list of disabilities because that is not what I said. I understand there are some very good adult education classes that might help you out in that regard. And speaking of wow, nothing could equal your astonishing jaw dropping views on anesthesia. But let me propose another thought experiment, I make an exact copy of you as before but after that atom by atom I start moving one of the original high holy atoms over to the comparable spot on the lowly copy and moving one of the evil sleazy atoms of the copy over to the glorious original. After an hour or two all the atoms have swapped places, but neither knows it was happening and in fact during the entire transfer both brains were synchronized with each other. Which one is the original and which one is the copy? Which one is you? If some huge sea change has occurred which atom did it? When did replacing one atom with another one that was absolutely positively 100% identical make a huge difference? I don't believe in souls but it's clear that you do, although you'd never use the word, so which one has your soul? These are not rhetorical questions, I can answer every one of them with my theory. Can you? John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Mon May 1 07:06:13 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 03:06:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060430214927.38082.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007f01c66ced$cd70ab80$af084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > The mistake in your reasoning is that you equated mind object with the > brain object What the hell is a mind object? Apparently you don't believe mind is what a brain does, you think mind is an object like a billiard ball is an object. So how big is mind, is it bigger than a breadbox, could I put it in my pocked? What shape is mind? What color is mind? If mind is an object it must weigh something, so does a man weigh less when he is under anesthesia? Smart people must have a bigger mind than dumb people, so do they weigh more? > These objects and their trajectories... [blah blah balh] For the ninetieth time, you can ERASE THE HISTORY OF AN ATOM, erase it from the entire universe, just cool the atom down. If ALL information about "the trajectory through space time" is gone how can it effect subjectivity, or anything else for that matter? John K Clark From pgptag at gmail.com Mon May 1 09:54:33 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:54:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Island open in Second Life Message-ID: <470a3c520605010254q151d31edt40353f14978cf0cb@mail.gmail.com> The name of the uvvy island is taken from Rudy Rucker's science fiction work and used with permission. Second Life users, to get there search region uvvy on the map and teleport. I will be spending time on the island today and tomorrow and will be happy to meet all SL users on this list to discuss things to do here. I am Giulio Perhaps in SL. G. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 11:36:37 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 07:36:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer> <006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > "Heartland" >> So you see a single instance of "1" in "1+1"? Wow! > > Wow indeed. I must add reading comprehension to your list of disabilities > because that is not what I said. I understand there are some very good adult > education classes that might help you out in that regard. And speaking of > wow, nothing could equal your astonishing jaw dropping views on anesthesia. Excuse me. You've just tried to convince me that there is a single instance of "1" in "1+1". Now *that* is jaw dropping. If that's not what you said then please retract it and come up with a different number. If it's not 1, then what is it? (Last time I checked it was 2, but maybe it's really time to rewrite those obsolete math books). > But let me propose another thought experiment, I make an exact copy of you > as before but after that atom by atom I start moving one of the original > high holy atoms over to the comparable spot on the lowly copy and moving one > of the evil sleazy atoms of the copy over to the glorious original. After an > hour or two all the atoms have swapped places, but neither knows it was > happening and in fact during the entire transfer both brains were > synchronized with each other. Which one is the original and which one is the > copy? And you still go on about these atoms. Let these poor atoms go. :) You're fighting some ghost argument from the past, not my argument. Aren't you tired of setting up the same straw man over and over again? I know that I'm tired of just looking at it. I'll just indulge you one last time. After your experiment nothing changes. (Now, that I've burned that straw man down I wonder what you will think of now, Mr. Clark.) S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 11:55:44 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 07:55:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060430214927.38082.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <007f01c66ced$cd70ab80$af084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > "Heartland" > >> The mistake in your reasoning is that you equated mind object with the >> brain object > > What the hell is a mind object? Before you ponder these advanced questions, please try to figure out the number of instances of number type "1" in "1+1". Small steps. >> These objects and their trajectories... [blah blah balh] > > For the ninetieth time, you can ERASE THE HISTORY OF AN ATOM, erase it from > the entire universe, just cool the atom down. You amaze me, John. Now you claim that cooling down the atom erases all the records tracking past locations of that atom? I think this discovery should make front page news at PhysOrg.com, don't you think? S. From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Mon May 1 12:19:56 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:19:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Crows Invent Machine In-Reply-To: <20060430035158.85632.qmail@web52615.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060430035158.85632.qmail@web52615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990605010519ne9d231cl25eee98145d5acd1@mail.gmail.com> On 4/30/06, Ian Goddard wrote: > Regarding this most amazing report: > > http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/ Amazing indeed, but rather than a machine, I see it as crows learning to use some feature of their "natural" environment - the cities. Kinda like I could cook hamburgers on heated stones if I happened to live on top of Hawaii's volcanoes. Alfio From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon May 1 13:48:50 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 09:48:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060501092713.07949ab0@unreasonable.com> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >Ned Late wrote: > > Here's another spin on this: in the sixth paragraph you'll notice a > > Ron Fisher wrote that participating in the darfur genocide protest > > is a "socially responsible, good conscience thing to do". Feel > > Goodism. That is to say it makes me feel better-- 'look at me, I'm > > so decent I'll take time out from my day to go to a protest'. > >The vast majority of activism is exactly this. Why? Because it is >cheap. It is a way to reap most of the social benefits of being an >activist without the expense and discipline required to actually >solve social problems. 80% of the personal benefit, 20% of the cost, >and negligible impact on the underlying problem. When I started work at Livermore, the lab was besieged by a three-day protest. There were periodic morning drive recurrences. Activists would come over from Berkeley, hoist signs that declared that anyone who worked at Livermore in any capacity -- from cancer research to janitor -- was a baby-killer, then go off to the Concannon or Wente vineyards down the road for a picnic lunch with friends and a bottle of Petite Sirah. It occurred to me then that if their primary motive was political impact, staying home at the typewriter would have been more productive. But the social benefits are immediate and tangible. I still smile at the frank honesty of the male college student who, asked before the 2004 election why he supported Kerry over Bush, answered, "Because I want to get laid." -- David. From jonkc at att.net Mon May 1 15:58:01 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:58:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" >Now you claim that cooling down the atom erases all the >records tracking past locations of that atom? Yes, that is exactly precisely what I am claiming. > I think this discovery should make front page news at > PhysOrg.com, don't you think? It most certainly did make front page news back in 1995 when it was confirmed experimentally, it was even discussed extensively on this very list at the time. In fact it did more than make the front page, the 3 scientists who discovered it won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2001 for it. As spectacular as their results were it didn't come as a huge surprise; Bose and Einstein predicted the effect theoretically in 1924. You seem to be a bit behind the times. For God's sake I've used the term several times before, take a little time off from pontificating about trajectories through space time and do some research on Bose Einstein Condensations. > Excuse me. You've just tried to convince me that there is a single > instance of "1" in "1+1". What I said in very clear language is that when two identical brains are thinking about 1+1 there is only one thought. Clearly in your sentence above there were two ASCII symbols of the number one but I don't give a hoot in hell about ASCII symbols, I'm only interest in subjectivity. And no, I don't believe I can excuse you. Me: >> But let me propose another thought experiment, I make an exact copy of >> you as before but after that atom by atom I start moving one of the >> original high holy atoms over to the comparable spot on the lowly copy >> and moving one of the evil sleazy atoms of the copy over to the glorious >> original. After an hour or two all the atoms have swapped places, but >> neither knows it was happening and in fact during the entire transfer >> both brains were synchronized with each other. Which one is the original >> and which one is the copy? You: > And you still go on about these atoms. You've made this exact same complaint about me before, but then immediately after you start droning on and on again about space time trajectories. And I've asked this exact same question before but like many many others that you have no answer for you just ignore them, but I'll try one last time, try reading my lips, IF YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SPACE TIME TRAJECTORY OF ATOMS WHAT THE HELL ARE THE TRAJECTORIES OF! > I'll just indulge you one last time. After your experiment nothing > changes. What the hell does that mean? Of course SOMETHING changed, there are now two bodies, two lumps of protoplasm and both claim to be you. So for once don't weasel out, don't just ignore difficult questions, which one is you, don't tell me nothing changed just tell me which one is you. After that tell me which one is the original and most importantly WHY, just what is original about it and why should anyone care? I look forward to your answers but I am not hopeful, you'll probably just ignore them again or dismiss them with an idiotic two word answer like "nothing changes". Me: >> What the hell is a mind object? > Before you ponder these advanced questions [....] Look buddy you're the one who introduced the Looney Tunes term "mind object" not me; so it is entirely appropriate to ask you what you meant. It is now clear you didn't mean anything by it, you were just punching keys on a keyboard. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 1 16:43:58 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 12:43:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:36 AM 5/1/2006 -0400, Martin Striz wrote: >On 4/30/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > You can blame the Pope or the memes for human reproduction to be jammed > > full on. > > > > The long version is here: > > > > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 > > > > The short version is that population builds up till people see a bleak > > future, that causes xenophobic memes to build up, and there is a massive > > population reduction from tribes fighting it out. The traits evolved in > > the stone age. > >It's an interesting essay. While your model can account for some >wars, it certainly doesn't account for all of them. Power grabs and >religious/cultural differences account for a lot of violence as well. In the negative sense, it might. I can't think of a population that was happy about the future that supported starting a war. I am not entirely sure what you mean by a power grab, but religious and cultural differences would not be a problem if population growth had not pushed groups into contact/competition over limited resources. The Nazi movement was up front about it, "Lebensraum." >Moreover, it seems to account for tribal warfare much more than the >wars have occurred in the last century. > >You also write: > >"Empowering women and other factors such as reliable birth control >methods that go with the globalized high-tech life style has the >effect of lowering the birth rate to near or even below replacement. >Why isn't entirely obvious. The usual response of a species finding >itself in a rich, well-fed environment is to have lots of offspring. >Sarah Hrdy (Hrdy 1999) has given this topic a lot of thought without >reaching a firm conclusion." > >The standard explanation involves industrialization, not globalization >per se. Children are an asset in agrarian societies, because they >provide extra hands for labor, and they produce more than they cost. >Children are a liability in industrialized societies, where they >produce little until they are adults but cost a lot to rear. In >short, in industrialized socities, parents lose money on their >children, which makes large families prohibitively expensive. I am well aware of the standard explanation and there may be something to it, but the very rich in western culture (plus Japan and China now) who could certainly afford lots of kids rarely have them. Also, children as young as 5 were extensively used as workers in early factories. It does not seem to apply to all peoples (cultures?). Look at the number of Saudi "princes." That's support for industrialization being a factor. The underlying EP theory is that *all* psychological traits including behavioral switches are the direct effect of selection or they are a side effect of something that was selected. Capture-bonding would be an example of direct selection, drug addiction a side effect. I can't make a case for either for low birth rates. Really good birth control wasn't part of the EEA, but infanticide (particularly female infants or ones too close in age) was. I admit to being baffled. Long term it is incredibly important to understand if population growth in excess of economic growth underlies the conditions leading to wars. Keith Henson From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon May 1 16:48:25 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 09:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Crows Invent Machine In-Reply-To: <445592F6.1070300@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20060501164825.66595.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> Anton Mates (forwarded by Terry) wrote: > > Regarding this most amazing report: > > http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/ > > let me propose this > > > > ARGUMENT: the example above constitutes the use > > and *invention* of a machine by crows. The > > machine is a function M that accepts the input > > of a properly placed nut n that is then processed > > by the weight of rolling automobile tires into > > the target output M(n) of a cracked-open nut. > > Crows not only use this machine but they invented > > it assuming that the invention of machine X need > > only constitute its original conception and > > comprehension followed by physical proof that > > input y does in fact yield the target output X(y). > > I believe the crows have satisfied those criteria > > of machine invention. > > It seems to me like most instances of associative > learning and/or operant conditioning would satisfy > the same criteria. Pigeon inputs a peck to the > correctly-colored key, output is a food reward. But clearly, Skinner's pigeons did not have the "original conception and comprehension" of the food-peck machine. It was invented by humans who specified its input, processing, and output parameters. I can't see how one could argue that the responses of the pigeons constituted their invention of the machine. On the other hand, no human conceived of a roadway and traffic as a nut-cracking machine. The "original conception and comprehension" of this machine appears to have arisen the corvid mind. > There's a research group website with lots of info > at: > http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.shtml A few days ago I posted that same link here. Thanks for the other examples of corvid intelligence. There are so many! I find this video most impressive: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/av/crow_080802.ram It's hard to see on the first run, but at first the crow tries to fish out a bottle of food down in a narrow tube with a straight wire. Quickly she realizes the problem: the straight wire can't get under the handle atop the food bottle. So she quits trying; takes out the wire (if you freeze frame at that point you'll see that the wire is straight); jams its end into some crevice, then walks around with the other end of the wire held in her beak so that the wire gets bent into a hook as she walks. Then she rapidly surmises that the necessary tool has been manufactured and that it should accomplish the task she must have already envisioned. Reinserting her self-made tool into the tube, she swiftly hooks it around the food bottle's handle and pulls it out. Both problems ((1) can't reach food, (2) have the wrong tool) solved! Now, a tool is considered to be a machine, [1] so that hook example also constitutes machine use and invention. By using a hammer one creates a machine where the input is calories, the work is hammering, and the output is driven nails. However, the nut-cracking machine seems more advanced in that it externalizes the mechanical work to the actions of the cars, which looks higher-order than self-powered processing. [2] If you can get a machine to do all the work for you, that's a big advantage! ~Ian _____________________________________________________ [1] "A tool is a machine which transforms energy from the muscles, bones, or teeth directly into useful work." http://www.see.org/e-ct-2.htm [2] "A tool is a machine. The distinction between a machine tool and a hand tool is that the hand tool is powered by your hand such as is the case with a manual screwdriver, whereas a machine tool does pretty much everything you can do by hand but is also power driven by some outside force other than human energy." http://www.stanford.edu/~jchong/articles/quals/Econ%20Soc%20-%20Empirical.doc __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 1 17:13:17 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 10:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060501171317.35040.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I agree that the evidence suggests that a human mind is an active process. I also acknowledge, that the atoms/ions/molecules which perpetuate the mind-process will each trace out a different trajectory in space/time, under typical circumstances. However, the fact that a moving atom "possesses" a space/time trajectory, does not mean that the atom is *defined* by a space/time trajectory. The space/time trajectory is a single component of an *extremely* large definition of any given atom. The space/time trajectory is an *effect* not a cause, of an atom that happens to be in motion. In other words, there is no space/time trajectory, without an atom to trace it in the first place (except for something like a photon, perhaps, but the brain isn't made of photons). The mind-process (or the mind-activity) cannot exist without atoms to do the dirty work. The activity that perpetuates a human mind is the activity (motion) of atoms (molecules, etc). So how can a "mind object" be any different than a physical brain, made of atoms? And how can a "mind trajectory" be any different than a trajectory of a physical brain (the trajectory can refer only to atoms/molecules/ions)? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: > Heartland wrote: > "That illusion will happen as part of a > verifiably different *instance* of mind process than the original instance of > that > same *type* of process. As people, we are instances, not types. That's the > biggest > misconception people bring to this kind of debate, namely, that people are > types." Jeffrey Herrlich: "I don't think that Space/Time trajectory is sufficient to distinguish any specific instance of mind-process from any other. The key to my objection here lies with the necessary mind-*process*. As I pointed out in an old post, a vitrified brain retains a Space/Time trajectory that is every bit as real and valid as a trajectory followed by a living brain (A living brain and a vitrified brain are both "4-D"). While a brain is vitrified it is *not* conducting a mind-*process* at all. So, upon very close examination, the "original" mind-process (original instance) *cannot* at all be distinguished by Space/Time trajectory, from the "copied" mind-process (copied instance) - it is the *same* brain. I realize this paragraph may be difficult to follow, but I couldn't find a way to make it more straightforward." The mistake in your reasoning is that you equated mind object with the brain object and mind trajectory with brain trajectory. These objects and their trajectories would be completely different even though similar by virtue of the same volume of time and space they would occupy (but different locations within that volume). When mind process stops, a trajectory of that mind stops while trajectory of the brain might still be continuous for some time while trajectories of individual atoms might be continuous forever. A total of 3 different trajectories parallel to time axis. The end of trajectory of original instance of mind process would not be the start of a trajectory of future instance of mind process. The line would be not be continuous along time axis. (Brain trajectory doesn't "connect" two mind trajectories since the brain trajectory is altogether different one). There would be 2 unconnected trajectories representing 2 different instances of a mind-type object. These 4-D trajectories would be sufficient in making all objects, including multiple instances of the same type of object, verifiably distinguishable. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 18:15:30 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:15:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> On Apr 29, 2006, at 5:26 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I keep reading about Firefox memory problems, but I live all day in > Firefox with 7 or 8 open tabs and have never had any problems (Linux > or Windows). But I avoid heavy video or multimedia web use, so that > might be the clue. > > How much memory is on your machine and how long do you keep FF > running? You probably will not see them unless you have a machine > with 512MB or less and leave the browser running for days. The > problem is basically heap fragmentation interacting with Linux page > management. Over time you have small memory memory allocations > (history records, bookmarks, "active" aspects of extensions (RSS > records), gmail pages, etc. grabbing small chunks of memory across > the entire heap. The heap size grows over time until the Firefox > resident page set is pushing about 70% of the memory on the machine > (~350+MB out of 512MB). That would be manageable if it weren't for > the fact that new memory allocations, freeing old memory and the > garbage collector that runs at random intervals (I think the GC is > in there to support Java & Javascript but I'm not sure) have to go > through essentially all of the memory in the heap (all of the > allocated chunks are in linked lists). Even though Linux will run > up to 2000-3500 swap-ins per second it still takes a long time to > run through all of the pages in the heap that have been paged out. > Though it doesn't crash Linux it will make both FF and everything > else relatively unusable. Alternatively it can cause the dreaded > "oom-killer" to run which will start killing off processes (Firefox > included) until it has enough memory to continue operating. [In my > case it usually takes out Azureus which is a process pig because it > needs one for each "peer" it is exchanging files with and a memory > pig because it is written in Java and has a poor one-to-many > communications design -- but thats a different discussion.] [1] > Ah. Does Firefox have its on memory management internally or does it just depend on raw request to the platform alloc routines that it then chains together. From the description i would guess the latter. Is anyone working on it getting larger contiguous chunks and sub-allocating and managing those internally? This sort of thing used to be standard practice back in the days of much more limited memory. It isn't that difficult to do. If I had some free time I would be tempted to volunteer to do it myself is no one else is. Firefox has some other nasty little quirks on OS X. If you hold down the left mouse button instead of just clicking the CPU goes up to over 90%! I get a fair number of crashers with the latest release. Often other windows/tabs are frozen while one slow loading page is being loaded. Sometimes what should be a text select ends up acting like a right click using my track pad substitute mouse. This never happens in Safari or Opera so it isn't apparently an OS/device interaction. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 18:15:44 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:15:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances In-Reply-To: <20060426221239.69802.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060426221239.69802.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <80C00D83-AE11-4CD3-BB9E-646BFE472B5D@mac.com> On Apr 26, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Natasha Vita-More natasha at natasha.cc wrote: > > I'm really sorry to hear that Natasha. I hope they catch the person > that did it. That's just wrong. I still can't understand what > makes people > malicious. > > I was actually wondering recently what I should do regarding my > computer. I'm buying a new one and can't decide if I should put it on > the internet. I want to work on video and music programs and I'm > thinking it's saffer to just keep my old computer for the net. I was > wondering what everybody else thought. > Well if you really don't need anything from the internet for that work that might be doable. But I think you will find plenty of things relevant to video and music on the internet that you would like to have. If you are going to move stuff between the machines then you would also be open to anything that may have infiltrated the old computer. I tend to keep my riskier OS machines (windows boxes generally) on a separate subnet physically and logically from main machines in my house. An attack on the former cannot get to the latter in any privileged way. The main machines are running less vulnerable OS and configuration and are truly internet facing. -s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 18:26:05 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:26:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604291537o3d5df2a1v635d7c71e3fc5449@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0604291537o3d5df2a1v635d7c71e3fc5449@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D548E91-17D4-4E33-8D24-1889D550AD1A@mac.com> On Apr 29, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 4/29/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > "Memory is cheap, don't worry about it." Bad, bad, bad! > > Good, good, good! No matter how much memory there is it still takes system resources to manage it and access it. Doing so inefficiently is a waste and in some cases can drag even a very powerful system to its needs. Plenty is not an excuse to be grossly sloppy. > > Back in the days when you had to time share 256MB between ~30 users > (Harvard's undergraduate Science Center circa 1974-6) you had to > really pay attention to such things as memory usage and paging/ > swapping efficiency. > > Fettered limbs grow lame. As someone who learned to program on a > Vic-20 with 5k including system and video memory, I sometimes > wonder if progress will only really get going when those of us who > were thus mentally scarred have died off :P > On the contrary, it was those limits that taught us efficiency and the pain of those limits that caused many of us to work diligently to overcome them. We computer oldsters dreamed a deep dream of power to the people through technology. And lo, it came to pass. More or less. Now there is truth in what you say in that premature optimization and languages designed to be easy on von Neumann architecture predominate in and limit software progress to this day. > A significant limiting factor on continued progress in computer > hardware is demand going down because too much programming effort > is spent wasting computer capacity (by leaving it lying idle) > rather than using it to improve reliability (for a start, by > switching to languages other than super macro assembler! :P), > functionality and usability. Serious workloads like simulations > always need more computing power, but the people running them don't > have the money to pay for chip factories at several billion a pop. > It all comes down to the people writing programs like Firefox and > Doom 3 to put the power to mass use - let them be praised, not > criticized. What is broken in even praiseworthy efforts MUST be criticized and fixed if we are to progress. It is the hacker way from which many of these efforts were born and brought to fruition in the first place. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Mon May 1 18:49:39 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 20:49:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> On 5/1/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Ah. Does Firefox have its on memory management internally or does it > just depend on raw request to the platform alloc routines that it > then chains together. From the description i would guess the > latter. The latter, and AFAIK it doesn't free the memory used by the images in a tab when you close it, so the memory usage grows and grows. It's also single-threaded, and a processor-intensive tab can effectively hang the others for quite a while. Alfio From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 18:50:41 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:50:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0604291537o3d5df2a1v635d7c71e3fc5449@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Functionality is an interesting topic. It took us ~20 years to go > from C to Perl and another decade to get to Python and Java. And > though I don't claim to know the last two my limited awareness > doesn't point out significant differences between them and C. (Yes > one doesn't have to handle memory allocation but of course that can > lead to memory fragmentation which leads to the problems one can > currently encounter in Firefox.) > The second oldest general computer language, Lisp, is more advanced in capabilities than any of the so-called "modern" languages. Decades ago all the capabilities of the newer languages were hashed out and explored in Lisp. The best technically loses in the marketplace again and again. This is what you learn if you around the software industry very long. > Serious workloads like simulations always need more computing > power, but the people running them don't have the money to pay for > chip factories at several billion a pop. It all comes down to the > people writing programs like Firefox and Doom 3 to put the power to > mass use - let them be praised, not criticized. > > Hmmm... Go ahead and make the case that Firefox is contributing to > computer architecture development will support cheap > simulations... I doubt it can be done. Anything you suggest that > Firefox is doing driving the limits of the hardware I would suggest > may be an unconscious and unnecesary waste of resources (I haven't > heard about people complaining about Opera being so problematic). A friend of mine proposed the [mostly] joking theory that hardware progress is being driven by programmers needing more and more powerful machines to get much done with seriously retarded languages and tools. It took more and more power and memory to debug and profile the resulting mess. Given better hardware larger and less efficient systems were designed that then needed ever more powerful hardware to debug and maintain them. :-) - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 18:53:15 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:53:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: <4454F29B.9040604@betterhumans.com> References: <4454F29B.9040604@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <1FE90703-6270-4C3E-B23E-5B83084476A1@mac.com> The notion that apes are equivalent to human children is the spurious analogy. - s On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:23 AM, George Dvorsky wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: >> No, it doesn't. The ape is not a human being or a human child. The >> "logic" depends on a spurious analogy being accepted. > > Please elaborate on what you feel is 'spurious' about this logic, > because all I'm getting from your posts is contradiction. > > Cheers, > George > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From mstriz at gmail.com Mon May 1 19:21:10 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 15:21:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/1/06, Keith Henson wrote: > >The standard explanation involves industrialization, not globalization > >per se. Children are an asset in agrarian societies, because they > >provide extra hands for labor, and they produce more than they cost. > >Children are a liability in industrialized societies, where they > >produce little until they are adults but cost a lot to rear. In > >short, in industrialized socities, parents lose money on their > >children, which makes large families prohibitively expensive. > > I am well aware of the standard explanation and there may be something to > it, Ah, well, you only cited one person, who didn't have an answer, so you made it appear in your essay as though nobody has proposed an explanation. > but the very rich in western culture (plus Japan and China now) who > could certainly afford lots of kids rarely have them. Also, children as > young as 5 were extensively used as workers in early factories. Most people can't afford to have lots of kids. How much does a child cost to raise per year? Perhaps $10,000? That's not an unreasonable estimate. The median income in the US is $40,000, so that gives a single wage earner enough for two kids (plus spouse). People who earn less can't even afford even that, but they get away with it by not spending as much on each child. Peope who earn more, particularly more intelligent people, make a conscious decision not to have many children. > It does not seem to apply to all peoples (cultures?). Look at the number > of Saudi "princes." That's support for industrialization being a factor. Oil princes are absurdly rich, so of course they can have many children, but I would hardly make the claim that the Middle East is industrialized. Industrialized in a single industry, maybe. > The underlying EP theory is that *all* psychological traits including > behavioral switches are the direct effect of selection or they are a side > effect of something that was selected. Capture-bonding would be an example > of direct selection, drug addiction a side effect. > I can't make a case for either for low birth rates. You don't have to. Not all human behavior is the product of evolutionary hardwiring. Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not recurrent features of the EEA. Most wealthy, intelligent people simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size. > I admit to being baffled. It's not that complicated. :) Martin From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 1 18:21:11 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060501182111.18961.qmail@web37414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello, Historically, the most common impetus for political or social change has been the personal discomfort of those people who felt "wronged" by the condition of the time. Unfortunately, people tend to only truly care about a given problem when they believe it has a high probability of negatively effecting them personally. (Or, it has already negatively impacted them.) It's sad but true. Here is another potential reason, why IMHO, it would be in *everyone's* best interest to safely and carefully "uplift" conscious animals to human levels of intelligence, at which time, their wishes can be determined. All of this after the Singularity. I haven't seen any solid evidence or argument that it is *impossible* for a human who has died, to later "occupy" the consciousness of a lower animal. I'm not talking about reincarnation or any other dubious claim, the animal would be an animal not a human, but the subjective experience of the animal may be "occupied" by a "being" that was previously a human. Here's another way that I look at it : The fact that I exist right now is an existence proof that I can "occupy" the mind of an animal (a human animal) *at least once* in the history of the universe. What is to stop this from happening multiple times? If I happen to die, perhaps next time I will "occupy" the mind of a gorilla. In which case, I would definitely prefer to be uplifted and given equal rights, than say living out my entire relatively pointless life in the wild or in a zoo. I know that this post sounds *awfully* mystical, superstitious, and/or religious. But I don't intend it that way. If anyone knows of any evidence that such a thing is impossible, *please* direct me to it. An "uplifted" gorilla would have the ability to decide its own future. If for some reason it made the decision that it would prefer to return to gorilla intelligence and live in the wild, it would be done. But, I find it hard to believe this would ever be its choice. The technical aspects of the transition should be trivially easy post-Singularity. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon May 1 19:05:45 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 15:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Crows Invent Machine In-Reply-To: <20060501164825.66595.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <445592F6.1070300@mindspring.com> <20060501164825.66595.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <36572.72.236.102.103.1146510345.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > On the other hand, no human conceived of a roadway > and traffic as a nut-cracking machine. The "original > conception and comprehension" of this machine appears > to have arisen the corvid mind. Parallel... I've known people in the past to use their pickup trucks to run over walnuts to break them.... But that is in the country, not the city - no traffic lights, no traffic other than the pickup truck in question. Regards, MB From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 20:36:45 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:36:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Hughes, James J. wrote: > Seriously, a world that can't find the political will to defend people > from genocide - which will of course requires sacrifices of blood, > sweat, tears and treasures, and maybe even some taxes - is not a world > prepared for the existential threats we face from technologies of mass > destruction, and the political conflicts that will be exacerbated > by the > emerging technologies we all talk about here. The answers are not > mysterious. They are just political. Send in the blue helmets, and > defend the people of Darfur. > For once I pretty much agree with you. However, I would send any troops or volunteers from any country or organization willing to stop the genocide now. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 20:39:30 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:39:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55805941-2032-4290-BDEB-51BCD05B6629@mac.com> On Apr 30, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Hughes, James J. wrote: >> Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> No, it doesn't. The ape is not a human being or a human >> child. The >>> "logic" depends on a spurious analogy being accepted. > > Samantha, > > We apparently have different understandings of transhumanist > ethics. For > me "that's not a human being" doesn't tell me anything about its moral > status. Apparently it does for you. > My comments are not about denying "moral status" to non-humans but the anthropomorphism of treating quite different species more or less as if they are the same when start considering and attempting to respect non-human species moral status. - samantha From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 1 20:05:46 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: <20060501182111.18961.qmail@web37414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060501200546.28281.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just wanted to add a post-script to my last message. "Returning" as a gorilla would, by comparison, be a pleasant experience. It would be far worse to "return" as a calf, chicken, pig, or other animal whose miserable life was extended solely for the comfort and convenience of humans (assuming that some humans will opt to remain unenhanced after the singularity). Alright, I'm done with drama for now. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich A B wrote: Hello, Historically, the most common impetus for political or social change has been the personal discomfort of those people who felt "wronged" by the condition of the time. Unfortunately, people tend to only truly care about a given problem when they believe it has a high probability of negatively effecting them personally. (Or, it has already negatively impacted them.) It's sad but true. Here is another potential reason, why IMHO, it would be in *everyone's* best interest to safely and carefully "uplift" conscious animals to human levels of intelligence, at which time, their wishes can be determined. All of this after the Singularity. I haven't seen any solid evidence or argument that it is *impossible* for a human who has died, to later "occupy" the consciousness of a lower animal. I'm not talking about reincarnation or any other dubious claim, the animal would be an animal not a human, but the subjective experience of the animal may be "occupied" by a "being" that was previously a human. Here's another way that I look at it : The fact that I exist right now is an existence proof that I can "occupy" the mind of an animal (a human animal) *at least once* in the history of the universe. What is to stop this from happening multiple times? If I happen to die, perhaps next time I will "occupy" the mind of a gorilla. In which case, I would definitely prefer to be uplifted and given equal rights, than say living out my entire relatively pointless life in the wild or in a zoo. I know that this post sounds *awfully* mystical, superstitious, and/or religious. But I don't intend it that way. If anyone knows of any evidence that such a thing is impossible, *please* direct me to it. An "uplifted" gorilla would have the ability to decide its own future. If for some reason it made the decision that it would prefer to return to gorilla intelligence and live in the wild, it would be done. But, I find it hard to believe this would ever be its choice. The technical aspects of the transition should be trivially easy post-Singularity. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Mon May 1 21:27:00 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:27:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9b9887c80605011427l3b1327e8u795acf044fff6837@mail.gmail.com> did anyone notice that Darfur is a conflict over water between the farmers and the ranchers? isn't this a micro of the coming water wars? i wrote my first article about the privatization of water in 1971. right now my main issue is....... if i told you on this list you would laugh and call me names filled with mirth. long live the balt o' more sun! i will never move back east as the berkeley sun never snows. the united nations started here. grin, ilsa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Mon May 1 21:43:16 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060501214316.71786.qmail@web37502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You're right. And it's not fair to single out Americans for bad taste, as Mencken himself did. I don't mind protesters that much, but when you take a good look at them you see they are too nostalgic for the '60s. Some of the younger ones wearing tie-dyed shirts and other hippie garb when they were born twenty years after the style was widely in vogue-- they heard about the '60s and are romanticizing the era. >Not fair. You used Mencken's quote without attribution. Did you >really think it would slip by this literate crowd? >Martin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Mon May 1 21:16:28 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <44557D7F.2010407@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20060501211628.61531.qmail@web37502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> More is the pity, Joe. But it is understandable; after all, those who do manual labor can't be expected to read Shakespeare and listen to Beethoven while they are having pate de fois gras. >And no American ever went broke selling American culture to anyone else. >They watch our movies, they eat our Big Macs and make reruns of "Dallas" >the #1 rated TV show in some countries. >Who's the bigger bumpkin? The bumpkin? Or the bumpkin who pays to have >him on TV all the time? >Joe Bloch --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Mon May 1 22:29:37 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 15:29:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605011529y53b8f78k3201182c64fed65f@mail.gmail.com> ten thousand per year per child is very low. good nursery schools cost more than that every year and more though the grades and more than three times that for high school. then there are activities and cloths. . guess you have not been a parent in this generation! light laughter, ilsa > > > Most people can't afford to have lots of kids. How much does a child > cost to raise per year? Perhaps $10,000? That's not an unreasonable > estimate. The median income in the US is $40,000, so that gives a > single wage earner enough for two kids (plus spouse). People who earn > less can't even afford even that, but they get away with it by not > spending as much on each child. Peope who earn more, particularly > more intelligent people, make a conscious decision not to have many > children. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon May 1 23:02:55 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:02:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Firefox from my brief research simply seems to be doing C/C++ allocs & frees of the memory meaning that it is relying on glibc to handle the heap. I think the problem is that they just seem to be grabbing more over time without paying attention to how they manage it (so you've got history table entries, bookmarks, stored scripts, gmail records (or any other "dynamic" web information) all interleaved in the heap. So even if you free up all of the big image allocations in the heap the glibc routines still aren't going to give that space back to the O.S. (in Unix/Linux you have to issue a brk() call to decrease the last physical data address of the process). The library has code in it to do that (I checked) but I doubt it is ever called because you never completely "free" the space at the high end of the heap. So the heap gets paged which means over time performance goes through the floor as more paging has to be done to scan the heap every time you allocate or deallocate from the heap or run a garbage collection on it. One time after I'd run Firefox up to about 250-300MB of resident working set (probably 150+ tabs) I told it to simply "Quit" -- it did exit cleanly after *25* minutes on a machine that was doing nothing else of significance. I watched the performance on vmstat over that period and it was almost all swap-ins of unchanged heap pages during that time as it attempted to merge all of the pieces of heap memory being freed into one large chunk before exiting. It used virtually no CPU during this period -- it was all page faults and waiting for the pages to be swapped in. Its a combination of poor memory management in Firefox with poor VM management in Linux. (One needs a VM system which is intelligent enough to recognize heap thrashing and try to manage it reasonably -- which isn't trivial.) I could be wrong but I think Firefox is only single threaded in the communications area, not in the page format & display area. You shouldn't *have* "processor-intensive tabs" -- thats an indication of "foreign" code being run on your machine and I would suggest people are taking very large risks if they allow sites to do that on a general basis (which is why I generally block Javascript). Robert On 5/1/06, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > On 5/1/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > Ah. Does Firefox have its on memory management internally or does it > > just depend on raw request to the platform alloc routines that it > > then chains together. From the description i would guess the > > latter. > > The latter, and AFAIK it doesn't free the memory used by the images in > a tab when you close it, so the memory usage grows and grows. It's > also single-threaded, and a processor-intensive tab can effectively > hang the others for quite a while. > > Alfio > > _______________________________________________ > 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 velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 23:45:11 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 19:45:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060501171317.35040.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey Herrlich: > I agree that the evidence suggests that a human mind is an active process. I > also acknowledge, that the atoms/ions/molecules which perpetuate the mind-process > will each trace out a different trajectory in space/time, under typical > circumstances. "However, the fact that a moving atom "possesses" a space/time trajectory, does not mean that the atom is *defined* by a space/time trajectory. The space/time trajectory is a single component of an *extremely* large definition of any given atom. The space/time trajectory is an *effect* not a cause, of an atom that happens to be in motion. In other words, there is no space/time trajectory, without an atom to trace it in the first place (except for something like a photon, perhaps, but the brain isn't made of photons). The mind-process (or the mind-activity) cannot exist without atoms to do the dirty work." Yes, I agree with that. I never said that trajectories define anything other then the identities of objects. > The activity that perpetuates a human mind is the activity (motion) of atoms > (molecules, etc). Yes. > So how can a "mind object" be any different than a physical brain, made of > atoms? I should have explained this earlier. Mind object consists of all matter but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in energy exchanges that produce the mind (e.g. electrons streaming down synapses). Brain object consists of all nonessential matter that merely "contains" that energy exchange process (e.g. atoms of brain tissue). In light of this, an alternative definition for uploading could be, "a process by which matter that contains mind object is being replaced." Jeffrey Herrlich: > And how can a "mind trajectory" be any different than a trajectory of a physical > brain (the trajectory can refer only to atoms/molecules/ions)? Assuming my last paragraph, different matter translates into separate trajectories. Good questions. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 23:47:23 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 19:47:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer> <001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >>Now you claim that cooling down the atom erases all the >>records tracking past locations of that atom? John K Clark: > Yes, that is exactly precisely what I am claiming. Apparently, you don't even have an awareness of what you are in fact claiming (which adds to no comprehension of what I'm saying). And no, it has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensation. Heartland: >> Excuse me. You've just tried to convince me that there is a single >> instance of "1" in "1+1". John K Clark: > What I said in very clear language is that when two identical brains are > thinking about 1+1 there is only one thought. Clearly in your sentence above > there were two ASCII symbols of the number one but I don't give a hoot in > hell about ASCII symbols, I'm only interest in subjectivity. Ah, so there are two separate instances of "1" in "1+1" after all. That's progress. Now, with that established, creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type. Yes? No? John K Clark: > IF YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SPACE TIME > TRAJECTORY OF ATOMS WHAT THE HELL ARE THE TRAJECTORIES OF! They are records of the activity of matter in time and space. It makes absolutely no difference which instances of that matter implement that activity. If I throw an object along a unique trajectory it makes absolutely no difference to that trajectory if I do this with a baseball or tennis ball. Does this finally destroy your zombie straw man? I hope so. Heartland: >> I'll just indulge you one last time. After your experiment nothing >> changes. John K Clark: > What the hell does that mean? Of course SOMETHING changed, there are now two > bodies, two lumps of protoplasm and both claim to be you. So for once don't > weasel out, don't just ignore difficult questions, which one is you, don't > tell me nothing changed just tell me which one is you. > After that tell me > which one is the original and most importantly WHY, just what is original > about it and why should anyone care? "Nothing changed" means "original remains original, copy is still a copy". Why? Because the original *activity* (not atoms) of mind process continues at the same space location. In other words, the trajectory of the original mind object remains continuous and parallel (therefore distinguishable) to the trajectory of copied mind object. I don't expect you to follow any of that but that's the technical answer. John K Clark: > I look forward to your answers but I am not hopeful, you'll probably just > ignore them again or dismiss them with an idiotic two word answer like > "nothing changes". Looks like you've been proven wrong again. I answered your questions, as always. Please don't blame me for ignoring your questions when you don't understand the answers. S. From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 2 00:08:31 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 20:08:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:21 PM 5/1/2006 -0400, you wrote: >On 5/1/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > >The standard explanation involves industrialization, not globalization > > >per se. Children are an asset in agrarian societies, because they > > >provide extra hands for labor, and they produce more than they cost. > > >Children are a liability in industrialized societies, where they > > >produce little until they are adults but cost a lot to rear. In > > >short, in industrialized socities, parents lose money on their > > >children, which makes large families prohibitively expensive. > > > > I am well aware of the standard explanation and there may be something to > > it, > >Ah, well, you only cited one person, who didn't have an answer, so you >made it appear in your essay as though nobody has proposed an >explanation. Hrdy is perhaps the leading expert in this area. > > but the very rich in western culture (plus Japan and China now) who > > could certainly afford lots of kids rarely have them. Also, children as > > young as 5 were extensively used as workers in early factories. > >Most people can't afford to have lots of kids. How much does a child >cost to raise per year? Perhaps $10,000? That's not an unreasonable >estimate. The median income in the US is $40,000, so that gives a >single wage earner enough for two kids (plus spouse). People who earn >less can't even afford even that, but they get away with it by not >spending as much on each child. Peope who earn more, particularly >more intelligent people, make a conscious decision not to have many >children. The strong negative association between IQ and number of offspring is well known. And given the high degree that intelligence is the result of genes--disturbing. It would bother me a lot more if we were not at the very end of human intelligence being a factor. > > It does not seem to apply to all peoples (cultures?). Look at the number > > of Saudi "princes." That's support for industrialization being a factor. > >Oil princes are absurdly rich, so of course they can have many >children, but I would hardly make the claim that the Middle East is >industrialized. Industrialized in a single industry, maybe. It isn't at all as far as the population is concerned. Desert nomads to welfare state in one jump. > > The underlying EP theory is that *all* psychological traits including > > behavioral switches are the direct effect of selection or they are a side > > effect of something that was selected. Capture-bonding would be an example > > of direct selection, drug addiction a side effect. > > > I can't make a case for either for low birth rates. > >You don't have to. Not all human behavior is the product of >evolutionary hardwiring. Oh, I agree with you on this point. Have you ever read _Will_ ? G. Gordon Liddy overrode the reflex to draw back from being burned and kept his arm in a candle flame long enough he nearly burned through a tendon. But the broad brush of human behavior is the result of evolved psychological traits--even down to such trivia as why people post on the net. >Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not >recurrent features of the EEA. Most wealthy, intelligent people >simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size. That may well be the case, but it does not help, it only moves the question down a level to why people have psychological traits to value one thing more than another? > > I admit to being baffled. > >It's not that complicated. :) Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or 40 years plus or minus? I appreciate the discussion and any insight anyone can bring to this subject. Keith Henson From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 2 01:23:04 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:23:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6FFFE903-54F0-46D5-B72E-0AFA8E3A68AE@mac.com> On Apr 30, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Ned Late wrote: > Here's another spin on this: in the sixth paragraph you'll notice a > Ron Fisher wrote that participating in the darfur genocide protest > is a "socially responsible, good conscience thing to do". Feel > Goodism. That is to say it makes me feel better-- 'look at me, I'm > so decent I'll take time out from my day to go to a protest'. The > protest is worthy but the motivation is mostly 'look at me, I'm so > concerned, sympathetic & decent-- I deserve recognition, hope the > press photographer snaps a picture of me'. That I feel better at least speaking getting out and speaking up rather than say, sitting at home watching the tube, is surely not such a bad thing relatively speaking. Maybe we should count that one to the good. I don't think it is about hoping to get in the paper though and I don't see where that, well, cynical a view is justified. Also, regardless of motive, the number of people who publicly speak up is important. > And how about those that attend anti-globalization rallies, or > attend protests against oil corporations, driving to the > demonstrations in their gas-guzzlers? Americans have so little > savoir faire, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of > Americans. Isn't taste to be considered extropian? > Are you part of the solution or another part of the problem? Slams of Americans per se are surely not helpful. Or do you believe you are too hip to be bothered with more than cynicism and an opportunity to trot out your favored evaluations and poke some folks in the eye? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 2 01:31:21 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:31:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <445573AA.10006@pobox.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <445573AA.10006@pobox.com> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2006, at 7:34 PM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >> The vast majority of activism is exactly this. Why? Because it is >> cheap. It is a way to reap most of the social benefits of being an >> activist without the expense and discipline required to actually >> solve social problems. 80% of the personal benefit, 20% of the cost, >> and negligible impact on the underlying problem. Unfortunately, this >> type of behavior has a history of encouraging the perpetuation of the >> problem, as "solving the problem" becomes a cottage industry with a >> number of perks (c.f. Jesse Jackson). > > I agree. > > If you haven't signed up for your country's military or directly > lobbied > political decisionmakers to send forces to Darfur, and instead you're > posting to the Extropian mailing list, you've already declared that > your > priority is transhumanism. That's a defensible decision. I doubt > that > Darfur will cause so much as two whole weeks worth of planetary > casualties before playing itself out. So I concentrate on defeating > death, the death of individuals and the death of worlds. I think that > maximizes my leverage. If I'm wrong about that, I guess I've damned > myself. And if you choose to concentrate on Darfur and choose > wrongly, > sacrifice planet-hours and tens of thousands of lives for the sake > of a > warm fuzzy feeling, that damns you even more thoroughly. Damn. You are really into damnation today, aren't you? :-) Caring for humanity as a whole but not for any particular humans in great danger right now can be a bit troubling a creed. So can caring for various groups right now but missing doing that which is effective over the long haul of course. I think those predominantly in either position have things to learn from the other. Generally I don't believe this is an either-or. If we can stop the continuing genocide in Darfur then that is hundreds of thousands and possibly millions more human beings that just might make it relative immortality. I think that is a might more than "a warm fuzzy feeling". Don't you? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 2 01:36:18 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:36:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances In-Reply-To: <80C00D83-AE11-4CD3-BB9E-646BFE472B5D@mac.com> References: <20060426221239.69802.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <80C00D83-AE11-4CD3-BB9E-646BFE472B5D@mac.com> Message-ID: <51AA7CC0-B1FC-4C5C-9A79-93CBD69A3A64@mac.com> Huh? I sent this message days ago. Why is it just now showing up? On May 1, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > >> Natasha Vita-More natasha at natasha.cc wrote: > >> >> I'm really sorry to hear that Natasha. I hope they catch the person >> that did it. That's just wrong. I still can't understand what >> makes people >> malicious. >> >> I was actually wondering recently what I should do regarding my >> computer. I'm buying a new one and can't decide if I should put >> it on >> the internet. I want to work on video and music programs and I'm >> thinking it's saffer to just keep my old computer for the net. I was >> wondering what everybody else thought. >> > > Well if you really don't need anything from the internet for that > work that might be doable. But I think you will find plenty of > things relevant to video and music on the internet that you would > like to have. If you are going to move stuff between the machines > then you would also be open to anything that may have infiltrated > the old computer. > > I tend to keep my riskier OS machines (windows boxes generally) on > a separate subnet physically and logically from main machines in my > house. An attack on the former cannot get to the latter in any > privileged way. The main machines are running less vulnerable OS > and configuration and are truly internet facing. > > -s > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue May 2 01:40:34 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:40:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 1, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On 5/1/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> Ah. Does Firefox have its on memory management internally or does it >> just depend on raw request to the platform alloc routines that it >> then chains together. From the description i would guess the >> latter. > > The latter, and AFAIK it doesn't free the memory used by the images in > a tab when you close it, so the memory usage grows and grows. It's > also single-threaded, and a processor-intensive tab can effectively > hang the others for quite a while. Gross! Is there a move afoot to add multi-threading and efficient related object/memory management? Or would this be too much a re- write? The latter seems like it should be reasonably isolated. Adding threading when it is missing is usually a more global task. - samantha From mstriz at gmail.com Tue May 2 01:47:23 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 21:47:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/1/06, Keith Henson wrote: > >Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not > >recurrent features of the EEA. Most wealthy, intelligent people > >simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size. > > That may well be the case, but it does not help, it only moves the question > down a level to why people have psychological traits to value one thing > more than another? Obviously all psychological capacities have evolved in response to selection pressures, and reproductive fitness is the ultimate goal. However, explaining behavior at the level of proximate goals is typicall sufficient in order to have a useful understanding of human behavior. Reasoning skills that occasionally override innate desires are adaptive. That explains why people consciously choose to limit their brood size when presented with information suggesting that the cost-benefit ratio of having children is low. > Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of > kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or > 40 years plus or minus? The fact that there are a variety of anecdotes should be further evidence that a simple cookie-cutter answer doesn't exist. Human psychology and decision making are complex. Martin From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue May 2 02:27:44 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 19:27:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <6FFFE903-54F0-46D5-B72E-0AFA8E3A68AE@mac.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6FFFE903-54F0-46D5-B72E-0AFA8E3A68AE@mac.com> Message-ID: <9A588C96-1E57-43C8-9B83-28E8BC5ADB94@ceruleansystems.com> On May 1, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Are you part of the solution or another part of the problem? Slams > of Americans per se are surely not helpful. This is particularly ironic with respect to the topic at hand: http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=15321 I resisted pointing this out at originally, but what the hell. The UN has been pleading with countries to provide funding for basic supplies (e.g. food) in Darfur, which are running dangerously low and are already forcing severe rationing. The US has stepped up to the plate and provided over 3/4 of the total funding to date. Libya, (yes, LIBYA) is the second largest contributor, with only token contributions from a few other countries despite many pleas for donations. The rest of the industrialized world is essentially ignoring Darfur, with the US once again picking up most of the tab. In short, anything that *is* being done for the people of Darfur is being done primarily through the generosity of the Americans, with the major economies of Europe nowhere in sight. Again. The US is frequently accused of not doing enough to help, but if that is true what does it say about so many other large economies that do far less? What would the consequences be if the US emulated the reluctant and tepid generosity of much of the rest of the industrialized world? J. Andrew Rogers From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue May 2 02:11:58 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 19:11:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Bird Brian" - Not! In-Reply-To: <200604271509.k3RF9FfG004494@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060502021158.45416.qmail@web52606.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Last week I was out walking and saw a seagull > with something in his mouth. I assumed it was > a shellfish of some sort. He dropped it, then > swooped down and caught it in the air, after it > had fallen about a couple meters. Then he dropped > it again, swooped down, missed it this time. It > fell, I went over, saw that it was a pebble, not > any food of any kind. That bird was just playing. > Play is a sign of intelligence in otters and > chimps, so now we see it in birds too. Cool observations Spike! [1] That one would have been nice to have captured on video. I just had a "D'oh, if only I had a video" moment a few hours ago. I stepped in the backyard to turn off a water hose when a Pileated Woodpecker [2] swooped in low overhead and landed on a tree about twenty feet away. A perfect unobstructed view, perhaps the best I've had. They're as big or bigger than crows and have an impressive wingspan color pattern. [3] It bounded around the tree for a while then took off again. They're very similar in appearance to the recently rediscovered Ivory Billed Woodpecker. [4] In my teens I used to do a lot of bird watching with local groups like the Audubon Society and other birding enthusiasts. I kept a bird list and did the annual Christmas count and such. Somehow I left it behind as a formal practice, but I still love to watch birds when I'm out. I'd love to get a pair of video binoculars. If those were around back then I'd have an extensive ornithological database. I'd love to try to get some corroborating video of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker... now there's a plan! ;) ~Ian _____________________________________________________ [1] http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-April/026477.html [2] Pileated Woodpecker http://www.birderblog.com/bird/Graphics/Screensaver/Birds/Pileated-Woodpecker-01.jpg [3] Pileated Woodpecker with wings spread http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/041303e.jpg [4] Ivory Billed Woodpecker http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 2 04:02:33 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 21:02:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Crows Invent Machine In-Reply-To: <20060501164825.66595.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200605020402.k4242jad008137@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard ... > A few days ago I posted that same link here. Thanks > for the other examples of corvid intelligence. There > are so many! I find this video most impressive: > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/av/crow_080802.ram Thanks Ian! I know crows are smart, as are seagulls. If you saw Jurassic Park you will surely agree that it was a silly movie. Even the scientist babe Laura Dern couldn't save that script, however it did have an interesting take on the velociraptor. Their notion was that this particular dinosaur had a large cranial volume to body ratio, so its ecological niche might have been one that would favor relatively high intelligence. Why did one species of dinosaur end up with the brains? The other species seemed to do fine without much in the old cranium. My notion is that ecosystems should produce remarkably smart species, such as gulls and crows. Consider lions: they do some behaviors that one would think would require some form of communication and organization, such as lining up spaced at appropriate intervals, singling out some hapless beast from the herd, then tag team chasing it until it drops. Yet no one has ever seen any cat roaring instructions. That's a trick! HOw do they know to do that? I find this interesting because it demonstrates the group survival value of intelligence. The crows and lions might help explain why humans evolved these wildly oversized heads, which is something I have pondered for years. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 2 04:38:36 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 21:38:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Bird Brian" - Not! In-Reply-To: <20060502021158.45416.qmail@web52606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200605020517.k425HGbQ025157@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard ... > > In my teens I used to do a lot of bird watching with > local groups like the Audubon Society and other > birding enthusiasts. I kept a bird list and did the > annual Christmas count and such... ~Ian Ian I have become a bird fan in recent years, not from learning species but just from noticing the amazing things they do. The classic birdwatching never has appealed to me much because it seems too preoccupied with identification of species and especially uncommon species. Crows and gulls are perhaps the very most common birds around here, so they don't get a lot of attention. They should. To me, the point of watching wildlife isn't to find the most exotic, but rather to really watch, really pay attention to see what the beasts are doing. Common beasts are the most easily observed regardless of where you are. So I am a big fan of gulls, crows and ants. spike From jonkc at att.net Tue May 2 06:13:14 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 02:13:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > And no, it has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensation. Science have proven that you can erase the history of an atom, or to put it in the pompous language you love so much, you can erase from the universe all information about the space time trajectory of an atom. And yet you say this rather interesting fact has nothing to do with your theory that space time trajectories determine everything. As usual you don't even hint at why it has nothing to do with it when it certainly seems it should, you just say it doesn't and then say you have responded to my objection brilliantly and have triumphed over me yet again. Mr. Heartland that of course is bullshit, and it is crystal clear to me that until I mentioned it you'd never even heard of a Bose Einstein Condensation, and even now you haven't even bothered to make a simple Google search on the subject because that would take away precious time babbling about trajectories in space time being all important. > creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" > twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type. Yes? > No? Yes that would produce 2 separate instances of brain type, obviously, but there would be only one instance of mind type. > They are records of the activity of matter in time and space. Those records that have not been erased that is, see Bose Einstein effect. > It makes absolutely no difference which instances of that matter implement > that activity. Because all matter is made of atoms. > If I throw an object along a unique trajectory it makes absolutely no > difference to that trajectory if I do this with a baseball or tennis ball. Because baseballs and tennis balls are both made of atoms. At lest the atoms in those objects remain the same, unlike the atoms in brains that only stay for a few weeks; the atoms come into your brain do a little dance for a week or two and then leave. > Nothing changed" means "original remains original, copy is still a copy" Saying the original is the original may be true but it's not very helpful, I want you to point him out. Person A walks into a duplicating chamber and produces person B, a nanosecond later all the atoms in person B transfer over to person A and all the atoms in person A transfer over to person B. Don't tell me the original is the original tell me is the original A or B and tell me why. > the trajectory of the original mind object [..] Gibberish. It's gibberish because even you don't have a clue what it means even though you wrote it, I know this because if you did understand it you would have answered my question the last time I asked, WHAT THE HELL IS A MIND OBJECT?! > the original *activity* (not atoms) of mind process continues at the same > space location. No it is not the same space location, it is moving about the center of the Earth at a thousand miles per hour and moving around the sun even faster and rotating around the center of the Galaxy even faster and moving away from the Comma Cluster even faster yet. And anyway it's ridicules to say the key to mind is it's position because without senses a mind would have no way of knowing where it was, in fact it would mean little to say it had a position at all. If mind does have a position it is where its senses are, and that may or may not be where its brain is. > Looks like you've been proven wrong again. Right, you've convinced me, so next time I need surgery I'll just ignore anesthesia and bite on a stick. By the way is it OK if the surgeon at least washes his hands before he saws my leg off, or is the germ theory of disease all nonsense too. > I answered your questions, as always. Yep you have answered my questions as you have always done so, as always those few questions you answered you did so in 10 words or less, like "it has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensation" with no explanation as to why and no indication that you even know what a Bose Einstein Condensation is. John K Clark From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 2 07:56:57 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 03:56:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer> <003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Clark: > Science have proven that you can erase the history of an atom, or to put it > in the pompous language you love so much, you can erase from the universe > all information about the space time trajectory of an atom. BEC is when atoms become undistinguishable. So what. That only means that their trajectories merge. Big deal. BEC doesn't "erase the history". Just because you cool down the atoms doesn't mean that records (as in paper/electronic records) tracking past locations of those atoms are being magically erased too. You propose and even defend this mindless rubbish and still have the audacity to criticize my ideas? Unbelievable. Heartland: >Ah, so there are two separate instances of "1" in "1+1" after all. That's >progress. Now, with that established, creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type. Yes? No? Clark: > Yes that would produce 2 separate instances of brain type, obviously, but > there would be only one instance of mind type. Okay. Now this is perfect. Read your sentence again and think about it. If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one instance of mind type, then why do you write that "there would be only one instance of mind type?" There is one mind type, of course, but "only one *instance* of mind type?" Are you sure this is your final answer? Heartland: >> If I throw an object along a unique trajectory it makes absolutely no >> difference to that trajectory if I do this with a baseball or tennis ball. Clark: > Because baseballs and tennis balls are both made of atoms. At lest the atoms > in those objects remain the same, unlike the atoms in brains that only stay > for a few weeks; the atoms come into your brain do a little dance for a week > or two and then leave. Yes, that's the idea. Heartland: >> Nothing changed" means "original remains original, copy is still a copy" Clark: > Saying the original is the original may be true but it's not very helpful, I > want you to point him out. Person A walks into a duplicating chamber and > produces person B, a nanosecond later all the atoms in person B transfer > over to person A and all the atoms in person A transfer over to person B. > Don't tell me the original is the original tell me is the original A or B > and tell me why. Assuming transfers were equally gradual, A is A and B is B. Same as the last time. To know why, read my last 2 responses to Jeffrey where I define mind object and talk about trajectories of objects. S. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 2 07:24:41 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 00:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution of the Head (was Re: Crows Invent Machine) In-Reply-To: <200605020402.k4242jad008137@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060502072441.31527.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Why did one species of dinosaur end > up with the brains? The > other species seemed to do fine without much in the > old cranium. Actually the raptors were not a single species but many different ones. The ones in Jurassic Park were actually Deinonychus a related but separate genus. The ones in JP were actually small compared to Utahraptors which were 14 feet long and stood 8 ft high. All these dinosaurs were characterized by being fleet hollow boned predators. They also hunted in packs which was unusual for dinosaurs. > My notion is that ecosystems should produce > remarkably smart species, such > as gulls and crows. Consider lions: they do some > behaviors that one would > think would require some form of communication and > organization, such as > lining up spaced at appropriate intervals, singling > out some hapless beast > from the herd, then tag team chasing it until it > drops. Yet no one has ever > seen any cat roaring instructions. That's a trick! > HOw do they know to do > that? Interesting question. I am willing to bet it is thru eye contact as roaring instructions would give away the ambush. I think that eye contact is one of the ways that prey animals are selected as well. If you watch National Geographic it seems that every wildebeest in the herd rolls its eyes when there is a lion looking at it, kind of like when a human boss is looking for a volunteer for an unpleasant task. > I find this interesting because it demonstrates the > group survival value of > intelligence. The crows and lions might help > explain why humans evolved > these wildly oversized heads, which is something I > have pondered for years. Well it has much to do with the evolution of the head in the first place. This process is called encephalization and it has been studied. Heads do not appear in the fossil record or in existing genera until the creature starts to become motile. Motility introduces assymterical body development. Since there is a survival advantage to having sensory organs in the direction one is moving as opposed to other directions, one finds that sensory organs and the nervous systems needed to process those senses tend to cluster at the front of a critter. Intelligence is a just a further layer of complication to this. In general predators are smarter than herbovores. This is because in addition to teh simple problem of looking where they are going, they have to be able to plot intercept courses to their prey. Thus predators have evolved to unconsciously solve analog calculus problems in their head. Thus by the time you get to sprinting pouncing ambush predators like the cats, you have quite a bit of intelligence. Birds, because of the very fast speeds and fully 3 dimensional nature of flight HAVE to be intelligent because they not only have to watch for obstacles and prey but other birds as well. They also have to have a greater appreciation for gravity, wind, and other things that most terrestrial animals can take for granted. Primates take it to the next level. The most primitive primates are arboreal. They have to be able to leap from branch to branch and if they miss that branch they are in a world of hurt. So they have to have many of the same processing power as birds. Apes take it even farther. They can throw things like rocks and feces at targets like an irksome predator that comes too close. To do this requires an additional layer of abstraction of time and space. Not just for themselves and their target but for the thing that they are throwing. There was an article in Scientific American a few years back where somebody had a theory that the development of symbolic language in people was derived from the ability to abstract the trajectories of thrown missiles. I think (s)he was pretty close to the truth with that one. In a way, the need to see into the future in more and more complex detail starting with simple movement around obstacles. Then to catching prey while running or hurtling thru the air. Then catching prey, finding mates, and avoiding obstacles and predators while flying. And finally being able to abstract oneself into an inanimate object and unconsciously calculate the ballistic trajectory necessary to nail Professor Frink with a turd or the antelope with a spear all contributed to big headedness. :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 2 11:36:18 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:36:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/2/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of > kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or > 40 years plus or minus? > > I appreciate the discussion and any insight anyone can bring to this subject. > Where did you get that figure from? The Ireland CSO stats from 1950 onwards disagree. They show a drop of 25% in 1990 and roughly level from then on. Ireland used to be in the grip of the Roman Catholic Church which banned birth control and encouraged large families. The weakening of this control plus more availability of birth control methods plus modern education and Irish economic growth would easily explain these figures. BillK From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Tue May 2 13:36:21 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 09:36:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur Message-ID: > The US is frequently accused of not doing > enough to help, but if that is true what does it > say about so many other large economies that do far less? Bulldada. The US ranks well below most European countries in the generosity of its aid measured as a percent of GDP or government expenditures, and also scores poorly when all measures are accounted for including trade, migration and security assistance: http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/_components/aid http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_chapter_3.pdf Overseas Development Aid and Military Expenditures as a Share of government spending, 2003 (%) Country ODA Military expenditures Norway 4.1 8.9 Luxembourg 3.9 4.8 Switzerland 3.5 8.5 Netherlands 3.2 6.5 Denmark 3.1 5.7 Sweden 2.8 6.4 Belgium 2.7 5.7 Ireland 2.1 4.6 France 1.7 10.7 UK 1.6 13.3 Finland 1.6 5.4 Greece 1.4 26.5 Australia 1.4 10.7 Germany 1.4 7.3 Spain 1.3 6.7 Canada 1.2 6.3 New Zealand 1.2 6.3 Japan 1.2 5.7 Austria 1.1 4.3 USA 1.0 25.0 Portugal 1.0 10.0 Italy 0.9 9.8 ------------------------ 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 hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 2 12:57:21 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 08:57:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501234426.06d34e80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:47 PM 5/1/2006 -0400, you wrote: >On 5/1/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > >Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not > > >recurrent features of the EEA. Most wealthy, intelligent people > > >simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size. > > > > That may well be the case, but it does not help, it only moves the question > > down a level to why people have psychological traits to value one thing > > more than another? > >Obviously all psychological capacities have evolved in response to >selection pressures, and reproductive fitness is the ultimate goal. >However, explaining behavior at the level of proximate goals is >typicall sufficient in order to have a useful understanding of human >behavior. I am curious how you explain prisoner abuse, hazing, battered wife syndrome and sexual practices such as BDSM without an underlying understanding of the evolutionary origin. >Reasoning skills that occasionally override innate desires are >adaptive. That explains why people consciously choose to limit their >brood size when presented with information suggesting that the >cost-benefit ratio of having children is low. A lot of people think that in a socialized society the cost-benefit of children is below zero. I.e., let others raise kids to provide your food and shelter when you are old and have a ripping good time without the expense of raising any kids. Of course if *everybody* did it . . . . > > Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of > > kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or > > 40 years plus or minus? > >The fact that there are a variety of anecdotes should be further >evidence that a simple cookie-cutter answer doesn't exist. Human >psychology and decision making are complex. I don't know the answer either, but don't you think that's a bit of a cop out? It's a matter of life and death for billions of people. Even if you are into Randian "me first and the hell with everyone else" it isn't going to keep you from being caught in the gears when the situation "turns pear shaped." Best wishes. Keith Henson From mstriz at gmail.com Tue May 2 14:49:54 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 10:49:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <9A588C96-1E57-43C8-9B83-28E8BC5ADB94@ceruleansystems.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6FFFE903-54F0-46D5-B72E-0AFA8E3A68AE@mac.com> <9A588C96-1E57-43C8-9B83-28E8BC5ADB94@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On 5/1/06, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > The rest of the industrialized world is essentially ignoring Darfur, > with the US once again picking up most of the tab. In short, > anything that *is* being done for the people of Darfur is being done > primarily through the generosity of the Americans, with the major > economies of Europe nowhere in sight. Again. The US is frequently > accused of not doing enough to help, but if that is true what does it > say about so many other large economies that do far less? What > would the consequences be if the US emulated the reluctant and tepid > generosity of much of the rest of the industrialized world? Yep. I've vocally criticized other industrialized nations for exactly that reason. http://striz.org/blog/?p=223 Martin From zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com Tue May 2 14:21:25 2006 From: zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com (Keith M. Elis) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 07:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060502142125.31601.qmail@web82201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Hughes, James J." wrote: > > The US is frequently accused of not doing > > enough to help, but if that is true what does it > > say about so many other large economies that do far less? > > Bulldada. The US ranks well below most European countries in the > generosity of its aid measured as a percent of GDP or government > expenditures, and also scores poorly when all measures are accounted > for > including trade, migration and security assistance: Would you rather have 117 billion dollars or 4.1% of the GDP of Norway? Why don't you ask the heads of state of the thirty poorest nations in the world and see what they say? Keith From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Tue May 2 14:37:05 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 07:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <6FFFE903-54F0-46D5-B72E-0AFA8E3A68AE@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060502143705.93801.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Okay, it was wrong to single out America. What is discouraging is observing countless protesters up close to see so many of them are sentimental for the distant past, they remember or have heard of the protests of decades ago but don't remember or ignore the negative, the heads that were broken & the boredom. Countless hippies who don't remember or were born later don't realize that for every person who danced in the sunshine at Woodstock there was another who was shivering in the mud; they tend to remember the good times and forget the negative. Point is, the counterculture in general-- many of whom participate at protests-- are backward looking. Far too many of the protesters are participating out of nostalgia for a mythologized past, and this is the very thing I've spent decades trying to get away from. >Are you part of the solution or another part of the problem? Slams of Americans per >se are surely not helpful. Or do you believe you are too hip to be bothered with more >than cynicism and an opportunity to trot out your favored evaluations and poke some >folks in the eye? >samantha --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Tue May 2 15:40:19 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:40:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur Message-ID: > Would you rather have 117 billion dollars or 4.1% of the GDP > of Norway? If I was trying to feed people I'd rather have Norwegian aid. If I was trying to arm my military and stash cash in Swiss banks, probably US aid and especially US investment. > Why don't you ask the heads of state of the thirty poorest > nations in the world and see what they say? Already did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monterrey_Consensus Bush made noise about increasing US aid after Monterrey, but hasn't. The Bush administration believes in a different model of "development assistance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus J. From mstriz at gmail.com Tue May 2 15:38:24 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:38:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501234426.06d34e80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501234426.06d34e80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/2/06, Keith Henson wrote: > At 09:47 PM 5/1/2006 -0400, you wrote: > >On 5/1/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > >Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not > > > >recurrent features of the EEA. Most wealthy, intelligent people > > > >simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size. > > > > > > That may well be the case, but it does not help, it only moves the question > > > down a level to why people have psychological traits to value one thing > > > more than another? > > > >Obviously all psychological capacities have evolved in response to > >selection pressures, and reproductive fitness is the ultimate goal. > >However, explaining behavior at the level of proximate goals is > >typicall sufficient in order to have a useful understanding of human > >behavior. > > I am curious how you explain prisoner abuse, hazing, battered wife syndrome > and sexual practices such as BDSM without an underlying understanding of > the evolutionary origin. I thought I just acknowledged the evolutionary origin. I didn't mean to imply that proximate and ultimate goals are causally disconnected. It's just that the ultimate goal accounts for a smaller fraction of the variance the more complex the goal system becomes. Human psychology is pretty complex. > >Reasoning skills that occasionally override innate desires are > >adaptive. That explains why people consciously choose to limit their > >brood size when presented with information suggesting that the > >cost-benefit ratio of having children is low. > > A lot of people think that in a socialized society the cost-benefit of > children is below zero. I.e., let others raise kids to provide your food > and shelter when you are old and have a ripping good time without the > expense of raising any kids. Of course if *everybody* did it . . . . But then you don't spread your genes, which has a really high benefit value. > > > Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of > > > kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or > > > 40 years plus or minus? > > > >The fact that there are a variety of anecdotes should be further > >evidence that a simple cookie-cutter answer doesn't exist. Human > >psychology and decision making are complex. > > I don't know the answer either, but don't you think that's a bit of a cop > out? It's a matter of life and death for billions of people. Even if you > are into Randian "me first and the hell with everyone else" it isn't going > to keep you from being caught in the gears when the situation "turns pear > shaped." Don't you think it's a bit hystrionic to claim that we need to understand every nuance of human behavior? Yes, it's interesting from a purely academic perspective, but neither will that knowledge do you any good, should you find yourself in some untoward situation, unless you you can remodel all of human psychology. We currently don't have the means to do that. Martin From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue May 2 15:44:28 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 08:44:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 2, 2006, at 6:36 AM, Hughes, James J. wrote: > Bulldada. The US ranks well below most European countries in the > generosity of its aid measured as a percent of GDP or government > expenditures, and also scores poorly when all measures are > accounted for > including trade, migration and security assistance: Ahem. Before you get too far ahead of yourself, you might want to spend less time trying to get that round peg into a square hole. The CGD "statistics" are pure nonsense if you read their methodology, and strongly biased toward a world view that is particularly unfavorable to the US. Any statistic that manages to so creatively exclude large percentages of US aid using rationalizations that I could only describe as arbitrary, subjective, and suspect has no place in reasoned discussion. It is a fine example of how to twist the facts with creative statistical methods, but I guess we won't look at it too closely if it supports our biases, eh? BTW, percentage of government spending does not mean much to most people, since the size of government relative to GDP and in absolute terms varies widely. Per capita figures would have been a lot more useful and would have obscured a lot less. As a more general comment, you are repeating the oft-noted mistake of assuming that all aid comes from governments. While true in many countries, US private aid *dwarfs* US government aid, by a factor of 3-4x depending on the source. Hell, private US donations to the UN exceed the contributions of many countries to that organization. There are some other notably generous countries in the industrialized world, such as Switzerland, Ireland, and Canada (all of whom give generous private aid in addition to government aid), but their size limits their impact. I personally have a strong preference for private aid anyway, as it has a history of being far more constructive and having far fewer strings attached. It would be a real stretch to argue that the world would be better off if private aid was all converted into government aid. Worth noting: I would point out that the more general statistics show a pretty strong correlation between economic growth and charitable giving; I am sure some would argue that there is a causal relationship between the two. Reversing the economic stagnation that afflicts so many industrialized countries (a self-inflicted wound for sure) might be one of the best ways to meaningfully increase aid. J. Andrew Rogers From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Tue May 2 16:52:38 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:52:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur Message-ID: > US private aid *dwarfs* US government aid, by a factor of > 3-4x depending on the source.... > I personally have a strong preference for private aid anyway, as it > has a history of being far more constructive and having far fewer > strings attached. I like private development aid also. But it is limited in its capacity to support long-term sustainable development programs, and does best with short-term disaster, famine and refugee relief. And not all privates are "string-less." World Vision and CARE are the largest, and CARE works closely with USAID and is rarely critical of the US (as compared to Oxfam for instance), while World Vision is a Christian charity (better than the right-wing US Christian charities, but Christian nonetheless). J. From jonkc at att.net Tue May 2 17:51:34 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 13:51:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > BEC is when atoms become undistinguishable. Yes. That only means that their trajectories merge. Only? > Big deal. It was a big enough deal to receive a Nobel Prize. > BEC doesn't "erase the history". It most certainly does, it means it's imposable to distinguish the history of one atom from the history of another. > Just because you cool down the atoms doesn't mean that records (as in > paper/electronic records) tracking past locations of those atoms are > being magically erased too. Those paper records are useless because after atoms formed a BEC it will never be possible to know which atom your paper records refer to. Your paper records may say that one particular hydrogen atom, let's call him Bob, did this that and the other thing, but after Bob became part of a BEC it is imposable to say which of the billions or trillions of atoms is Bob the atom. When you warm up the BEC the atoms come back but they have lost their individuality, there is no way to know which atom is which because as I've said before atoms have no scratches on them to tell them apart. > If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one > instance of mind type, then why do you write that "there would be > only one instance of mind type?" If two phonographs are in perfect synchronization and both are playing Beethoven's Ninth Symphony then only one symphony is playing; and if you destroy one phonograph the music does not stop. This sort of thing is not possible with objects, if I have two bricks and destroy one brick then something has chanced, I only have half the number of objects I had before. One noun plus another noun always gives you 2 nouns, but one adjective plus another adjective may or may not give you 2 adjectives. So there is one question you must ask yourself, is the mind more like a symphony or more like a brick? > Assuming transfers were equally gradual It doesn't make the slightest difference if the transfers were fast or slow. > A is A and B is B. Same as the last time. No last time you told me the original is the original, this time you tell me A is A; both responses were quite true and both were quite useless. For the last 3 posts I've been trying to get a straight answer out of you, I specifically asked is A the original or is B the original and all I get from you is A is A. Oh well, I also predicted you would evade that question as you have evaded so many others, and indeed you have. > Brain object consists of all nonessential matter If it doesn't do anything then why even talk about it, and why even use the word "brain" to refer to it? John K Clark From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 2 18:42:02 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:42:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <004201c66a7f$198cb340$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20060502184202.34043.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > 5. There are alleged landing sites that are > > radioactive according to geiger-counter wielding > > "experts". > > > Huh? areas of higher radioactivity are landing > sites? Now why would that be? > If I were traveling the universe, the last way I > want to go about it is > through conventional nuclear fission. There can't be > any other explanation > for this at all? Fission is not the only process that would cause radioactivity. The gamma rays of matter/anti-matter reactors could do so as well. Nuclear energy seems a far more feasable power-source for interstellar travel than conventional chemical engines, so I would not rule out some sort of nuclear drive. > > > 6. There are numerous non-profit organizations > devoted > > to their study. > > Now that did it. I'm convinced. Since some > non-profit groups study it, that > means it's true. How could I have ever doubted it. > I'm so blind! I should > have known that flat-earth group was right! I am not trying to convince you. I am trying to address the question in an objective a manner as possible. There is a distinct difference. You are right, however, in that the existence of such organizations is poor evidence. > > > > 7. There was a historic military confrontation > with > > one or more UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS during > World > > War II: > > http://www.militarymuseum.org/BattleofLA.html > > > Are you listing individual incidents now? Doesn;t > this belong up above? I consider this a special case because of the numerous independent witnesses, the scope of the reaction by the military, the sheer amount of mass confusion generated, and the bizarre disparity between the "official stories" given by the various branches of the military/ government involved. Essentially a battle occured wherein tens of thousands of artillery shells were shot at nothing at all. Although if you look at the photograph, the searchlights are converging on SOMETHING that has a vaguely saucer shape. > > 8. At least 2 extropes on this list have > personally > > seen a UFO. > > OK. Now you have really done it. It must be true. Kevin, if you are not able to grant your intellectual peers a modicum of credibility who do you trust at all? > > > > If even 99% of these are hoaxes, this still > amounts to > > on the order of 100 solid data points in FAVOR of > the > > existense of UFOs. > Come one. Can;t you do better? How about alternate > explanations? > Maybe a > percentage of all human brains are just twisted. How > many serial killers are > there? Yes a certain percentage of human brains ARE twisted. If certain sources can be trusted 4%(1 in 25) people are born without a conscience. That is not my point. Alternate explanations are not the point either. My original question was whether UFO phenomena are evidence of technologically superior extra-terrestrial intelligence in a Bayesian sense. I am trying to estimate a probability as to the existence of technologically advanced space-faring civilizations. Any phenomenon can have any number of explanations. Like the planets are orbiting the earth doing back flips regularly. These epicycles certainly explain the phenomena we OBSERVE but that doesn't make it correct. We have to use Occam's razor to find the SIMPLEST explanation that explains the phenomena and even then, that is no guarantee it is correct. But it is more likely to be. Thus I can bend over backwards to concoct a huge number of possible scenarios that explain the UFO evidence, but that is not what I am trying to do. I am testing a specific hypothesis: Are UFOs evidence that there are space- faring extra-terrestrials out there. Far from being trivial, the existence of proof of principle that interstellar travel is indeed POSSIBLE is a question of singular importance for the long term survival of the human (or even posthuman) species. If ET can do it than so can we. I asked for negative evidence and instead got a whole bunch of reactionary "ambiguous and inconclusive" from people. The only person that has given me a shred of negative evidence is Keith and that was by admission of some truly devious UFO hoaxes he pulled off. The fact that somebody as smart of Keith would go to so much effort to for people for the simple motivation of "anonymous publicity" somewhat disturbs me but also adjusts my posterior probability down quite a bit. Something that all the skeptical hand-waving by the other responses did not. So I guess my question now is whether enough hoaxsters of Keith's caliber could have fooled the U.S. Airforce to render the posterior probability of the existence of UFOs negligible. It would be nice if I could find a way to quantify this analysis. I will start with a modified Drake Equation as a prior probability and adjust using the positive and negative evidence accordingly. Interesting photos by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather sattelites: http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/space/Photo166.htm http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/space/photo31.htm http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/space/photo162.htm Riddle me this Batman: What is disk-shaped, 400 km wide, intermittently shows up in geostationary orbit around the earth, and emits water vapor and infrared? Of course these could be modified/hoaxed so I am looking thru the archives on the NOAA's websites. Although if they are carefully censored, it may prove useless. Also as far as allegations that UFOs are products of "pop sci-fi culture" explain their consistent appearence in art work from around the world as far back as 5000 BC? Look for yourself: http://www.ufoartwork.com/ Particularly striking is the resemblance of many of the depicted floating "saucers" to those in alleged photographs from the modern era. Some look almost identical to modern photographs. Also look at the depictions of the so-called skygods. Why do they have such prominent eyes and such subdued facial features similar to accounts told by modern day ufo abductees? What is this connection between mideval and rennaisance depictions of the crucifixion of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and strange floating disks in the sky? Is Christianity just another UFO cult? Why would hallucinations and other "mental disturbances" manifest themselves in such a consistent manner over thousands of years and across numerous disparate cultures? Is there some biological reason why the "flying saucer" shape is a preferred confabulation? What is the SIMPLEST explanation? Remember there were no weather balloons in the stone ages. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Tue May 2 20:22:54 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 22:22:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990605021322k2484ab12vc9a484a34e35792f@mail.gmail.com> On 5/2/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > I could be wrong but I think Firefox is only single threaded in the > communications area, not in the page format & display area. You shouldn't > *have* "processor-intensive tabs" -- thats an indication of "foreign" code > being run on your machine and I would suggest people are taking very large > risks if they allow sites to do that on a general basis (which is why I > generally block Javascript). With processor-intensive tabs I referred to huge pages with complex layouts that can take several seconds to render on a slower machine (actually, I don't think any 1ghz+ processor can be qualified as "slow" :-) In those case, firefox hangs for the entire rendering task, whether you are looking at that tab or at another. This behaviour smells of single-threading in some critical area. Alfio From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Tue May 2 20:25:00 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 22:25:00 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990605021325l538184cka7b7d7ef5127398@mail.gmail.com> On 5/2/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > Gross! Is there a move afoot to add multi-threading and efficient > related object/memory management? Not that I know, but I'm not partecipating in the firefox developing community. Someone more knowledgeable is required for the correct answers :-) Alfio From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 2 20:56:21 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 16:56:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer> <002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >> BEC doesn't "erase the history". Clark: > It most certainly does, it means it's imposable to distinguish the history > of one atom from the history of another. But by then mind is gone forever anyway according to my argument so BEC is meaningless in the context of this discussion. I've said so at the beginning. Heartland: >> Just because you cool down the atoms doesn't mean that records (as in >> paper/electronic records) tracking past locations of those atoms are >> being magically erased too. Clark: > Those paper records are useless because after atoms formed a BEC it will > never be possible to know which atom your paper records refer to. Your paper > records may say that one particular hydrogen atom, let's call him Bob, did > this that and the other thing, but after Bob became part of a BEC it is > imposable to say which of the billions or trillions of atoms is Bob the > atom. Same as above. BEC is when mind process definitely stops which results in death. Paper records are only needed when minds are alive. Heartland: >> If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one >> instance of mind type, then why do you write that "there would be >> only one instance of mind type?" Clark: > If two phonographs are in perfect synchronization and both are playing > Beethoven's Ninth Symphony then only one symphony is playing; 9th Symphony is a *type* of music. If you play 9th Symphony it becomes instantiated. If you use 2 CD players, each pumping out the 9th, then you have two instances of the type "9th Symphony". It doesn't really matter if you synchronize the players or not. You need to count each instance. If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. Yes or no? Clark: > and if you > destroy one phonograph the music does not stop. But you deleted one instance. Type remains, not the instance. People are instances, not types. The concept of type is meaningless in the context of our survival. I suggest you think about this for a while before you start questioning these ideas. Clark: > So there is one question you must ask yourself, is the mind more like a > symphony or more like a brick? In a pure physics sense it is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object, an instance of activity. Heartland: >> A is A and B is B. Same as the last time. Clark: > No last time you told me the original is the original, this time you tell me > A is A; both responses were quite true and both were quite useless. Don't blame me for not specifying in your question what answers would be useful to you. I don't read minds. I just analyze what they are. Actually, the way you specified the question, no possible answer could be useful unless we use my terminology. So if by "A" I designate a volume of matter on the original trajectory "F" and "B" as the volume of matter along parallel trajectory "G" then if I gradually shift the atoms from volume B to A and B to A then F=F and G=G. Heartlalnd: >> Brain object consists of all nonessential matter Clark: > If it doesn't do anything then why even talk about it, and why even use the > word "brain" to refer to it? Because if I didn't, then nobody would know what I'm talking about. My argument is structured. There are distinctions between concepts (e.g. brain vs. mind, instance vs. type) with precise definitions for each of them. This brings order to a debate where everyone usually brings their unique and often bizarre interpretation of what "brain" is. What happens then is that you get bunch of people screaming at each other because the referents for the terms they use are different. With clear definitions of concepts everyone is on the same page so that debate we can move on to debating the actual argument. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 2 22:08:09 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060502220809.14980.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I don't mean to put you on the spot (well, okay, maybe just a little bit ;-} ) but I wrote something in an old post that you never specifically addressed. Here is an extract of the post: Me: "So *how exactly* can a "copy" be distinguished from an (recently dead) "original"?: Subjectively there is no difference. Objectively there is no difference. The copy detects no difference. The dead original detects no difference... obviously. So, where can the difference possibly lie? The answer is that we, right now, *are* copies (imperfect ones) of the person who existed a moment before. He or she, the "original", has permanently died; they "experience" nothingness. If you doubt this assertion, ask yourself this question: Where the hell is the 5 year old "version" of "me"? I know he existed once, where did I put him? The answer is that he is permanently deceased. He is not detectable either subjectively or objectively. He does not detect himself. He is dead. In my case, I am a "copy" of him (a dramatically imperfect copy - due to the large number of successive copying events that have already occurred since then). The copying event occurs once every few Planck Intervals (possibly once every single Planck Interval, but more likely at least 2). In this context a copying event is equivalent to any physical change in the brain (and remember that changes occur as time proceeds). My entire "time-slicing" argument is not even necessary in order to show that the above is correct. A person will be copied many, many times within ~10^29 Planck Intervals. But, I hope that it helps to make the point." How do you refute this? It seems impossible to refute from my perspective, but perhaps that is to be expected. ;-) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Heartland: >> BEC doesn't "erase the history". Clark: > It most certainly does, it means it's imposable to distinguish the history > of one atom from the history of another. But by then mind is gone forever anyway according to my argument so BEC is meaningless in the context of this discussion. I've said so at the beginning. Heartland: >> Just because you cool down the atoms doesn't mean that records (as in >> paper/electronic records) tracking past locations of those atoms are >> being magically erased too. Clark: > Those paper records are useless because after atoms formed a BEC it will > never be possible to know which atom your paper records refer to. Your paper > records may say that one particular hydrogen atom, let's call him Bob, did > this that and the other thing, but after Bob became part of a BEC it is > imposable to say which of the billions or trillions of atoms is Bob the > atom. Same as above. BEC is when mind process definitely stops which results in death. Paper records are only needed when minds are alive. Heartland: >> If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one >> instance of mind type, then why do you write that "there would be >> only one instance of mind type?" Clark: > If two phonographs are in perfect synchronization and both are playing > Beethoven's Ninth Symphony then only one symphony is playing; 9th Symphony is a *type* of music. If you play 9th Symphony it becomes instantiated. If you use 2 CD players, each pumping out the 9th, then you have two instances of the type "9th Symphony". It doesn't really matter if you synchronize the players or not. You need to count each instance. If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. Yes or no? Clark: > and if you > destroy one phonograph the music does not stop. But you deleted one instance. Type remains, not the instance. People are instances, not types. The concept of type is meaningless in the context of our survival. I suggest you think about this for a while before you start questioning these ideas. Clark: > So there is one question you must ask yourself, is the mind more like a > symphony or more like a brick? In a pure physics sense it is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object, an instance of activity. Heartland: >> A is A and B is B. Same as the last time. Clark: > No last time you told me the original is the original, this time you tell me > A is A; both responses were quite true and both were quite useless. Don't blame me for not specifying in your question what answers would be useful to you. I don't read minds. I just analyze what they are. Actually, the way you specified the question, no possible answer could be useful unless we use my terminology. So if by "A" I designate a volume of matter on the original trajectory "F" and "B" as the volume of matter along parallel trajectory "G" then if I gradually shift the atoms from volume B to A and B to A then F=F and G=G. Heartlalnd: >> Brain object consists of all nonessential matter Clark: > If it doesn't do anything then why even talk about it, and why even use the > word "brain" to refer to it? Because if I didn't, then nobody would know what I'm talking about. My argument is structured. There are distinctions between concepts (e.g. brain vs. mind, instance vs. type) with precise definitions for each of them. This brings order to a debate where everyone usually brings their unique and often bizarre interpretation of what "brain" is. What happens then is that you get bunch of people screaming at each other because the referents for the terms they use are different. With clear definitions of concepts everyone is on the same page so that debate we can move on to debating the actual argument. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 3 03:10:03 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 23:10:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060502220809.14980.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Jeffrey, Jeffrey: > "So *how exactly* can a "copy" be distinguished from an (recently dead) > "original"? By tracking trajectories of separate instances of mind object, of course. Jeffrey: > Subjectively there is no difference. Objectively there is no difference. The > copy detects no difference. The dead original detects no difference... obviously. > So, where can the difference possibly lie? Wait. The whole purpose of trajectories is that they *do* give an objective observer reliable means of distinguishing copy from the original. Let me give you a simple example which you could then extrapolate to a mind object. Assume arbitrary 4D point x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0. There is a helium atom at point x1,y1,z1,t1. There is also another helium atom at point x2,y2,z2,t2. Assuming these atoms are not next to each other and cooled down to 0K, all the x,y,z,t coordinates for both atoms can never be equal. And since they will never be equal then this is how an objective observer could theoretically distinguish one atom from the other, one instance of an object from the other. S. P.S. Did you get my last response to you where I explain what I mean by mind object and brain object? If not, it's probably in the archives. From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 04:27:14 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 21:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060503042714.68235.qmail@web37501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It's not that the cause of those victimized in darfur is unworthy, it is my five years experience with the sorts of protesters who attend demonstrations shows beyond doubt most of the darfur demonstrators care more about their hairstyles than they do about the persecuted, unless they happen to have family or friends in the Sudan. If it's a pro-marijuana protest you can be sure the protesters care deeply about the issue or they wouldn't be there, and though the darfur protest is a good cause, I want nothing to do with it. We don't have to feel guilty regarding everything going on; everytime a sparrow falls from a tree we don't have to send flowers to its funeral. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 3 07:10:20 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 00:10:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <20060502143705.93801.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060502143705.93801.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <070BBDED-11C4-4255-9A16-A92F232028C0@mac.com> On May 2, 2006, at 7:37 AM, Ned Late wrote: > Okay, it was wrong to single out America. > What is discouraging is observing countless protesters up close to > see so many of them are sentimental for the distant past, they > remember or have heard of the protests of decades ago but don't > remember or ignore the negative, the heads that were broken & the > boredom. I am old enough (barely) to have attended a few Vietnam era marches. I wasn't bored and there weren't that many heads broken. It is not about being "sentimental". It is often about wanting to take more of a stand than sending letters to unresponsive Congress critters, sending money to this or that cause, writing letters to the editor and voting when there really isn't a fit choice. Getting on your feet and into the street doesn't get you a lot more but it is a bit more active and beats sitting at home griping. > Countless hippies who don't remember or were born later don't > realize that for every person who danced in the sunshine at > Woodstock there was another who was shivering in the mud; they tend > to remember the good times and forget the negative. Point is, the > counterculture in general-- many of whom participate at protests-- > are backward looking. Far too many of the protesters are > participating out of nostalgia for a mythologized past, and this is > the very thing I've spent decades trying to get away from. Baloney. There was nothing backwards looking about hippies and I the current generation isn't all that impressed by hippies, some of whom are their parents or grandparents. Where do you get this stuff? Nor are older people there out of nostalgia. They are generally there because they are fed up. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 3 07:14:00 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 00:14:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <20060503042714.68235.qmail@web37501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060503042714.68235.qmail@web37501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 2, 2006, at 9:27 PM, Ned Late wrote: > If it's a pro-marijuana protest you can be sure the > protesters care deeply about the issue or they > wouldn't be there, and though the darfur protest is a > good cause, I want nothing to do with it. We don't > have to feel guilty regarding everything going on; > everytime a sparrow falls from a tree we don't have to > send flowers to its funeral. > Naw. You can stay home and post cynical claims about the people who do show up instead. Every so much more enlightened, genteel and compassionate. - samantha From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 14:03:21 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:03:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs hoaxes and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <20060502184202.34043.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <004201c66a7f$198cb340$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:42 AM 5/2/2006 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: >My >original question was whether UFO phenomena are >evidence of technologically superior extra-terrestrial >intelligence in a Bayesian sense. I am trying to >estimate a probability as to the existence of >technologically advanced space-faring civilizations. > >Any phenomenon can have any number of explanations. >Like the planets are orbiting the earth doing back >flips regularly. These epicycles certainly explain the >phenomena we OBSERVE but that doesn't make it correct. >We have to use Occam's razor to find the SIMPLEST >explanation that explains the phenomena and even then, >that is no guarantee it is correct. But it is more >likely to be. Thus I can bend over backwards to >concoct a huge number of possible scenarios that >explain the UFO evidence, but that is not what I am >trying to do. I am testing a specific hypothesis: Are >UFOs evidence that there are space- faring >extra-terrestrials out there. They certainly could be, but I really doubt it. The first thing Eric Drexler did when he understood the implications of nanotechnology was to go looking for evidence in photos of unusual galaxies. He was looking for ones with an expanding wave front that was dimming the stars behind the leading edge into IR by Dyson spheres or something similar. To be particular, he was looking for galaxies that looked like Cookie Monster had taken a bite out of them. He didn't find any. >Far from being trivial, the existence of proof of >principle that interstellar travel is indeed POSSIBLE >is a question of singular importance for the long term >survival of the human (or even posthuman) species. >If ET can do it than so can we. It isn't so much a question of long term survival as *short term.* Reasoning runs this way. If technologically capable races are common, something eats every one of them, because every direction we look we see wilderness, vast wastage of matter and energy. We cap blown out oil wells for darn good reasons. A civilization with the power to do would plug the black holes. They certainly would be trapping the light output from stars. Since we don't see such, or the occasional interstellar drive that happens to be pointed our way, the conclusion is that there are no technophiles inside our light cone. Either they are so rare that we are the only example, or they commonly arise but something removes them from the observable universe. If they are common, we face a bleak future, probably to be eaten by the local singularity. If we are alone in our light cone, then our future may be a disaster, but it is not fore doomed. >I asked for negative evidence and instead got a whole >bunch of reactionary "ambiguous and inconclusive" from >people. The only person that has given me a shred of >negative evidence is Keith and that was by admission >of some truly devious UFO hoaxes he pulled off. Oh man, what we did was not particularly devious. I should write up the smoking pavement stunt my friend Mike pulled on a night watchman, that was devious, but it's K5 fodder. >The fact that somebody as smart of Keith would go to >so much effort to for people for the simple motivation >of "anonymous publicity" somewhat disturbs me but also >adjusts my posterior probability down quite a bit. >Something that all the skeptical hand-waving by the >other responses did not. > >So I guess my question now is whether enough hoaxsters >of Keith's caliber could have fooled the U.S. Airforce >to render the posterior probability of the existence >of UFOs negligible. It would be nice if I could find a >way to quantify this analysis. There were 6 of us in Arizona and 4 in New Mexico that I knew about. Nation wide that would give you roughly 3600. snip >Of course these could be modified/hoaxed so I am >looking thru the archives on the NOAA's websites. >Although if they are carefully censored, it may prove >useless. True. But worse, I would suspect inserted fake data, the modern day version of our lights in the sky. snip >Why would hallucinations and other "mental >disturbances" manifest themselves in such a consistent >manner over thousands of years and across numerous >disparate cultures? Not always. Ezekiel described a B36 (four burning and six turning). I never checked to see of one fell through a time warp, but I know how the army had an M60 tank vanish. Keith Henson From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 14:13:24 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503101147.0278f0d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:36 PM 5/2/2006 +0100, you wrote: >On 5/2/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of > > kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or > > 40 years plus or minus? > > > > I appreciate the discussion and any insight anyone can bring to this > subject. > > > >Where did you get that figure from? >The Ireland CSO stats from 1950 onwards disagree. > > >They show a drop of 25% in 1990 and roughly level from then on. > >Ireland used to be in the grip of the Roman Catholic Church which >banned birth control and encouraged large families. The weakening of >this control plus more availability of birth control methods plus >modern education and Irish economic growth would easily explain these >figures. Sorry, I was looking at the Northern Ireland figures and don't have the link handy. They were not broken out to religions IIRC. Keith Henson From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 3 14:38:43 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:38:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs hoaxes and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200605031439.k43Ed3Mk004271@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson ... > > Oh man, what we did was not particularly devious. I should write up the > smoking pavement stunt my friend Mike pulled on a night watchman, that was > devious, but it's K5 fodder. ... > Keith Henson Smoking pavement? That sounds like a hoot. {8^D What is K5? spike From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 3 15:17:40 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 08:17:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs hoaxes and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <004201c66a7f$198cb340$660fa8c0@kevin> <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <4458C994.7080108@pobox.com> FYI: My father pulled off at least two minor UFO hoaxes, though nothing on the scale of Henson's group. Also, long before the days of laser pointers, when a laser meant at least a medium-sized box, Mom and Dad used to put a mysterious glowing red dot on the pavement that would follow people around. (Mom and Dad being several blocks away, aiming and watching using binoculars.) -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 3 14:22:35 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, But as I said before, trajectory does not effect the functionality of any atom. Lets say I'm doing an open-skull surgery on a living, conscious human brain. I decide to remove a Carbon atom from a neuronal membrane. I can then insert *any* Carbon atom from my handy supply of Carbon atoms. It won't effect the functionality of that membrane in the slightest bit. The trajectory of an atom is a *byproduct* of the atoms existence and function; it doesn't give that atom any special properties, none. Trajectory from the past doesn't "run" a mind, real-time atoms do. Consider this, Heartland. During ~10^29 Planck Intervals when no neurons are discharging, the "mind-process" is absent. This can be verified by clinical observation: zero electrical activity as measured by an EEG equates to an absent mind. Now mentally extend the condition during ~10^29 Planck Intervals to 10 minutes of the same thing - an absent mind for 10 minutes - easily achievable with anesthesia. Now shrink it back down to ~10^29 Planck Intervals, the mind-process is still absent during this period; during this period it is what you would call a "brain object". And this is going on in *your* brain, right now, as you read this. So, your argument makes no sense, unless you agree that you are now a copy (as you have been all along), and the "old" version of you is deceased. During this ~10^29 Planck Intervals, a person's brain is very much in motion. As John said, we are each moving at an extremely high relative speed, we simply don't detect it. So buy the time the mind-process naturally starts up again (and the "brain object" becomes a *new* "instance" of "mind object"), our brains are quite shifted in their space/time position, and hence the new trajectory will be different. Imagine a very simplified "brain" that consists of a small, closed loop of neurons. Think of it as a single-neuron-thick necklace with a circumference of a penny. ~10^29 Planck Intervals will elapse between the firing of neuron A and its neighbor, neuron B. During this period, neuron B will undergo a huge number of internal physical changes, such that it is no longer neuron B. It is now a *copy* of neuron B (an imperfect one). Imagine how changed neuron Z is by the time the charge returns to it. No structure in the brain will ever stay unchanged. It is continually being imperfectly copied by physical processes, over time. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich P.S. Yes, I did receive your message. Heartland wrote: Hi Jeffrey, Jeffrey: > "So *how exactly* can a "copy" be distinguished from an (recently dead) > "original"? By tracking trajectories of separate instances of mind object, of course. Jeffrey: > Subjectively there is no difference. Objectively there is no difference. The > copy detects no difference. The dead original detects no difference... obviously. > So, where can the difference possibly lie? Wait. The whole purpose of trajectories is that they *do* give an objective observer reliable means of distinguishing copy from the original. Let me give you a simple example which you could then extrapolate to a mind object. Assume arbitrary 4D point x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0. There is a helium atom at point x1,y1,z1,t1. There is also another helium atom at point x2,y2,z2,t2. Assuming these atoms are not next to each other and cooled down to 0K, all the x,y,z,t coordinates for both atoms can never be equal. And since they will never be equal then this is how an objective observer could theoretically distinguish one atom from the other, one instance of an object from the other. S. P.S. Did you get my last response to you where I explain what I mean by mind object and brain object? If not, it's probably in the archives. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 3 15:35:03 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:35:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503101147.0278f0d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060503101147.0278f0d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/06, Keith Henson wrote: > Sorry, I was looking at the Northern Ireland figures and don't have the > link handy. They were not broken out to religions IIRC. > The site you want for Northern Ireland stats is Unfortunately their figures don't agree with your claim either. :) and click on Vital Statistics. >From 1926 to 1965 the birth rate / 1000 population varied around 20-22 until it peaked in the 1961-65 period at 23 / 1000. It then fell fairly steadily in every 5yr period until 1996-2000 when it was 13.9 / 1000. That's where your 40% reduction memory probably comes from. But it wasn't a sudden one-off reduction. It was steadily reducing over a 35 year period. This is roughly in line with the steadily falling birthrate for the UK as a whole. BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Wed May 3 15:41:19 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:41:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Dear Members, friends, and colleagues: This letter is an announcement of the events taking place at Extropy Institute as a result of its Strategic Plan 2006. A copy of the Plan is available on ExI's website [ http://www.extropy.org/strategicplan.htm ] for your review. The Plan identifies some factors that ExI's Board has considered in assessing the future of ExI and the best possible course of action to take for ExI, its members, and other stakeholders. The Past. ExI was formed in 1990 by Max More and Tom Bell with a mission to bring great minds together to incubate ideas about emerging technologies, life extension and the future. ExI's goals were to (1) develop an elegant, focused philosophy for transhumanism?the philosophy of "Extropy"; (2) encourage discussions and debates on improving the human condition; and (2) develop a culture for activists, energized and devoted to bringing these ideas to the public. The initiatives which realized these goals are (1) Extropy: the Journal of Transhumanist Thought; Principles of Extropy; Extro Conferences 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; public forums such as the famed "extropians" and "extropy-chat" email lists; public presentations in the news, radio, televised documentaries, talk shows, and films; and the VP Summit of 2004 addressing the backlash from conservatives against technological advancements. The Present. ExI deems its mission as essentially completed. With this said, and in respect for Extropy Institute?s legacy of achievement, the Board voted and has unanimously agreed to close Extropy Institute's doors. Extropy Institute's website is being memorialized by turning it into a reference "Library of Transhumanism, Extropy, and the Future," ?the beginnings, currents, and future of Transhumanism. On behalf of our members, I would like to thank Max for authoring the philosophy of Extropy1 and for his many efforts in working with others to steer the philosophical development of transhumanism, which is truly treasured by so many people in so many places. The Future. As you will see by reviewing the Strategic Plan, the Proactionary Principle stands first and foremost as the concept with the most potential for being of great service to humanity and transhumanity as we go forward. The Proactionary Principle (ProP) can help society by bridging the growing gap between conservative views and progress-oriented views, and educating society about the future. Meeting these two challenges by providing an active course of action can be of tremendous benefit to us all. In respect for the philosophy of Extropy and the Principles of Extropy, the Board of Extropy Institute believes that Extropy Institute has served its mission and achieved its goals and, in practicing the Principles of Extropy, our next step is to focus on developing worldwide awareness of the ProP [ http://www.extropy.org/prop.htm ] and a network for proactive futures. With my most sincere thanks for your support over the years, Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President _____________ Coined by Prof. Tom Bell (T.O. Morrow) in 1988. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed May 3 15:59:59 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:59:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future PDF file Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503104823.04ebc890@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Dear Members, Friends and Colleagues: As a follow-up, please see attached pdf letter. Also, the Strategic Plan can be downloaded at http://www.extropy.org/strategicplan.htm Toward the Future! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to Members 5-3-06.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 33887 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 15:04:08 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 08:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging Message-ID: <20060503150408.63653.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> I've sometimes pondered the mystery of the Methusaleh story. How to explain? Pure biblical hoo hah? Myth? Accounting irregularities? Or could it be an accurate account of an anomalous (no doubt genetically-mediated) incidence of superlongevity? It's a puzzlement. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles *************************** >From Cryonet. Message #27896 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 19:59:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Skrecky Subject: mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging [Farnesyltransferase inhibitors or lamin A specific oligonucleotides offer the prospect of effective treatments for Hutchinson-Gilford progeria. Since the Lamin A defect responsible for this progeria also plays a role in normal human aging, this raises the interesting possibility of a significant increase in the normal human lifespan in the near future. Treatment of those suffering from progeria is expected shortly.] Science. 2006 Apr 27; [Epub ahead of print] Lamin A-Dependent Nuclear Defects in Human Aging. Scaffidi P, Misteli T. National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA. Mutations in the nuclear structural protein lamin A cause the premature aging syndrome Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria (HGPS). Whether lamin A plays any role in the normal aging process is unknown. Here we show that the same molecular mechanism responsible for HGPS is active in healthy cells. Cell nuclei from old individuals acquire similar defects as HGPS patient cells including changes in histone modifications and increased DNA damage. Age-related nuclear defects are caused by sporadic use in healthy individuals of the same cryptic splice site in lamin A whose constitutive activation causes HGPS. Inhibition of this splice site reverses the nuclear defects associated with aging. These observations implicate lamin A in physiological aging. J Clin Invest. 2006 Mar;116(3):743-52. Prelamin A and lamin A appear to be dispensable in the nuclear lamina. Lamin A and lamin C, both products of Lmna, are key components of the nuclear lamina. In the mouse, a deficiency in both lamin A and lamin C leads to slow growth, muscle weakness, and death by 6 weeks of age. Fibroblasts deficient in lamins A and C contain misshapen and structurally weakened nuclei, and emerin is mislocalized away from the nuclear envelope. The physiologic rationale for the existence of the 2 different Lmna products lamin A and lamin C is unclear, although several reports have suggested that lamin A may have particularly important functions, for example in the targeting of emerin and lamin C to the nuclear envelope. Here we report the development of lamin C-only mice (Lmna(LCO/LCO)), which produce lamin C but no lamin A or prelamin A (the precursor to lamin A). Lmna(LCO/LCO) mice were entirely healthy, and Lmna(LCO/LCO) cells displayed normal emerin targeting and exhibited only very minimal alterations in nuclear shape and nuclear deformability. Thus, at least in the mouse, prelamin A and lamin A appear to be dispensable. Nevertheless, an accumulation of farnesyl-prelamin A (as occurs with a deficiency in the prelamin A processing enzyme Zmpste24) caused dramatically misshapen nuclei and progeria-like disease phenotypes. The apparent dispensability of prelamin A suggested that lamin A-related progeroid syndromes might be treated with impunity by reducing prelamin A synthesis. Remarkably, the presence of a single Lmna(LCO) allele eliminated the nuclear shape abnormalities and progeria-like disease phenotypes in Zmpste24-/- mice. Moreover, treating Zmpste24-/- cells with a prelamin A-specific antisense oligonucleotide reduced prelamin A levels and significantly reduced the frequency of misshapen nuclei. These studies suggest a new therapeutic strategy for treating progeria and other lamin A diseases. Science. 2006 Mar 17;311(5767):1621-3. Epub 2006 Feb 16. A protein farnesyltransferase inhibitor ameliorates disease in a mouse model of progeria. Progerias are rare genetic diseases characterized by premature aging. Several progeroid disorders are caused by mutations that lead to the accumulation of a lipid-modified (farnesylated) form of prelamin A, a protein that contributes to the structural scaffolding for the cell nucleus. In progeria, the accumulation of farnesyl-prelamin A disrupts this scaffolding, leading to misshapen nuclei. Previous studies have shown that farnesyltransferase inhibitors (FTIs) reverse this cellular abnormality. We tested the efficacy of an FTI (ABT-100) in Zmpste24-deficient mice, a mouse model of progeria. The FTI-treated mice exhibited improved body weight, grip strength, bone integrity, and percent survival at 20 weeks of age. These results suggest that FTIs may have beneficial effects in humans with progeria. [Interesting that nuclear deformation is here associated with proliferation defects. Some believe this to be the major reason for escalating age-associated mortality risks from vascular disease.] Cell Biol Int. 2005 Dec;29(12):1032-7. Epub 2005 Nov 28. Nuclear deformation characterizes Werner syndrome cells. Mutations in the lamin A gene have been shown, among other defects, to give rise to Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) and to atypical Werner syndrome (WS), both of which are progeroid disorders. Here, we have investigated well-characterized WS patient cell strains that are compound heterozygous for mutations in the WRN gene. As in HGPS and in atypical WS, we found nuclear deformations to be characteristic of all cell strains studied. In WS cells centrosome number, assembly of the nuclear lamina and nuclear pore distribution occurred normally. Furthermore, nuclear deformations were not associated with a defect in lamin A expression. We propose that nuclear deformation is a universal characteristic of progeroid cells and may result from slow cell cycle progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16690-5. Epub 2005 Nov 3. Age-related changes of nuclear architecture in Caenorhabditis elegans. Mutations in lamins cause premature aging syndromes in humans, including the Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS) and Atypical Werner Syndrome. It has been shown that HGPS cells in culture undergo age-dependent progressive changes in nuclear architecture. However, it is unknown whether similar changes in nuclear architecture occur during the normal aging process. We have observed that major changes of nuclear architecture accompany Caenorhabditis elegans aging. We found that the nuclear architecture in most nonneuronal cell types undergoes progressive and stochastic age-dependent alterations, such as changes of nuclear shape and loss of peripheral heterochromatin. Furthermore, we show that the rate of these alterations is influenced by the insulin/IGF-1 like signaling pathway and that reducing the level of lamin and lamin-associated LEM domain proteins leads to shortening of lifespan. Our work not only provides evidence for changes of nuclear architecture during the normal aging process of a multicellular organism, but also suggests that HGPS is likely a result of acceleration of the normal aging process. Because the nucleus is vital for many cellular functions, our studies raise the possibility that the nucleus is a prominent focal point for regulating aging. Hum Genet. 2005 Dec;118(3-4):444-50. Epub 2005 Oct 6. Correction of cellular phenotypes of Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria cells by RNA interference. The great majority of cases of the Hutchinson-Gilford progeroid syndrome (HGPS) ("Progeria of Childhood'') are caused by a single nucleotide mutation (1824 C->T) in the LMNA gene which encodes lamin A and C, nuclear intermediate filaments that are important components of the nuclear lamina. The resultant mutant protein (Delta50 lamin A) is thought to act in a dominant fashion. We exploited RNA interference technology to suppress Delta50 lamin A expression, with the long range goal of intervening in the pathogenesis of the coronary artery atherosclerosis that typically leads to the death of HGPS patients. Short hairpin RNA (shRNA) constructs were designed to target the mutated pre-spliced or mature LMNA mRNAs, and were expressed in HGPS fibroblasts carrying the 1824 C->T mutations using lentiviruses. One of the shRNAs targeted to the mutated mRNA reduced the expression levels of Delta50 lamin A to 26% or lower. The reduced expression was associated with amelioration of abnormal nuclear morphology, improvement of proliferative potential, and reduction in the numbers of senescent cells. These findings provide a rationale for potential gene therapy. J Lipid Res. 2005 Dec;46(12):2531-58. Epub 2005 Oct 5. Prelamin A, Zmpste24, misshapen cell nuclei, and progeria--new evidence suggesting that protein farnesylation could be important for disease pathogenesis. Prelamin A undergoes multistep processing to yield lamin A, a structural protein of the nuclear lamina. Prelamin A terminates with a CAAX motif, which triggers farnesylation of a C-terminal cysteine (the C of the CAAX motif), endoproteolytic release of the last three amino acids (the AAX), and methylation of the newly exposed farnesylcysteine residue. In addition, prelamin A is cleaved a second time, releasing 15 more residues from the C terminus (including the farnesylcysteine methyl ester), generating mature lamin A. This second cleavage step is carried out by an endoplasmic reticulum membrane protease, ZMPSTE24. Interest in the posttranslational processing of prelamin A has increased with the recognition that certain progeroid syndromes can be caused by mutations that lead to an accumulation of farnesyl-prelamin A. Recently, we showed that a key cellular phenotype of these progeroid disorders, misshapen cell nuclei, can be ameliorated by inhibitors of protein farnesylation, suggesting a potential strategy for treating these diseases. In this article, we review the posttranslational processing of prelamin A, describe several mouse models for progeroid syndromes, explain the mutations underlying several human progeroid syndromes, and summarize recent data showing that misshapen nuclei can be ameliorated by treating cells with protein farnesyltransferase inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 4;102(40):14416-21. Epub 2005 Sep 26. Inhibiting farnesylation reverses the nuclear morphology defect in a HeLa cell model for Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome. Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) is a devastating premature aging disease resulting from a mutation in the LMNA gene, which encodes nuclear lamins A and C. Lamin A is synthesized as a precursor (prelamin A) with a C-terminal CaaX motif that undergoes farnesylation, endoproteolytic cleavage, and carboxylmethylation. Prelamin A is subsequently internally cleaved by the zinc metalloprotease Ste24 (Zmpste24) protease, which removes the 15 C-terminal amino acids, including the CaaX modifications, to yield mature lamin A. HGPS results from a dominant mutant form of prelamin A (progerin) that has an internal deletion of 50 aa near the C terminus that includes the Zmpste24 cleavage site and blocks removal of the CaaX-modified C terminus. Fibroblasts from HGPS patients have aberrant nuclei with irregular shapes, which we hypothesize result from the abnormal persistence of the farnesyl and/or carboxylmethyl CaaX modifications on progerin. If this hypothesis is correct, inhibition of CaaX modification by mutation or pharmacological treatment should alleviate the nuclear morphology defect. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find that expression in HeLa cells of GFP-progerin or an uncleavable form of prelamin A with a Zmpste24 cleavage site mutation induces the formation of abnormal nuclei similar to those in HGPS fibroblasts. Strikingly, inhibition of farnesylation pharmacologically with the farnesyl transferase inhibitor rac-R115777 or mutationally by alteration of the CaaX motif dramatically reverses the abnormal nuclear morphology. These results suggest that farnesyl transferase inhibitors represent a possible therapeutic option for individuals with HGPS and/or other laminopathies due to Zmpste24 processing defects. [Blocking the manufacture of mutated lamin A with a modified oligonucleotide reverses progeria in the test tube as well.] Nat Med. 2005 Apr;11(4):440-5. Epub 2005 Mar 6. Reversal of the cellular phenotype in the premature aging disease Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome. Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) is a childhood premature aging disease caused by a spontaneous point mutation in lamin A (encoded by LMNA), one of the major architectural elements of the mammalian cell nucleus. The HGPS mutation activates an aberrant cryptic splice site in LMNA pre-mRNA, leading to synthesis of a truncated lamin A protein and concomitant reduction in wild-type lamin A. Fibroblasts from individuals with HGPS have severe morphological abnormalities in nuclear envelope structure. Here we show that the cellular disease phenotype is reversible in cells from individuals with HGPS. Introduction of wild-type lamin A protein does not rescue the cellular disease symptoms. The mutant LMNA mRNA and lamin A protein can be efficiently eliminated by correction of the aberrant splicing event using a modified oligonucleotide targeted to the activated cryptic splice site. Upon splicing correction, HGPS fibroblasts assume normal nuclear morphology, the aberrant nuclear distribution and cellular levels of lamina-associated proteins are rescued, defects in heterochromatin-specific histone modifications are corrected and proper expression of several misregulated genes is reestablished. Our results establish proof of principle for the correction of the premature aging phenotype in individuals with HGPS. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 3 16:15:41 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 17:15:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605030915o47646d6dp507aa1619a61a02c@mail.gmail.com> It feels like the end of an era, even to me who came across the Extropy Institute relatively recently; I imagine all the more so to those who've been with it from the start. Natasha and company: Thanks for all your hard work over the years helping carry the flame a step further, and good luck with your endeavors in the future. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 3 16:37:20 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 09:37:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605030915o47646d6dp507aa1619a61a02c@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <8d71341e0605030915o47646d6dp507aa1619a61a02c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4458DC40.1000508@pobox.com> I can only echo Russell Wallace. End of an era. Thanks to everyone. (Still in shock.) -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mstriz at gmail.com Wed May 3 16:46:19 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <070BBDED-11C4-4255-9A16-A92F232028C0@mac.com> References: <20060502143705.93801.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <070BBDED-11C4-4255-9A16-A92F232028C0@mac.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I am old enough (barely) to have attended a few Vietnam era > marches. I wasn't bored and there weren't that many heads broken. > It is not about being "sentimental". It is often about wanting to > take more of a stand than sending letters to unresponsive Congress > critters, sending money to this or that cause, writing letters to the > editor and voting when there really isn't a fit choice. Getting on > your feet and into the street doesn't get you a lot more but it is a > bit more active and beats sitting at home griping. Not to mention that, unlike the way that protesters have been characterized on this list, most of them genuinely want and expect their rallies to promulgate some kind of change, mostly by making the powers that be aware of where the public stands. They may be wrong in that belief, but that doesn't make them poseurs. I know a few people who attended the Darfur protest in DC who are trying to get an email campaign to the President started. The protests against the Iraq War may not have worked, but the immigrant protests, as well as the Darfur protests, are going to have a material impact on policy. It's also unrealistic to demand that protesters join the military or shut up. Many of them have families, and there are already people who have volunteered for military work, who are ready and willing to take on important causes. It's just a matter of making their leaders aware of where the military is needed. > > Countless hippies who don't remember or were born later don't > > realize that for every person who danced in the sunshine at > > Woodstock there was another who was shivering in the mud; they tend > > to remember the good times and forget the negative. Point is, the > > counterculture in general-- many of whom participate at protests-- > > are backward looking. Far too many of the protesters are > > participating out of nostalgia for a mythologized past, and this is > > the very thing I've spent decades trying to get away from. Markos Moulitsas takes this position in _Crashing the Gate_, that protests are vestiges of a by-gone era and that direct marketing (door-to-door and especially online) is the way to organize for change now. But a protest is a nice way to get free national advertising, as long as the media covers you. Martin From jef at jefallbright.net Wed May 3 16:57:06 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 09:57:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605030957r7c156dfaga441cfdce5868f1@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/06, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > > *The Present. *ExI deems its mission as essentially completed. With this > said, and in respect for Extropy Institute's legacy of achievement, the > Board voted and has unanimously agreed to close Extropy Institute's doors. > I want to thank Max, Natasha, and several others for making ExI and this chat list such an inspirational and enlightening place on the web for so many years. Many seeds have been sown here and I look forward to their continued growth. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 16:09:14 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 09:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur Message-ID: <20060503160914.22933.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com> I want to thank Samantha, and rise in support of her declaration of "Baloney" below. "Baloney. There was nothing backwards looking about hippies and I the current generation isn't all that impressed by hippies, some of whom are their parents or grandparents. Where do you get this stuff? Nor are older people there out of nostalgia. They are generally there because they are fed up." Much of the commentary regarding protests and protestors, demonstrations, hippies, etc seems to me little more than pissy denigration by cultural adversaries. Mass public activism is not at all a trivial matter. Ranging from simple demonstrations, to violent demonstrations, to open revolt, the stirrings of "people power" is serious business-not-as-usual business. If you missed the sixties, it's a shame. It was a great time, a dynamic time, a time of turmoil, a time of war and its horror, much like the current moment. Be careful. Peace and prosperity are far more fragile and potentially fleeting than the atmosphere of complacency they breed suggests. September the eleventh was a pinprick. Good luck. Best, Jeff Davis I know it is a weakness of human nature to become emotionally invested in inconsequential tribal spats, but people who want to be transhumanists need to be able to get past that almost as a prerequisite. In fact, a good portion of the transhumanist ideals are all about shedding this behavior. j. andrew rogers __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 16:58:12 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 12:58:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503101147.0278f0d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060503101147.0278f0d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503124741.027c2890@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:35 PM 5/3/2006 +0100, you wrote: >On 5/3/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > Sorry, I was looking at the Northern Ireland figures and don't have the > > link handy. They were not broken out to religions IIRC. > > > >The site you want for Northern Ireland stats is > >Unfortunately their figures don't agree with your claim either. :) > > >and click on Vital Statistics. > >From 1926 to 1965 the birth rate / 1000 population varied around 20-22 >until it peaked in the 1961-65 period at 23 / 1000. >It then fell fairly steadily in every 5yr period until 1996-2000 when >it was 13.9 / 1000. >That's where your 40% reduction memory probably comes from. But it >wasn't a sudden one-off reduction. It was steadily reducing over a 35 >year period. > >This is roughly in line with the steadily falling birthrate for the UK >as a whole. I looked the tables and they are not the ones I remembered. I think I captured the information, but it would be on another computer. It was year by year and not in 5 year blocks. It would be interesting to plot income per capita, particularly if it could be broken out by religions. I think the association between groups that are causing problems and groups that think they have a bleak future is really high. Can you think of an exception? Keith. From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 3 17:21:22 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 10:21:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On May 3, 2006, at 8:41 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Dear Members, friends, and colleagues: > > This letter is an announcement of the events taking place at > Extropy Institute as a result of its Strategic Plan 2006. A copy of > the Plan is available on ExI's website [ http://www.extropy.org/ > strategicplan.htm ] for your review. The Plan identifies some > factors that ExI's Board has considered in assessing the future of > ExI and the best possible course of action to take for ExI, its > members, and other stakeholders. > > The Past. ExI was formed in 1990 by Max More and Tom Bell with a > mission to bring great minds together to incubate ideas about > emerging technologies, life extension and the future. ExI's goals > were to (1) develop an elegant, focused philosophy for > transhumanism the philosophy of "Extropy"; (2) encourage > discussions and debates on improving the human condition; and (2) > develop a culture for activists, energized and devoted to bringing > these ideas to the public. The initiatives which realized these > goals are (1) Extropy: the Journal of Transhumanist Thought; > Principles of Extropy; Extro Conferences 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; public > forums such as the famed "extropians" and "extropy-chat" email > lists; public presentations in the news, radio, televised > documentaries, talk shows, and films; and the VP Summit of 2004 > addressing the backlash from conservatives against technological > advancements. > > The Present. ExI deems its mission as essentially completed. With > this said, and in respect for Extropy Institute?s legacy of > achievement, the Board voted and has unanimously agreed to close > Extropy Institute's doors. > The mission is certainly not complete. If the board has seen fit to close down that is fine but please don't claim the work is finished. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 17:34:41 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 13:34:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs hoaxes and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <200605031439.k43Ed3Mk004271@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503132602.0289feb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:38 AM 5/3/2006 -0700, you wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson >... > > > > Oh man, what we did was not particularly devious. I should write up the > > smoking pavement stunt my friend Mike pulled on a night watchman, that was > > devious, but it's K5 fodder. >... > > Keith Henson > >Smoking pavement? That sounds like a hoot. {8^D Yeah. Bank of inferred lamps and reflectors cut out in the shape of shoes. >What is K5? www.kuro5hin.org Pronounced "corrosion." Daily Kos is an offspring (engine wise). Widely auto linked on the net. Virtually any story posted there gets 15,000 links within a week. It is where my article "Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War" was posted. They are not bad in terms of editing suggestions, but it looks like I could have used a bit more checking. Should have linked and checked that bit about Northern Ireland. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 Keith Henson From jonkc at att.net Wed May 3 17:37:41 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 13:37:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > by then mind is gone forever anyway according to my argument According to your argument anesthesia causes the mind to go away forever too, but I wouldn't spread that around if I were you, not if you want people to take you seriously. > so BEC is meaningless in the context of this discussion. It means if the history of an atom is that ephemeral, if it can be erased from the universe that easily it can not be fundamental to the running of the cosmos as you say. When atoms lost their individuality in the lab the sky didn't open up, there was no clash of thunder, instead things went on much as they did before. So how can atoms individuality be the key to the universe when the universe itself doesn't seem to give a damn about it. If also means I could arrange things so you walk into a duplicating chamber and observe a person who looks just like you appear right in front of you; and if the atoms of both were put into a BEC before they were reassembled into human beings there is no way you or your twin or God or the Universe could know which had the original atoms and which had the copy atoms, and therefore there would be no reason to care. > "A" I designate a volume of matter on the original trajectory "F" and "B" > as the volume of matter along parallel trajectory "G" then if I gradually > shift the atoms from volume B to A and B to A then F=F and G=G. Your observation that F is F and G is G is deep, almost as deep as last time when you said A is A and the time before that when you said the original is the original. Your comments above remind me of what Lewis Carroll said in "Through the Looking Glass": T was brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. You know, we could save a great deal of time if you just said I refuse to say which is the original, then we could move on to other things. > Paper records are only needed when minds are alive. If you put a gun to my head I couldn't say what you were trying to get at here. > If you use 2 CD players, each pumping out the 9th, then you have two > instances of the type "9th Symphony" A CD is digital so the entire Beethoven's 9'th symphony is just a number, a rather large number but a number nevertheless, no different fundamentally from the number 9. So, how many instances of the number 9 exist in the universe? And remember I'm not talking about the symbol "9" I'm talking the concept the symbol represents. If the question has any meaning at all, and I doubt it does, the answer can only be one. But the fact is that arithmetic is not very good at counting up abstract adjectives and adverbs; like you and me for example. > If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one > instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. > Yes or no? No. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 17:55:57 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 13:55:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging In-Reply-To: <20060503150408.63653.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503135305.0278a718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:04 AM 5/3/2006 -0700, you wrote: >I've sometimes pondered the mystery of the Methusaleh >story. How to explain? Pure biblical hoo hah? Myth? > Accounting irregularities? Accounting errror between measuring in moons (months) and years. Keith Henson From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 3 17:42:13 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:42:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging In-Reply-To: <20060503150408.63653.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060503150408.63653.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/06, Jeff Davis wrote: > > I've sometimes pondered the mystery of the Methusaleh > story. How to explain? Pure biblical hoo hah? Myth? > Accounting irregularities? Or could it be an > accurate account of an anomalous (no doubt > genetically-mediated) incidence of superlongevity? > > It's a puzzlement. More than a decade ago I gave a talk in Russia to some gerontologists and mentioned the Methuselah "legends". One of the scientists pointed out to me that if you interpret the numbers in terms of months instead of years the numbers make much more sense. He argued that there was a misinterpretation of the original material (or the "ancient legend" had been exaggerated). Since I just spent some time reviewing the Lamin A research I'll make a couple of comments (since the people who are hyping it do *not* have a long background in the study of aging/gerontology). 1) Accelerated aging is *NOT* the inverse of longevity! There are at least dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands of ways you can damage the "perfect" human genome and produce effects which cause one to die prematurely. Werner's Syndrome and Hutchinson-Guilford Syndrome are the two which most closely resemble "normal" aging. But George Martin wrote a paper long ago (20 years?) detailing the characteristics of many diseases, including Down's Syndrome, which have some symptoms which resemble aging. What can be said with relative accuracy is "If you damage the WS gene or the Lamin A gene in certain ways you will accumulate damage that resembles aging more quickly than is normally the case." 2) Drugs or gene therapies which correct the defective Lamin A which causes the accelerated aging in HGS will fix that specific genetic disease -- they will do little or nothing to prevent "normal" aging. Animals lacking Lamin A entirely *still* age and die (just animals on CR *still* age and die). There has been a recent discussion about this on the GRG list which was relatively informative. You should locate their archives (I don't have the URL) if you want to go into the topic in greater depth. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 3 18:41:15 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 11:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060503184115.83548.qmail@web37414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I think ultimately the confusion boils down to the word descriptions. You seem to use the term "instance" in the sense of something that is constant, that never changes. A major thrust of my argument is that a person cannot be an "instance" in this sense. If anything, a person can only be described as a "type" given that a human brain and mind are constantly changing/copying. Anyway, I'm sad to see the ExI list go down. I've only been on about a month or so, but I was quite enjoying it; my thanks to all those involved. Heartland, I've really enjoyed this debate. I'm up for continuing it elsewhere if you are still interested. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed May 3 17:40:44 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 13:40:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: <380-22006533174044473@M2W082.mail2web.com> Samantha, I wrote "essentially completed." Kind regards, Natasha Original Message: ----------------- From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:21:22 -0700 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future On May 3, 2006, at 8:41 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Dear Members, friends, and colleagues: > > This letter is an announcement of the events taking place at > Extropy Institute as a result of its Strategic Plan 2006. A copy of > the Plan is available on ExI's website [ http://www.extropy.org/ > strategicplan.htm ] for your review. The Plan identifies some > factors that ExI's Board has considered in assessing the future of > ExI and the best possible course of action to take for ExI, its > members, and other stakeholders. > > The Past. ExI was formed in 1990 by Max More and Tom Bell with a > mission to bring great minds together to incubate ideas about > emerging technologies, life extension and the future. ExI's goals > were to (1) develop an elegant, focused philosophy for > transhumanism the philosophy of "Extropy"; (2) encourage > discussions and debates on improving the human condition; and (2) > develop a culture for activists, energized and devoted to bringing > these ideas to the public. The initiatives which realized these > goals are (1) Extropy: the Journal of Transhumanist Thought; > Principles of Extropy; Extro Conferences 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; public > forums such as the famed "extropians" and "extropy-chat" email > lists; public presentations in the news, radio, televised > documentaries, talk shows, and films; and the VP Summit of 2004 > addressing the backlash from conservatives against technological > advancements. > > The Present. ExI deems its mission as essentially completed. With > this said, and in respect for Extropy Institute?s legacy of > achievement, the Board voted and has unanimously agreed to close > Extropy Institute's doors. > The mission is certainly not complete. If the board has seen fit to close down that is fine but please don't claim the work is finished. - samantha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 19:05:17 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Google glitch Message-ID: <20060503190517.69587.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Strange. Type in a keyword and search it repeatedly. Every 5-6 times, it returns fewer hits. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 19:32:38 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <4458DC40.1000508@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060503193238.96208.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Being a board member of the same institute your whole lives would be like working for General Motors a whole lifetime-- makes sense you would all want to move on to other things. --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 18:32:52 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 11:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs hoaxes and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060503183252.16153.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Keith Henson wrote: > They certainly could be, but I really doubt it. Can you quantify your doubt? That is what Bayes was all about after all. :) > > The first thing Eric Drexler did when he understood > the implications of > nanotechnology was to go looking for evidence in > photos of unusual > galaxies. He was looking for ones with an expanding > wave front that was > dimming the stars behind the leading edge into IR by > Dyson spheres or > something similar. To be particular, he was looking > for galaxies that > looked like Cookie Monster had taken a bite out of > them. He didn't find any. I would say that Drexler's argument against ETI was more speculative than the question of ETI itself. I am looking for simple explanations here, but I will nonetheless humor you and engage. First off, there is an assumption here that technological progress only has one possible sequence where molecular assemblers, and thereby Dyson solar tech, occur prior to FTL transport. Second it assumes that a Dyson sphere is the most practical form harnessing solar energy. A brief consideration of structural constraints imposed by gravitometric and rotational momentum considerations make a Niven type ring world far more practical and therefore likely. Such a construct would only block significant amounts of light if it was at a perfectly aligned angle. Third it assumes that any star would serve a Dyson sphere. In truth spectral considerations of the star in question would be very important for purposes of biological life as we know it. Futhermore the stars that are the most visible in a typical galaxy are the really high magnitude blue-white stars that reside in the hub and the arms of a spiral type galaxy. These really hot spectral types are short-lived and typically unstable with a tendency to supernova. Therefore they would probably not worth the effort of harnessing by Dyson-tech. Fourth, amongst the low magnitude stars lying outside of the spiral arms of a galaxy like ours (the life zone), there may very well be numerous Dyson spheres present. In fact Dyson spheres in this region seem as likely an explanation of the rotational speed anomaly of galaxies as speculative halos of dark matter consisting of exotic particles we have never seen and can't detect. Futhermore even if Dyson spheres did exist in this "life zone", it probably would not significantly alter the over-all luminosity of the galaxy in question. And of course the fifth and final consideration is that our light-cone has yet to catch up with the inflationary expansion of the universe so we are seeing most galaxies as they existed in their youth before they have had a chance to evolve life. Wait a few billion years and you may still see the cosmic Cookie-Monster in action. > It isn't so much a question of long term survival as > *short term.* > Reasoning runs this way. If technologically capable > races are common, > something eats every one of them, because every > direction we look we see > wilderness, vast wastage of matter and energy. We > cap blown out oil wells > for darn good reasons. A civilization with the > power to do would plug the > black holes. They certainly would be trapping the > light output from stars. Come on, what could eat so many civilizations and not be a civilization itself? Galactic conquest I can believe; giant invisible civilization-eating monsters, I can't. Even if the civilizations are self-destructing, we should be able to detect their death-throes. If we decided to go all out with thermonuclear war, I think someone around a nearby star should be able to pick up the EMP loud and clear. Also if they have learned to tap vaccuum/dark energy, then stars would be trivial energy sources for them. Just like if we invent Mr. Fusion, we would give a hoot about our oil wells. > > Since we don't see such, or the occasional > interstellar drive that happens > to be pointed our way, the conclusion is that there > are no technophiles > inside our light cone. Either they are so rare that > we are the only > example, or they commonly arise but something > removes them from the > observable universe. Maybe they are keeping tabs on us but don't want to talk to us. After all I don't see Jane Goodall inviting her chimps to cocktail parties. > > If they are common, we face a bleak future, probably > to be eaten by the > local singularity. If we are alone in our light > cone, then our future may > be a disaster, but it is not fore doomed. Great way to think yourself into an intellectual corner. What happened to optimism? I don't think our inability to detect ETI with outdated radio-tech means squat. If they are still using that kind of tech, which I doubt, it is probably highly directional and so unless their masers are pointed directly at us with the INTENT to communicate with us, we won't hear squat. This would be most especially true if there are multiple ETI civilizations out there that may not be the best of friends. There is a good reason why our submarines don't cruise around with active sonar on all the time and it isn't because we are worried about the dolphins going deaf. Just like the laws of physics, Darwinism would be the same throughout the universe. Why does SETI assume that technologically advanced civilizations would be game-theoretical morons running around the universe with their pants down? >> There were 6 of us in Arizona and 4 in New Mexico > that I knew > about. Nation wide that would give you roughly > 3600. Good to know. I will take it into consideration. > > Not always. Ezekiel described a B36 (four burning > and six turning). I > never checked to see of one fell through a time > warp, but I know how the > army had an M60 tank vanish. Hey... now there's a thought. Maybe David Copperfield is getting to ETI before SETI can. ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 3 19:54:20 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:54:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605021325l538184cka7b7d7ef5127398@mail.gmail.com> References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> <4902d9990605021325l538184cka7b7d7ef5127398@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Under Linux, the Firefox I've been running for a day or so is running 9 threads according to the System Monitor. So at least for some things it *is* multi-threaded. Whether page display is multi-threaded or not I don't know because often times if you don't have all of the HTML or JS specifying the size/location of various elements you have to wait until they all become available and/or have finished before you can properly render the window (tab) image and hand it over to the window manager (X in my case). There may be many cases where the pages are not written to be displayed efficiently. Pages which are designed properly (and not as resource hogs), e.g. the results of a google search or even Amazon.com pages display *very* quickly. Faulting Firefox for something which isn't its fault is shooting the messenger. With regard to memory management the problem is being caught between a rock and a hard place with efficiency vs. portability. You want to have very different memory management strategies for history records, bookmarks, scripts, HTML text, images, sound &| video, etc. You will not get that if they all go into a single heap managed by the ANSI C portable functions (malloc() and free()). I believe there is some tuning you could do with GNU's libc implementation of these (under Linux) but that isn't going to buy you squat on Windows. You could also rewrite the Linux VM manager to better handle cases of heap thrashing (but again that doesn't do squat for Windows). You have to bear in mind that it probably took a decade until Linux became robust enough that it could scale from the largest machines (supercomputers) to the smallest (routers & hand-held devices) and everything in between and adapt relatively well to most of that hardware. Robert On 5/2/06, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > On 5/2/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > Gross! Is there a move afoot to add multi-threading and efficient > > related object/memory management? > > Not that I know, but I'm not partecipating in the firefox developing > community. Someone more knowledgeable is required for the correct > answers :-) > > Alfio > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mstriz at gmail.com Wed May 3 20:01:02 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:01:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> <4902d9990605021325l538184cka7b7d7ef5127398@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > You have to bear in mind that it probably took a decade until > Linux became robust enough that it could scale from the largest machines > (supercomputers) to the smallest (routers & hand-held devices) and > everything in between and adapt relatively well to most of that hardware. Have you gotten Xgl + Compiz yet? Way trippy, dude. Martin From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 3 21:09:39 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:09:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> <4902d9990605021325l538184cka7b7d7ef5127398@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 3, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > With regard to memory management the problem is being caught > between a rock and a hard place with efficiency vs. portability. > You want to have very different memory management strategies for > history records, bookmarks, scripts, HTML text, images, sound &| > video, etc. You will not get that if they all go into a single > heap managed by the ANSI C portable functions (malloc() and free > ()). I believe there is some tuning you could do with GNU's libc > implementation of these (under Linux) but that isn't going to buy > you squat on Windows. You could also rewrite the Linux VM manager > to better handle cases of heap thrashing (but again that doesn't do > squat for Windows). You have to bear in mind that it probably took > a decade until Linux became robust enough that it could scale from > the largest machines (supercomputers) to the smallest (routers & > hand-held devices) and everything in between and adapt relatively > well to most of that hardware. > What I suggested is quite portable and has been used for many years on a variety of projects and platforms. Allocate large blocks using the underlying system/libc calls. Write alloc, free, etc. substitutes and any more specialized calls you might desire that suballocate from these large blocks with sufficient additional bookkeeping, tagging and such to more efficiently clean up garbage and compact the heap. This sort of thing has been written many times. Its main drawback is the larger memory increment when the current large blocks cannot satisfy a request. But with compacting of the heap large blocks themselves may be released if memory needs go down significantly enough. - samantha From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 20:22:46 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060503202246.84331.qmail@web37515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> First went to a protest in 1969 and have had quite enough of them; besides, cynical isn't wrong as long as one doesn't raise one's voice to get vicious about it. BTW did not say I intensely dislike protesters, but rather it still can't be denied like everyone they have a combination of good & bad intentions, they go to demonstrations for a host of reasons, some participate to show off their social consciousness, some are serious. You don't think hippies were backward looking?? All that mysticism, astrology, traveling to rural locations such as Woodstock to find a lack of porta potties, to leave heaps of garbage, to take drugs in the rain. Why was doing so more enlightened than getting a bit drunk so as to neck and eat popcorn at the Drive-In during the '50s? It is true there were all different sorts of people labeled under the umbrella of 'counterculture', they were doing all sorts of things, but how was the counterculture necessarily forward looking? Look, all this is to say if some young inexperienced person wants to take drugs, protest, hitchike or whatever they want to do they are welcome to do so, but I want nothing to do anymore with the counterculture, nothing more to do with drugs, mysticism, colorful clothing, long hair, or protesting this war or that war or getting all indignant that oil companies are making nine cents a gallon. Let young people get all worked up and indignant about darfur-- and if you wish to then you can join them. Just count me out. >Naw. You can stay home and post cynical claims about the people who do show up >instead. Every so much more enlightened, genteel and compassionate. >samantha --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 3 21:27:39 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 17:27:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >> If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one >> instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. >> Yes or no? Clark: > No. 1+1 does not equal 2? Well, I guess that is my cue to leave this discussion. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 3 21:47:56 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:47:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations Message-ID: On 5/3/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Allocate large blocks using the underlying system/libc calls. Write > alloc, free, etc. substitutes and any more specialized calls you might > desire that > suballocate from these large blocks with sufficient additional > bookkeeping, tagging and such to more efficiently clean up garbage and > compact the heap. This sort of thing has been written many times. Its > main drawback is the larger memory increment when the current large blocks > cannot satisfy a request. But with compacting of the heap large blocks > themselves may be released if memory needs go down significantly enough. I understand that Samantha. It is a somewhat non-trivial problem because each type of memory (say history records vs. large images vs. garbage collected memory [Javascript???]) requires different memory management strategies. There seems to be 32+ types of *alloc() calls (png_malloc(), GC_malloc(), JS_malloc(), etc.) in the source for Mozilla. I'm not sure what subset is used by Firefox. What I am seeing suggests that they knew this would be useful but may not have yet taken steps to optimize it. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 3 21:56:17 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:56:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <44592701.8000109@pobox.com> Heartland wrote: > Heartland: > >>>If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one >>>instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. >>>Yes or no? > > Clark: > >>No. > > 1+1 does not equal 2? Well, I guess that is my cue to leave this discussion. *Rolls eyes.* A floppy disk contains 100 bits of Shannon information about System S. How much information is in two copies of the floppy? Do you think that if your brain used twice as much atoms to store the same data, there would be twice as much people in your head? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 3 22:09:06 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 15:09:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <44592A02.4080701@pobox.com> John K Clark wrote: > > According to your argument anesthesia causes the mind to go away forever > too, but I wouldn't spread that around if I were you, not if you want people > to take you seriously. You're arguing by reductio ad absurdum to a conclusion that "sounds silly" but which you have not actually proven to be wrong. Not that I don't agree with you, just pointing this out. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 21:42:12 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060503214212.54094.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > With my most sincere thanks for your support over > the years, > > Natasha Vita-More > Extropy Institute, President You are most welcome, Natasha. It was a sincere pleasure. ExI will be missed, but your strategic plan makes good sense. May your metamorphosis bring you ever greater success. Best Wishes, Stuart __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 21:54:03 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 17:54:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Future of Extropy-chat list? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503175343.06dc4ea8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:41 AM 5/3/2006 -0700, Jeffrey wrote: snip >Anyway, I'm sad to see the ExI list go down. I've only been on about a >month or so, but I was quite enjoying it; my thanks to all those involved. Is the list going down? I don't see any reason it should since there isn't much more connection to the Institute than the name and the cost of running a list is low. What is the plan? If it is going to be shut down, we could reconstitute it somewhere else. Keith Incidentally, this bounce again From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed May 3 23:03:49 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Bird Brian" - Not! In-Reply-To: <200605020517.k425HGbQ025157@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060503230349.86789.qmail@web52605.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > On Behalf Of Ian Goddard... > > > > In my teens I used to do a lot of bird watching > > with local groups like the Audubon Society and > > other birding enthusiasts. I kept a bird list and > > did the annual Christmas count and such... ~Ian > > > Ian I have become a bird fan in recent years, not > from learning species but just from noticing the > amazing things they do. The classic birdwatching > never has appealed to me much because it seems too > preoccupied with identification of species and > especially uncommon species. Right. In fact, my last formal bird watching event was an Audubon Society Christmas count some year in the early 80s, after which the reduction of the gentle art of bird watching to the busy sport of bird cataloging was so palpably repugnant I never went on an organized bird watch again. It's a good example of where the actual target activity (watching birds) becomes so lost in ritual behavior surrounding it that it no longer exists; all that exists in a Christmas count is a frantic race to score has many checks on a list of bird species as possible. > Crows and gulls are perhaps the very most common > birds around here, so they don't get a lot of > attention. They should. To me, the point of > watching wildlife isn't to find the most exotic, > but rather to really watch, really pay attention > to see what the beasts are doing. Excellent observations spike! In fact, among birding enthusiast there's a kind of bird racism that I too adopted. In its more benign form, average sparrow-type birds were called LBJs for "little brown jobs." The meaning was, "nothing much there, forget it." In its worst form, we'd refer to common birds like crows, starlings, or house sparrows as "junk birds." Of course that valuation structure stems from the high value placed in seeing rare birds. Of course that isn't 'bad' per se, it simply reflects the given focus of standard bird watchers. If we're more interested in watching bird behaviors, then that value structure can fade away. Although that may in turn place a greater value on birds with higher intelligence and define 'junk birds' as pigeons. Of course such a priori value structures can bias our observations, so being able to step outside of them can lead to better observations. ~Ian http://iangoddard.net "A proposition can be true or false only in virtue of being a picture of reality." - Ludwig Wittgenstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu May 4 02:08:41 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 19:08:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Future of Extropy-chat list? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503175343.06dc4ea8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503175343.06dc4ea8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605031908n730b91e9n4da62305bee37f50@mail.gmail.com> i agree with you KEITH. On 5/3/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > At 11:41 AM 5/3/2006 -0700, Jeffrey wrote: > > snip > > >Anyway, I'm sad to see the ExI list go down. I've only been on about a > >month or so, but I was quite enjoying it; my thanks to all those > involved. > > Is the list going down? I don't see any reason it should since there > isn't > much more connection to the Institute than the name and the cost of > running > a list is low. > > What is the plan? > > If it is going to be shut down, we could reconstitute it somewhere else. > > Keith > > Incidentally, this bounce again > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person. john coletrane www.mikyo.com/ilsa http://rewiring.blogspot.com www.hotlux.com/angel.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu May 4 02:12:59 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:12:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> <44592701.8000109@pobox.com> Message-ID: Heartland: >>>>If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one >>>>instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. >>>>Yes or no? >> Clark: >>>No. Heartland: >> 1+1 does not equal 2? Well, I guess that is my cue to leave this discussion. Eliezer: > Do you think that if your brain used twice as much atoms to store the > same data, there would be twice as much people in your head? Of course not. The point is that if you have two identical, but separate brains, this must add up to two separate *instances* of one *type* of mind. If you have any experience in OOP, and I can't imagine you don't, then you should know exactly what I mean. Why is the distinction between type and instance important? Because life that I subjectively experience now is an *instantiated* type of mind, never a static information about the mind. That experience irreversibly ends when the instance of mind process is no longer active. As I said to Clark, the concept of "mind type" is meaningless in the context of our survival. Cryonics preserves types of life, not instances of life so I see no point in signing up for suspension. Is it depressing that death is irreversible? Of course it is, but it's true. S. From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Thu May 4 01:28:14 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 18:28:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060503214212.54094.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060504012814.54434.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> If some of you want, assuming extropy-chat is terminated, you can come to transhumanistmentors-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Now of course nothing could take the place of extropy-chat, but anyone can write what they wish to at TM-- save for threats of violence. It is tolerable to get a little feisty at TM, not all the time of course however when people get angry they say what they think. --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Thu May 4 03:20:53 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 20:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> I want to congratulate Natasha, Max, and the rest of the Extropy Institute board for taking this difficult but proactive step rather than letting ExI and its related concepts just fade away as happens with so many institutions. When the time has come to move on, recognizing and accepting that fact is always difficult. But the world has changed enormously since the 1980s when Max and Tom invented the idea of Extropy, and even since the early 1990s when this mailing list was born in its earlier incarnation. Ideas which at that time were considered too outlandish even for science fiction are now debated regularly in the corridors of power and on the front pages of major newspapers and other opinion leaders. My main concern during this time of transition is that the history of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy with regard to list archives. As a result, much of that free-wheeling discussion has been lost, an information exchange which many of us remember as among the most dynamic and engaging we have ever encountered. It may never be possible to reconstruct and restore those lost archives, but eventually the list policy changed, and we should make sure that what remains is not lost. Not only list archives, but the working papers and other documents produced by ExI over the years, should all be preserved for future study and reference. It's possible that someday this material will be seen as representing the birth of ideas which turn out to be key to the further development of humanity. Making data available for an indefinite period into the future will not happen automatically. It will take time and effort to make the preparations, and funds will be needed as well. If there are things I could do to help, I hope Natasha will feel free to ask, and I am sure that most of the rest of us in the community feel the same way. Hal Finney From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 4 03:27:57 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 22:27:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Future of Extropy-chat list? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503222635.04b80e40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:54 PM 5/3/2006, Keith wrote: >Is the list going down? I don't see any reason it should since there isn't >much more connection to the Institute than the name and the cost of running >a list is low. > >What is the plan? The list will continue on, hopefully for decades to come and extrope from time to time as need be. Stay put! :-) Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 4 03:29:51 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 22:29:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504012814.54434.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060503214212.54094.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> <20060504012814.54434.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503222818.04b34310@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:28 PM 5/3/2006, Ned wrote: >Now of course nothing could take the place of extropy-chat, Thanks Ned. The ExI Extropy Chat list will remain in place. Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 4 03:40:00 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 22:40:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503223243.04b1e2f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:20 PM 5/3/2006, Hal wrote: >I want to congratulate Natasha, Max, and the rest of the Extropy >Institute board for taking this difficult but proactive step rather than >letting ExI and its related concepts just fade away as happens with >so many institutions. When the time has come to move on, recognizing >and accepting that fact is always difficult. But the world has changed >enormously since the 1980s when Max and Tom invented the idea of Extropy, >and even since the early 1990s when this mailing list was born in its >earlier incarnation. Ideas which at that time were considered too >outlandish even for science fiction are now debated regularly in the >corridors of power and on the front pages of major newspapers and other >opinion leaders. > >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy >with regard to list archives. As a result, much of that free-wheeling >discussion has been lost, an information exchange which many of us >remember as among the most dynamic and engaging we have ever encountered. > >It may never be possible to reconstruct and restore those lost archives, >but eventually the list policy changed, and we should make sure that >what remains is not lost. Not only list archives, but the working >papers and other documents produced by ExI over the years, should all >be preserved for future study and reference. It's possible that someday >this material will be seen as representing the birth of ideas which turn >out to be key to the further development of humanity. > >Making data available for an indefinite period into the future will >not happen automatically. It will take time and effort to make the >preparations, and funds will be needed as well. If there are things I >could do to help, I hope Natasha will feel free to ask, and I am sure >that most of the rest of us in the community feel the same way. Hal, I welcome your help, and the help of others, as we put together the Library of Transhumanism, Extropy and the Future. Mitch Porter (in Australia) was hired to work with us on this and he is making headway. It will take a little time, but it is the plan and I believe a good one. The list archives will be put together as we best can and eventually make it into the Extropy book section "Best of the List" which was David McFadzean's insightful suggestion a while back. What we will need is a web programming to put Mitch's work on the library into a format for the web. There will be other tasks in the near future that we will need help on. Hal, you have been a supportive member and friend for a long time and I hope our relationship continues into the future. Even though ExI is closing down, the philosophy of Extropy shall live and evolve in ways that only extropy can. My best to you, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 4 04:35:52 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 21:35:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <200605040447.k444lHMo007289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" > > I want to congratulate Natasha, Max, and the rest of the Extropy > Institute board for taking this difficult but proactive step rather than > letting ExI and its related concepts just fade away as happens with > so many institutions... Hal Finney Hal, I heartily concur, and wish to express how honored I feel to have been given the chance to be a moderator, then later the Temporary Volunteer Omnipotent Super-Autocratic Utterly Tyrannical Yet Strangely Benevolent List Dictator. I am one who has always been uncomfortable wielding authority. Power corrupts as we all know, and I was constantly aware of the corruption welling up with me, as expressed by my own self-awarded and ever expanding title above. I consequently endeavored to compensate for the corruption-spawning power granted me by me. Unfortunately I overcompensated to such a degree that the customary evil laugh "Muwaahahahahaaa" and the traditional "Fools! I shall destroy them all!" manifested themselves in an annoying horse-whinneying "Muweeheheheheee" and a "Wise persons! I shall co-operate with them all!" Far too silly was this. Many of us have one period of formative years in our lives, when we form the memetic framework, the philosophical basis of our entire lives. Usually these are in our youth. I am one who has enjoyed two periods of formative years, or rather the traditional formative years, then subsequently the reformative years. The former took place in my tragically misspent youth, as it is with most of us. But the latter, the far more interesting and unconventional reformative years, were during my tragically misspent adulthood. These years started about the time I found extropians, somewhere around 9 years ago. Finding there were others with thoughts and ideas in parallel to my own was a tremendous meme-affirming discovery. I owe much to those who have posted here, especially those who posted smart stuff and were never harsh nor overbearing. You know who you are. I shall forever treasure the friendships and acquaintances formed in this forum. I thank you all. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 4 05:03:37 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:03:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503222818.04b34310@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <200605040513.k445DXAv005398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More ... The ExI Extropy Chat list will remain in place. Natasha Vita-More Excellent! That being said, I do wish to request that I be relieved of command as list dictator fairly soon. I am willing to serve until 1 June as I agreed in February. The responsibilities of family life are pressing hard upon me, simultaneously from the generation before and the one soon to follow. If some kind soul such as J. Andrew Rogers were to initiate a virtual palace coup before that time, I would gladly relinquish all this unlimited authority and corrupting power. Cheerfully, without a shot fired. {8-] I would even be willing to continue as the list Cajoler of Difficult and Overbearing Yahoos when such services are needed. In the mean time, I must prepare for a trip on an antiquated motorcycle to the Oregon ranch for another humiliating weekend of pretending to be an actual farmer. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 4 05:14:46 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:14:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <200605040447.k444lHMo007289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> <200605040447.k444lHMo007289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605032214h4bd52286gc11929dbb1493159@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/06, spike wrote: > to such a degree that the customary evil laugh "Muwaahahahahaaa" and the > traditional "Fools! I shall destroy them all!" manifested themselves in an > annoying horse-whinneying "Muweeheheheheee" and a "Wise persons! I shall > co-operate with them all!" > > Far too silly was this. > > Many of us have one period of formative years in our lives, when we form the > memetic framework, the philosophical basis of our entire lives. Usually > these are in our youth. I am one who has enjoyed two periods of formative > years, or rather the traditional formative years, then subsequently the > reformative years. The former took place in my tragically misspent youth, > as it is with most of us. But the latter, the far more interesting and > unconventional reformative years, were during my tragically misspent > adulthood. These years started about the time I found extropians, somewhere > around 9 years ago. > > Finding there were others with thoughts and ideas in parallel to my own was > a tremendous meme-affirming discovery. I owe much to those who have posted > here, especially those who posted smart stuff and were never harsh nor > overbearing. You know who you are. I shall forever treasure the > friendships and acquaintances formed in this forum. I thank you all. Spike, you most certainly must be my long-lost evil twin! ;-) - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 4 06:09:00 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 23:09:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical challenge In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605032214h4bd52286gc11929dbb1493159@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605040609.k4469CNr003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright ... > > Spike, you most certainly must be my long-lost evil twin! > > ;-) > > - Jef What would happen if instead of the usual good twin, evil twin, they were triplets? Would one still be good and one evil, and if so, what would the third one be? The tepid triplet? The ethically ambiguous sibling? The so-so-sister? spike From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 4 07:10:34 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 00:10:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical challenge In-Reply-To: <200605040609.k4469CNr003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <22360fa10605032214h4bd52286gc11929dbb1493159@mail.gmail.com> <200605040609.k4469CNr003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605040010g225558abid28bbcd5ec455ce4@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/06, spike wrote: > > What would happen if instead of the usual good twin, evil twin, they were > triplets? Would one still be good and one evil, and if so, what would the > third one be? The tepid triplet? The ethically ambiguous sibling? The > so-so-sister? > That fence-sitting figure, legend of lethargy, master of the mediocre, sibling without rivalry...the vexed of kin? In the long run, there is nothing more evil, more anti-extropic, more inducing of ennui, than apathetic acceptance of equilibrium! Or something like that... From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu May 4 07:31:44 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 03:31:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: "But as I said before, trajectory does not effect the functionality of any atom. Lets say I'm doing an open-skull surgery on a living, conscious human brain. I decide to remove a Carbon atom from a neuronal membrane. I can then insert *any* Carbon atom from my handy supply of Carbon atoms. It won't effect the functionality of that membrane in the slightest bit. The trajectory of an atom is a *byproduct* of the atoms existence and function; it doesn't give that atom any special properties, none. Trajectory from the past doesn't "run" a mind, real-time atoms do." I think we've addressed this issue before. Trajectories "don't run the mind." I don't think I ever said that. What I said was that trajectories give an objective observer the ability to distinguish between instances. That's it. They are only measurements of location of matter, nothing else. I'm not sure, but maybe you are confusing "trajectory" with "mind object". Perhaps a closer inspection of the definition of mind object I gave recently will be helpful. I said: "Mind object consists of all matter but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in energy exchanges that produce the mind (e.g. electrons streaming down synapses). Brain object consists of all nonessential matter that merely "contains" that energy exchange process (e.g. atoms of brain tissue)." So mind object consists of *only* that matter which is *presently and actively* involved in producing the mind. So, if you exchange one instance of matter for another, the old instance no longer makes up mind object and so, accordingly, trajectory of mind object no longer includes the trajectory of that old instance of matter. Jeffrey: "Consider this, Heartland. During ~10^29 Planck Intervals when no neurons are discharging, the "mind-process" is absent." I don't agree with this assertion. Mind process is powered by energy and that energy is being conserved during ~10^29 Planck Intervals. It's like you throw a ball upwards. Just because a ball becomes still at the highest point doesn't mean that during this time frame the energy that will force the movement of the ball downwards disappears. Besides, mind process necessarily consists of many consecutive brain states (any shorter chain of states would be just a non-mind process) each one taking longer than ~10^29 Planck Intervals. You can't declare mind process absent by considering arbitrary time frames like PI. My whole argument occurs in 4D, not 3D where t=0. Mind process is an *object in time*. Finally, Jeffrey, let me end this response with a surprising and depressing thought. You have been correct. It occurred to me very recently that we are really dying; not constantly, but "from time to time." Funny thing is that I reluctantly reached this conclusion using completely different reasoning from yours, based instead on my own argument justifying the "death occurs when mind process stops" part (i.e., the remaining part of my argument you disagree with). We are dying for a different reason but our present subjective experience is indeed a copy's illusion. I hate this. S. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu May 4 07:55:14 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 03:55:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060326112425.023ae2f0@gmu.edu> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060318172237.02424920@gmu.edu> <7.0.1.0.2.20060326112425.023ae2f0@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7641ddc60605040055t4c78da3by7ac743245fe18c2@mail.gmail.com> Here I am back to my old tricks, not following on good threads for way too long... Sorry for the long delay. In the meantime, I reached lvl 55 as Undead warlock on the Khaz Modan server and amassed a fortune of 1700 gold, now ready to take on end-game instances. A note to all of you who still have a life - never, never, set foot on Azeroth, or would will be lost to this world. I will answer Robin's last post at the end of this contribution, which promises to be a long one. Let me first comment on a few other posts that accrued since my last presence here: Somebody mentioned that unidentified parties on this list have gone mau-mau on Robin's ass. Such activities are probably illegal in many jurisdictions and I strongly disapprove of them (except if on a strictly consensual basis). I expect that the list authorities will take a swift and uncompromising action to end the outrage. Now back to Robin's medical views: Jeff Medina wrote: as Robin's position is the consensus position of experts on this matter (or so he has claimed, and no evidence against this has been provided by anyone else, including you -- in fact, unsolicited corroboration was provided, by Finney armed with a mainstream health economics textbook). ### Robin makes two claims which according to the best of my knowledge are well beyond the mainstream of experts on medicine (much less being the consensus): 1) Smallpox vaccinations are responsible for between 1 and 10 % of the reduction in smallpox lifetime prevalence observed in developed countries since their introduction. 2) The utility of modern medicine in developed countries, as measured by life extension and improvement in the quality of life is negligibly different from zero. while I take issue with both of them, I agree with Robin's statement: 3) The utility of pre-modern medicine (before ~ 1850) is close to zero. We need to very clearly differentiate between claims #2 and #3. There are very good reasons to doubt the efficacy of almost all medical interventions before 1850, with the exception of vaccinations but after that time, with the work of Lister and Pasteur, the modern era of medicine started and eventually led to "exceptional returns". Let me quote a document from the Lasker foundation that Robin listed on his webpage of health-care resources: http://www.laskerfoundation.org/reports/pdf/exceptional.pdf "economists came to a virtual consensus that medical research has produced exceptionally high returns in the past and is likely to deliver exceptional returns in the future." The other documents listed on Robin's page are also in general supportive of the notion that medicine produces significant utility. A PubMed search for "(health-care OR healthcare) cost-effectiveness" yields today 17856 citations, and a random sampling of them shows that most describe net *gains* from specific medical treatments, rather than net losses. If there is anything that economists agree on, it is that overall medicine is useful. ------------------------------- No, but Robin didn't make that claim. In fact, he explicitly stated that he's perfectly willing to grant that *some* treatments are worthwhile. You don't mean to suggest that all, or nearly all, of the treatments suggested by doctors are backed up by RCTs, do you? Or that the gains from the minority of worthwhile treatments make up for the majority of low, zero, and negative value ones? It seems you'd have to back one or the other of these for your question to apply here. ### If you grant that some treatments work but still say that all treatments on average don't, then you must postulate that the beneficial effects of some treatments are precisely (within measurement error) offset by negative effects of others. I once posted here a long list of beneficial treatments, and I challenged Robin to come up with a list of deleterious treatments necessary to offset the beneficial effects. In another discussion on wta Robin actually conceded that clearly deleterious treatments are unlikely to survive the scrutiny of providers, patients, and their lawyers for long, so not surprisingly he didn't compile the anti-list I asked him about. But, this leaves the claim of zero average utility prominently unbalanced. ---------------------------- Robin: Let me confirm that the majority of medical practice is *not* now backed up by well-done RCT. An easy test: the next time your doc advices some treatment, ask him for the RCT that backs it up. If he gives you a RCT, look to see how well done it is and how relevant it is to your situation.v ### I will concede that under some legitimate interpretations of "majority of interventions" indeed the majority of medical practice would not be backed up by well-done RCT. However, under other interpretations, the opposite is the case. Specifically, if you look at the majority of medical treatment interventions (as opposed to diagnostic algorithms), most of them are pharmacological or surgical. All drugs in the US have to prove safety and efficacy in FDA-monitored trials (which should be abolished but this is another story) before being approved, and therefore their use tends to be supported by RCTs. Even the off-label use usually begins with a few case presentations, followed by RCTs if the use is significant. I can support virtually every prescribing decision I make daily by an RCT, or an AAN practice guideline. Furthermore, many if not most of the of the most common surgical procedures are backed by RCTs as well - from CABG to lithotripsy to epidural steroid injections, there is actually a lot of data. Sometimes it turns out that a traditional intervention is actually useless - for example, recently we have found out that surgery for intracranial hemorrhage is useless, or endoscopic knee surgery is useless - but the number of commonly used procedures without an RCT to their credit is probably dwindling. So, yes, I would contend that if you count my medical treatment decisions throughout a representative week, the majority of them will be RCT-supported. If you come to me for a consultation and ask questions, I will be able to dig out the data (but would charge you extra). I hardly think that I am exceptional in this respect. This is not to say that most doctors will be able to show that what they order is the optimal treatment - far from it, neither I nor most other practitioners have the comprehensive knowledge needed to select the best possible drug (in part because few entities have the economic incentive and means to conduct the research needed to find it) but most physicians will give medications that work somewhat, perhaps better than an alternative drug, perhaps a bit worse than a direct competitor. I vacillate between triptans (migraine medication) each time after eating a drug rep dinner but this because all triptans seem to work in a similar fashion, not because there are doubts whether they work at all. ----------------------- Robin: To be clear, I do not at all think the RAND study is anything close to "junk". Its quality is substantially better than the typical study you will find via MedLine, for example. Its main "flaws" are that it is now 30 years old and it only looked at 5000 people over five years, and that it had a needlessly complicated set of varying treatments (mainly because they didn't anticipate that the main result of the experiment would be no effect). It would cost about a billion dollars to now do a study of 10,000 people over ten years. ### Well, you might also mention that the study does not control for access to medicine in the control (uninsured) group - therefore it measures the effect of *free* medical care, not medicine in general. This is an important distinction - most people will actually pay for medical treatment that they feel is needed (e.g. extraction of an abscessed tooth), but many will undergo optional treatments only if they are free. The Rand control group still went to the dentist when they had a bad tooth-ache, didn't they? The Rand study didn't show a big difference in the number of abscessed teeth that were removed in the both groups, did it? It didn't count how many people would be dead from sepsis stemming from a tooth abscess if they were actually forbidden to use medical care, as opposed to merely having to pay out of pocket, isn't this right? Yes, this study was useful to prove that universal free medical insurance is a stupid commie idea gone berserk but it has nothing useful to say about the utility of medicine. If you wanted to actually tell how much medicine us worth using the general methodology used in the Rand study, you would need a control group of people who would not use any medicine, period. In fact, if you manage to convince enough people to follow your notion of medicine's futility, you could do the study. Have half of them use all medical services at their disposal (since medicine is only futile, not actively harmful, this would be ethical, if profligate), while the others will abstain from all medicine (again, since medicine is futile, this would be ethical, as no harm can be done from abstaining from useless stuff). And I mean no medicine - no heartburn drugs, no dentistry, no nursing home placement, no cast for a broken ankle, no blood transfusion after a car accident, no suturing of wounds, nothing. Ten years later we will poll the groups on the amount of suffering they have undergone, and count the disabled and the corpses. Are you ready to be the first subject of this study? Perhaps a patient I saw many years ago would be the inspiration for you: He had diabetes and never saw a doctor for it. As it frequently happens, he developed circulatory abnormalities in his foot, the "diabetic foot". After a while the foot died. It didn't really upset him, until one day it actually broke off above the ankle. This is when he finally came to the attention of my profession, and in line with your contention of medicine's futility, they didn't actually do much for him. This is an actual true and accurate first-hand story, not some Wes Craven fantasy. I am sure the proposed study would provide many more darkly entertaining yarns of this kind. ----------------------------------------------- On 4/18/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > >The RAND study is the single most informative study we have about the > >overall (marginal) health value of medicine in rich nations today. I know > >Rafal has complaints about it, but one can find imperfections in any > >study. I challenge Rafal to point to another study he thinks is more > >informative. We could then compare flaws. and then also: > Well it has been a month now, and Rafal hasn't offered a study he prefers, > using the method he says he prefers, i.e., aggregating studies of specific > treatments. Let me suggest that this is because there are no such studies. > Rafal prefers the conclusion he guesses would be the result of such a > study to the conclusion of the actual studies I have pointed him to. The > actual studies have flaws, while of course his hypothetical study need have > none. ### As Jeff Allbright (I think) has noted, even if I was unable to point to a study aggregating outcomes of treatments, this would not prove your point, merely indicate the absence of knowledge on which a point of view could be based. But, there are studies aggregating outcomes. You quoted one of them yourself, the Bunker et al. in Milbank Quarterly, Volume 72 Number 2, 1994. Such studies consistently show a benefit of anything from 2 to 5 years. Let me admit, my mind is totally boggled by all what you say on this subject. Rafal From amara at amara.com Thu May 4 10:38:51 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 12:38:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: Hal Finney: >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy >with regard to list archives. It's not hard for me to remember today, because alot of it is still true. Many of those discussions could today still jeopardize contracts, careers and personal lives. I wish to remember those discussions in our private living rooms, not in a public Internet venue. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 4 12:49:14 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:49:14 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <44592701.8000109@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060504124914.GJ26713@leitl.org> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:12:59PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > Cryonics preserves types of life, not > instances of life so I see no point in signing up for suspension. Is it depressing > that death is irreversible? Of course it is, but it's true. While cryonics is not a safe bet (several critical factors are yet unknown) I wonder what makes you discard a distinct possibility. I presume you would reject general anaesthesia or artificial coma, too? Even if it would save your life, because it would be somebody else's life, not yours? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 4 12:55:04 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:55:04 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504012814.54434.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060503214212.54094.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> <20060504012814.54434.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060504125504.GK26713@leitl.org> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:28:14PM -0700, Ned Late wrote: > If some of you want, assuming extropy-chat is terminated, you can come to transhumanistmentors-subscribe at yahoogroups.com > Now of course nothing could take the place of extropy-chat, but anyone can write what they wish to at TM-- save for threats of violence. It is tolerable to get a little feisty at TM, not all the time of course however when people get angry they say what they think. Why creating a yet another transhumanist list? With only 10 members to boot? Thanks go to ExI for being there for us for all these years. The extropy@ list (along with old transhumanism on logrus) bears some of my fondest memories. Good wishes to you all, and may you succeed in your next endeavors. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Thu May 4 13:12:36 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 06:12:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504125504.GK26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060504131236.27640.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What's wrong with many small transhumanist groups with different purposes? The goal for this one is fifty members. Eugen Leitl wrote: Why creating a yet another transhumanist list? With only 10 members to boot? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 4 13:52:32 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:52:32 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504131236.27640.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060504125504.GK26713@leitl.org> <20060504131236.27640.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060504135232.GP26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:12:36AM -0700, Ned Late wrote: > What's wrong with many small transhumanist groups with different purposes? The goal for this one is fifty members. Loss of synergy. Recursive fragmentation into obscure tribalism. It's getting really hard to track which new community is where, and doing what. We're making lists just because we can. It's easy to splinter, but hard to unify. There's value in dedicated lists, but only if there's a specific focus. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 4 14:18:00 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 07:18:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605040718n3d16853fwd92c6894c40d8adf@mail.gmail.com> On 5/4/06, Heartland wrote: > Finally, Jeffrey, let me end this response with a surprising and depressing > thought. You have been correct. It occurred to me very recently that we are really > dying; not constantly, but "from time to time." Funny thing is that I reluctantly > reached this conclusion using completely different reasoning from yours, based > instead on my own argument justifying the "death occurs when mind process stops" > part (i.e., the remaining part of my argument you disagree with). We are dying for > a different reason but our present subjective experience is indeed a copy's > illusion. I hate this. Dear Heartland, I have been watching this exchange with interest, not for any expected outcome, but with hope of better understanding the interaction and possible resolution of incongruent models of reality. It seems you have just recently experienced an update of your model, possibly as a result of the debate, and I wonder if you would do me (us) the favor of describing this experience from your point of view. It seems to me this question is highly relevent to the Extropy list. Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request. - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 4 14:43:23 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 07:43:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60605040055t4c78da3by7ac743245fe18c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605041443.k44Ehh75001764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki ... > > Somebody mentioned that unidentified parties on this list have gone > mau-mau on Robin's ass. Such activities are probably illegal in many > jurisdictions... Altho the term "mau-mau" was undefined, wikipedia says something about a Kenyan uprising. I do not think this was the intended definition, but in any case, it sounds abusive and we do not tolerate abusive treatment of animals on this list, wild, domestic or farm variety. > ...and I strongly disapprove of them (except if on a > strictly consensual basis)... > Rafal I strongly disapprove of even consensual basis, assuming you meant the consent of the owner of the ass. The actual beast is unable to express disapproval. Actually I might need to rethink that, for an ass might express his dismay in the form of a powerful hoof to the midsection of the abuser. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 4 15:00:43 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 11:00:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:38 PM 5/4/2006 +0200, you wrote: >Hal Finney: > >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history > >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme > >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember > >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy > >with regard to list archives. > >It's not hard for me to remember today, because alot of it is still >true. Many of those discussions could today still jeopardize contracts, >careers and personal lives. I wish to remember those discussions in >our private living rooms, not in a public Internet venue. > >Amara Unfortunately due to factors ranging from disk crashes to becoming a refugee, not many of us can remember those long gone days. (I.e., read the postings--brain memory just leaks out and is gone.) Shame too, because there was history made on that list. And some of it that diffused into the general net culture is just wrong and should be corrected from the original source. For example, I should not be credited for the idea of "Jupiter brains." Keith Henson From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 4 15:39:07 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 10:39:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060504103533.04e37840@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 05:38 AM 5/4/2006, Amara Graps wrote: >Hal Finney: > >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history > >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme > >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember > >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy > >with regard to list archives. > >It's not hard for me to remember today, because alot of it is still >true. Many of those discussions could today still jeopardize contracts, >careers and personal lives. I wish to remember those discussions in >our private living rooms, not in a public Internet venue. The early list will be kept private *unless* post authors agree to have their posts included in the library, or in a book. In that case, the editors will contact post authors and get full permission to make the posts public. Amara, we can discuss this in detail so that everyone is assured that their privacy is protected. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 4 16:33:22 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 11:33:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060504104000.04e375b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:00 AM 5/4/2006, you wrote: >At 12:38 PM 5/4/2006 +0200, you wrote: > >Hal Finney: > > >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history > > >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme > > >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember > > >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy > > >with regard to list archives. > > > >It's not hard for me to remember today, because alot of it is still > >true. Many of those discussions could today still jeopardize contracts, > >careers and personal lives. I wish to remember those discussions in > >our private living rooms, not in a public Internet venue. > > > >Amara > >Unfortunately due to factors ranging from disk crashes to becoming a >refugee, not many of us can remember those long gone days. (I.e., read the >postings--brain memory just leaks out and is gone.) > >Shame too, because there was history made on that list. We want to preserve that history and that it was made on this list. >And some of it >that diffused into the general net culture is just wrong and should be >corrected from the original source. Can you elaborate more? Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Thu May 4 16:56:49 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 12:56:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer><44592701.8000109@pobox.com> Message-ID: <00af01c66f9b$c8b22550$4f094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > if you have two identical, but separate brains, > this must add up to two separate *instances* > of one *type* of mind. If you're correct let's see where that leads, if you have two identical but separate calculators adding up 2 + 2 they must add up to two separate *instances* of the number 4; the symbol "4" that one calculator displays stands for something profoundly different than what the symbol "4" the other calculator displays stands for. The same would be true of mental arithmetic, so if you ask me how much is 2 +2 and I say 4 I am incorrect, but if you answer your own question and say 4 then you are correct. This could be a teeny tiny bit of a problem for physicists and mathematicians. > Cryonics preserves types of life, not instances of life so I see no point > in signing up for suspension. But you oppose anesthesia for exactly the same reason, so you think Cryonics is no more dangerous than anesthesia, and that's a ringing endorsement in my book. John K Clark From brian at posthuman.com Thu May 4 17:06:20 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 12:06:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <200605041443.k44Ehh75001764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605041443.k44Ehh75001764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <445A348C.6000304@posthuman.com> spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki > ... >> Somebody mentioned that unidentified parties on this list have gone >> mau-mau on Robin's ass. Such activities are probably illegal in many >> jurisdictions... > > Altho the term "mau-mau" was undefined, wikipedia says something about a > Kenyan uprising. I do not think this was the intended definition, but in > any case, it sounds abusive and we do not tolerate abusive treatment of > animals on this list, wild, domestic or farm variety. > >> ...and I strongly disapprove of them (except if on a >> strictly consensual basis)... >> Rafal > > I strongly disapprove of even consensual basis, assuming you meant the > consent of the owner of the ass. The actual beast is unable to express > disapproval. Actually I might need to rethink that, for an ass might > express his dismay in the form of a powerful hoof to the midsection of the > abuser. > I suspect it's a reference to this bit from the very funny UK show League of Gentlemen: Death by Mau Mau Geoff: Ay Brian, tell Mike Mau Mau. Brian: You what?? Geoff: You know, the one about the Mau Mau. Brian: Ohh, I can't remeber it Geoff, you tell him. G: No, you can. Mike, Danny Taurus told this joke at the Con Club and it's the funniest bloddy joke, tell it Brian. B: Me? G: Yeah, go on. B: Ohh alright. Umm there's these 3 fellas.... G: Yeah Englishman, Irishman and Scotchman. B: Yeah, and they get lost in the desert... G: Jungle. B: Is it? G: Yeah go on. B: They get lost in the jungle and they get killed by these cannibals. G: Ohh not yet, you've missed the whole bloddy joke out you idiot. B: Well, I can't remember it Geoff, you tell it. G: You can, just think what the end is and then go back. B: There's an Englishman.... G: Fruit. B: What?? G: It's the fruit. B: Oh right. G: He remembers it now. B: Englishman, Irishman alright... They get captured by these cannibals and they have to go out in the jungle and pick 10 pieces of fruit and bring 'em back. So they come back and the Chief says "So Englishman..." G: Do the voice. B: Chief says "So Englishman, now you must choose between Death or Mau Mau." And the Englishman says "We English will not bow to you savages, I'll choose Mau Mau" So they grab him and they shove the 10 pieces of fruit up his arse!!! G: Yeah, and what did he pick?? B: Ohh the Englishman chose cherries!! G: Oooh imagine that Mike, 10 cherries shoved up your arse, cherries are only really small though aren't they?? Go on Brian. B: So the Chief turns to the Scotchman and says "Death or Mau Mau?" And the Scotchman says "Mau Mau" and... Oh what's the Scotchman's fruit Geoff? Is is bananas? G: Nah, it's smaller than that. B: Well, lets just say bananas. G: No, it's too big, it spoils the next one. B: Apples? G: No. Mike: Strawberries? G: What??!? In the jungle? Come on just think what it is for a minute. M: Not strawberries... B: Kiwi? M: Ay Brian, why are there no aspirins in the jungle? B: Dunno. M: Coz the parrots eat 'em all (pronounced paracetemol) B: See, I would have said paracetemol (pronounced differently from above) M: Well, either way I think it works you know. G: Plums!!!! B: What?? G: They're plums, come on. M: Ah Geoff, it doesn't matter now. G: Course it matters, he's right near the end. There's only the Irishman left. Come on Brian. The Chief turns to the Irishman, he says "Death or Mau Mau".... M: You didn't do the voice. G: It doesn't matter. Finish it. B: I can't remember it G: Finish it!!!!! B: I can't remember it Geoff. G: Please!! B: Geoff, I honestly can't remember. (Geoff breaks down and starts to cry) G: Ohh, it's just one big bloddy joke to you innit? Yeah, Geoff can't tell a joke, geoff is a joke! Geoff isn't funny enough to be Mike's best man. M: Geoff!!! G: Well you all know I've got this gun don't you?? Ohh you're listening now. Right, well, you are gonna tell this joke and we're all gonna laugh..... or else Mike gets it!!!! (Mike sounds scared s***less) B: Calm down, calm down, we'll get to the end of the joke, Jesus. Errmmm The Chief says to the Irishman "Death (stumbles a bit) death or Mau Mau" and the Irishman looks at his fruit.... G: Pineapples!!! B: Pineapples!! Looks at his pineapples and he says "I don't think I could stand the Mau Mau, I'll choose death" And the Chief says to him... (Gun clicks to mean that Geoff is serious) M: Get it right Brian!! B: The Chief says to the Irishman.... can't remember. M: He says "Death by Mau Mau" G: Ohh have you heard it?? M: Yeah. G: It's good though innit??? Oi! 3 Bluebirds!! (of course it's much better to watch than read) -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu May 4 16:40:36 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 09:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060504164037.25322.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, First I just want to express how happy I am that the ExI list will remain. This is great!! I am also very curious by what means of reasoning you've reached the same conclusion. But, I don't personally find the conclusion depressing, at all. If anything, I find it relieving. It has, with finality, convinced me that permanent death is really nothing to fear. It is only an unfulfilling life that I still fear. The foreknowledge of one's death and the uncertainty that goes with it, has for so long, brought so much grief to humanity. It is probably the single most responsible "event" that has frightened people into forming irrational and frequently destructive religions. Why does this conclusion depress you? Please do not misconstrue what I'm saying. Involuntary permanent death, in the sense of destruction of the brain, is horrible. It robs other minds of the experience of the individual, and it robs the individual of the (hopefully) pleasant illusion of life. I very much look forward to the day of indefinite human lifespan. I can't write for long. I have to go take a final exam for History. Yay! I'll attempt to respond to the technical points below at a later time. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Jeffrey: "But as I said before, trajectory does not effect the functionality of any atom. Lets say I'm doing an open-skull surgery on a living, conscious human brain. I decide to remove a Carbon atom from a neuronal membrane. I can then insert *any* Carbon atom from my handy supply of Carbon atoms. It won't effect the functionality of that membrane in the slightest bit. The trajectory of an atom is a *byproduct* of the atoms existence and function; it doesn't give that atom any special properties, none. Trajectory from the past doesn't "run" a mind, real-time atoms do." I think we've addressed this issue before. Trajectories "don't run the mind." I don't think I ever said that. What I said was that trajectories give an objective observer the ability to distinguish between instances. That's it. They are only measurements of location of matter, nothing else. I'm not sure, but maybe you are confusing "trajectory" with "mind object". Perhaps a closer inspection of the definition of mind object I gave recently will be helpful. I said: "Mind object consists of all matter but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in energy exchanges that produce the mind (e.g. electrons streaming down synapses). Brain object consists of all nonessential matter that merely "contains" that energy exchange process (e.g. atoms of brain tissue)." So mind object consists of *only* that matter which is *presently and actively* involved in producing the mind. So, if you exchange one instance of matter for another, the old instance no longer makes up mind object and so, accordingly, trajectory of mind object no longer includes the trajectory of that old instance of matter. Jeffrey: "Consider this, Heartland. During ~10^29 Planck Intervals when no neurons are discharging, the "mind-process" is absent." I don't agree with this assertion. Mind process is powered by energy and that energy is being conserved during ~10^29 Planck Intervals. It's like you throw a ball upwards. Just because a ball becomes still at the highest point doesn't mean that during this time frame the energy that will force the movement of the ball downwards disappears. Besides, mind process necessarily consists of many consecutive brain states (any shorter chain of states would be just a non-mind process) each one taking longer than ~10^29 Planck Intervals. You can't declare mind process absent by considering arbitrary time frames like PI. My whole argument occurs in 4D, not 3D where t=0. Mind process is an *object in time*. Finally, Jeffrey, let me end this response with a surprising and depressing thought. You have been correct. It occurred to me very recently that we are really dying; not constantly, but "from time to time." Funny thing is that I reluctantly reached this conclusion using completely different reasoning from yours, based instead on my own argument justifying the "death occurs when mind process stops" part (i.e., the remaining part of my argument you disagree with). We are dying for a different reason but our present subjective experience is indeed a copy's illusion. I hate this. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu May 4 16:45:46 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 09:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060504164546.25829.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Amara, I certainly respect anyone's right to privacy. However, I think it would be counterproductive to hide or destroy *all* of the old archives. A good solution would be to hide any specific posts that the post author requests to remain undisplayed, if this can be achieved. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Amara Graps wrote: Hal Finney: >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy >with regard to list archives. It's not hard for me to remember today, because alot of it is still true. Many of those discussions could today still jeopardize contracts, careers and personal lives. I wish to remember those discussions in our private living rooms, not in a public Internet venue. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu May 4 17:48:51 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 18:48:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <200605041443.k44Ehh75001764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7641ddc60605040055t4c78da3by7ac743245fe18c2@mail.gmail.com> <200605041443.k44Ehh75001764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/06, spike wrote: > Altho the term "mau-mau" was undefined, wikipedia says something about a > Kenyan uprising. I do not think this was the intended definition, but in > any case, it sounds abusive and we do not tolerate abusive treatment of > animals on this list, wild, domestic or farm variety. > > I strongly disapprove of even consensual basis, assuming you meant the > consent of the owner of the ass. The actual beast is unable to express > disapproval. Actually I might need to rethink that, for an ass might > express his dismay in the form of a powerful hoof to the midsection of the > abuser. > It's almost certainly a misprint for "going moo-moo on Robin's ass" as it is well known that asses are easily frightened by cows sneaking up behind them. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 4 17:54:49 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 10:54:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E74D3D0-D30F-453B-AE9E-E4609746AD17@mac.com> I have written storage management and caching systems. There are a small set of truly different types of storage needs across all common types of software applications when you factor the space. It is possible to find a common supporting general memory/cache model with two primary subtypes of storage and a small set of storage/cache management primitives that can be mixed and matched to cover different needs. The storage subsystem can be designed to be adaptive to actual usage patterns. In this way different memory needs can be met at a much higher and more flexible level and with far greater performance and efficiency than attempting to satisfy all these types of needs using clib and equivalents. - samantha On May 3, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 5/3/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Allocate large blocks using the underlying system/libc calls. > Write alloc, free, etc. substitutes and any more specialized calls > you might desire that > suballocate from these large blocks with sufficient additional > bookkeeping, tagging and such to more efficiently clean up garbage > and compact the heap. This sort of thing has been written many > times. Its main drawback is the larger memory increment when the > current large blocks cannot satisfy a request. But with > compacting of the heap large blocks themselves may be released if > memory needs go down significantly enough. > > I understand that Samantha. > > It is a somewhat non-trivial problem because each type of memory > (say history records vs. large images vs. garbage collected memory > [Javascript???]) requires different memory management strategies. > There seems to be 32+ types of *alloc() calls (png_malloc(), > GC_malloc(), JS_malloc(), etc.) in the source for Mozilla. I'm not > sure what subset is used by Firefox. What I am seeing suggests > that they knew this would be useful but may not have yet taken > steps to optimize it. > > 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu May 4 18:45:54 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 13:45:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/06, Keith Henson wrote: > For example, I should not be credited for the idea of "Jupiter brains." You aren't in anything I'm responsible for. I researched this and Perry agreed that he was probably the source though he was unsure if he heard it from another source. (Though many of the references may not work and need to be relinked, you can get the gist of the history from [1].) The Wikipedia entry also doesn't have your name attached... So you can rest easy Keith :-). Of perhaps greater concern than the private extropy list from the early '90s may be the public list over the last decade or so. As I recall I first encountered the public list sometime in late '96. So everything since then should be available without having to obtain the permission of the authors. What I particularly miss is the old archives (from mailman?) which I think were maintained on lucifer.com. I suspect that multiple people may have these archived. It is up to someone to provide the space & bandwidth to make them available. It shouldn't be very much overhead in this day & age. I suspect the entire list contents for the decade would fit on a CD (or at worst a DVD). Robert 1. http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/JupiterBrains/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 4 18:51:29 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 20:51:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060504185129.GH26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:45:54PM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > What I particularly miss is the old archives (from mailman?) which I think > were maintained on lucifer.com. I suspect that multiple people may have I would dearly love to get hold of those -- preferrably in mbox format, gzipped. > these archived. It is up to someone to provide the space & bandwidth to > make them available. It shouldn't be very much overhead in this day & age. Absolutely no problem with that. > I suspect the entire list contents for the decade would fit on a CD (or at > worst a DVD). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu May 4 19:02:21 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 20:02:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > On 5/4/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > For example, I should not be credited for the idea of "Jupiter brains." > > > You aren't in anything I'm responsible for. I researched this and Perry > agreed that he was probably the source though he was unsure if he heard it > from another source. (Though many of the references may not work and need > to be relinked, you can get the gist of the history from [1].) The > Wikipedia entry also doesn't have your name attached... So you can rest easy > Keith :-). > Heh! :) Do a Google search on henson jupiter brain You only have 61,000 entries to fix. BillK From benboc at lineone.net Thu May 4 18:40:32 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 19:40:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <445A4AA0.1010400@lineone.net> Jeff Davis wrote: > > I've sometimes pondered the mystery of the Methusaleh > story. How to explain? Pure biblical hoo hah? Myth? > Accounting irregularities? Or could it be an > accurate account of an anomalous (no doubt > genetically-mediated) incidence of superlongevity? > > It's a puzzlement. Hm. How likely is it that a mutation, or set of mutations, would produce a very-long-lived human? I'd think we'd know about it if it happened. Unless the individuals were very crafty. I suppose they'd have reason to be. Highlander, anyone? I'm inclined to doubt it. ben From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu May 4 19:40:11 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:40:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/06, BillK wrote: > Do a Google search on henson jupiter brain > > You only have 61,000 entries to fix. Well I only get 58,600 so we are already getting there! At this rate we should be done by tomorrow. :-; Actually, if you limit it to Henson "Jupiter Brain" you only get 25 and some of those, e.g. [1] are correcting the association. Some of the other references are by people we know like Anders or Bruce Klein who could presumably be pursuaded to make corrections to the pages which have the errors. It is worth noting that while Keith is not the person responsible for "Jupiter Brain", he does appear to be the culprit(?) behind the "Far Edge Party" (aka "Far Side Party") if I believe Chapter 9 "Laissez le Bon Temps Rouler" in "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition". Robert 1. Anders for example gets it wrong here: http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Words/j.html I would bet that entry is the original source of the confusion. He does however manage to correct himself in Aug of '99 here: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:sTXrp055x0QJ:lists.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians.3Q99/2078.html+Henson+%22Jupiter+Brain%22&hl=en As Anders points out in that note the idea of planet-sized brains may have originated with Stapledon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu May 4 19:48:51 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:48:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging In-Reply-To: <445A4AA0.1010400@lineone.net> References: <445A4AA0.1010400@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 5/4/06, ben wrote: > > Hm. > How likely is it that a mutation, or set of mutations, would produce a > very-long-lived human? > I'd think we'd know about it if it happened. Unless the individuals were > very crafty. I suppose they'd have reason to be. > > Highlander, anyone? > Given evolutionary biology and the molecular mechanisms of aging it is very unlikely. My guess is that Jeanne Marie Calment got very lucky and has an optimal set of polymorphisms which reduced the rate of aging but did not stop it. That does not mean however that we cannot steal solutions which have evolved in other directions. The DNA double strand break repair machinery in some bacterial species, and in particular Deinococcus radiodurans, is quite different from that found in mammals and most eukaryotic cells. You should view aging & cancer as flip sides of the same coin -- they involve a variety of genes (potentially hundreds for both of them) and fixing them all isn't going to be trivial -- and it is highly unlikely that one would get there through natural evolutionary processes. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu May 4 19:16:24 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:16:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: <380-22006544191624651@M2W028.mail2web.com> From: Robert Bradbury > It is up to someone to provide the space & bandwidth to >make them available. It shouldn't be very much overhead in this day & age. >I suspect the entire list contents for the decade would fit on a CD (or at >worst a DVD). Robert, read the Strategic Plan. The archives are going to be put in the library and book if and when people who wrote posts prior to the date the list went public, give approval (see Amara's post and my reply). It would be great for you and 'gene to work with ExI and Mitch Porter in putting this together. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 4 21:10:29 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 17:10:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:45 PM 5/4/2006 -0500, you wrote: >On 5/4/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> >wrote: >>For example, I should not be credited for the idea of "Jupiter brains." > >You aren't in anything I'm responsible for. I researched this and Perry >agreed that he was probably the source though he was unsure if he heard it >from another source. (Though many of the references may not work and need >to be relinked, you can get the gist of the history from [1].) The >Wikipedia entry also doesn't have your name attached... So you can rest >easy Keith :-). Sure. Results 1 - 10 of about 31 for "keith henson" jupiter "that nanomachines". I think my contribution to that thread was a criticism that I have never seen answered. Namely that beyond a certain point, you get less from more since the amount of computation you can do goes up with the cube, but the clock rate has to go down because of speed of light delays. Beyond a size that isn't a lot larger than a human head, you are going to get a society of minds or one that thinks very slowly. But I have never seen an analysis with numbers in it. >Of perhaps greater concern than the private extropy list from the early >'90s may be the public list over the last decade or so. As I recall I >first encountered the public list sometime in late '96. So everything >since then should be available without having to obtain the permission of >the authors. > >What I particularly miss is the old archives (from mailman?) which I think >were maintained on lucifer.com. I suspect that >multiple people may have these archived. It is up to someone to provide >the space & bandwidth to make them available. It shouldn't be very much >overhead in this day & age. I suspect the entire list contents for the >decade would fit on a CD (or at worst a DVD). It probably is on a CD or DVD. Want me to ask David? Keith >Robert > >1. >http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/JupiterBrains/index.html > > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sentience at pobox.com Thu May 4 21:31:09 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 14:31:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <445A729D.2050100@pobox.com> Keith Henson wrote: > > Beyond a size that isn't a lot larger than a human head, you are going to > get a society of minds or one that thinks very slowly. But I have never > seen an analysis with numbers in it. Human axons transmit signals at half a millionth the speed of light. You ought to be able to build a brain two million times as wide and with four trillion times the cortical area, which thinks at the same clock rate as human neurons, even if you don't miniaturize anything and just speed up the axons. Admittedly, relative fanout will be smaller unless you miniaturize the axons. That is, each neuron will talk to a smaller fraction of the total other neurons, because volume available for axons goes up as the cube of diameter, but cortical area goes up as the square, and N^2 connections would go up as the fourth power. But each neuron could easily talk to a constant number of other neurons; or fanout could increase as the square root of the total number of neurons. And that's if you don't miniaturize the axons. I think we can get brains significantly huger than human with the same relative internal bandwidth. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu May 4 22:59:40 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 18:59:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22360fa10605040718n3d16853fwd92c6894c40d8adf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > Dear Heartland, > > I have been watching this exchange with interest, not for any expected > outcome, but with hope of better understanding the interaction and > possible resolution of incongruent models of reality. > > It seems you have just recently experienced an update of your model, > possibly as a result of the debate, and I wonder if you would do me > (us) the favor of describing this experience from your point of view. > > It seems to me this question is highly relevent to the Extropy list. > > Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request. > > - Jef I have been updating my model many times since 2001 when it occurred to me that minds are not information. (It's disappointing to see most people haven't updated their thinking to at least that stage.) Usually, an update is a result of me finding out some nonobvious inconsistency with the theory. It begins with either a discussion of my theory on different boards or internal discussion. What happens during these discussions is that some people are on the right track but get stuck at some point and don't get the full picture of what I'm saying or people who don't get it at all. Most often the only thing that changes after these debates is the way I present the argument. New terms get introduced and their definitions get tweaked so that the audience can more easily grasp what is being said. For example, Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong but to show it was wrong I had to reexamine the essence of what the mind actually is. This internal examination lead me, in turn, to realize on my own that it is energy, not just activity of matter that is the true substance of the mind. And when you view Jeffrey's objection in light of the fact that mind process is an expression of energy, it should be clear why that objection breaks down because of conservation of energy law. And that's the mechanism that moves the theory forward. Criticism inspires reexamination of your most basic assumptions that sometimes leads to a new insight. But in order to gain any new insight one must be willing to reexamine his or her basic assumptions in the first place. There must be a commitment to finding the truth at the expense of personal feelings about the truth. Very often you *know* what the truth is long before you can consciously acknowledge it. There is definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths denial mechanism hides from you because it's an unconscious process. The only way to fight it is to commit to brutal criticism of your own ideas and willingness to open yourself to criticism of others. It is only logic that can defeat denial. So, in my case, it is constant questioning, "Does this concept really refer to a territory or just a map?" Or, as part of brutal criticism, you set up your own test cases *against* your own theory to see if it breaks down. And when it breaks down you correct the theory. As a result, this year my theory was *consciously* updated twice even though I *knew* the truth long before that. The updates were, "death is irreversible" and, most recently, "death happens often". Even though I realized these things on my own, the stimulus for conscious acknowledgment of these facts did come from people commenting on my theory on this board and elsewhere. Thanks for asking. S. From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Thu May 4 23:40:16 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504135232.GP26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060504234016.59705.qmail@web37515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This list will be capped at fifty subscribers so only a few messages a day, or week, will be posted. Anyway the list been in existence since last year and I'm not going to cancel it. Eugene Leitl: Loss of synergy. Recursive fragmentation into obscure tribalism. It's getting really hard to track which new community is where, and doing what. We're making lists just because we can. It's easy to splinter, but hard to unify. There's value in dedicated lists, but only if there's a specific focus. --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu May 4 23:57:51 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 19:57:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Lists Message-ID: <380-2200654423575158@M2W103.mail2web.com> Ned, Please watch the Subject line of threads. Please also start a new thread for your own specific email list which you are promoting. Thank you. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 00:10:33 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 20:10:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <44592701.8000109@pobox.com> <20060504124914.GJ26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: Heartland: > Cryonics preserves types of life, not > instances of life so I see no point in signing up for suspension. Is it > depressing > that death is irreversible? Of course it is, but it's true. Eugen: "While cryonics is not a safe bet (several critical factors are yet unknown) I wonder what makes you discard a distinct possibility. I presume you would reject general anaesthesia or artificial coma, too? Even if it would save your life, because it would be somebody else's life, not yours?" That's right. Life is a subjective experience of being in the present moment. Whenever an instance of that experience ends, this resulting state becomes functionally equivalent to a state of life before conception and after death (i.e., what is currently considered as "death"). In all these 3 states you experience nothing. This is the true essence of death. If my current instance ever reaches the death state I really don't care what happens next or if my type of mind gets instantiated again or not. As an instance I'm dead. As a good person I can only try to ensure that the next instance of SE based on my mind gets a better quality of experience then my current one so I would not reject general anesthesia because living with pain and suffering is pointless. The above statement is nothing more than an expression of my own meaning of life theory I developed few years ago which aims to optimize the *quality and quantity* of subjective experience. Trying to create best possible environment for future instances of SE enhances the quality of my current instance of SE because I would feel good about helping others, especially if others are the future instances of my mind. The only hope my current instance can have for immortality is definitely not cryonics, but that some entity in the future invents time machine that will go back and upload my current instance using Moravec Transfer. There's just no other way to do this. I expect that one of fundamental poshuman rights should be the right to maintain current instance of mind process. As of now, we, humans, are living in barbaric times. Death comes often and there's nothing we can do about it. And that makes me very sad. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 00:12:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 17:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060505001237.5809.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Heartland wrote: "...Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong..." Well, suit yourself, but I beg to differ :-) My impression is that you perhaps just don't fully understand what I'm saying. I take responsibility for that, and I'll keep trying to convey it in different, and hopefully more straightforward, ways. How did you arrive at the "death happens often" conclusion? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: > Dear Heartland, > > I have been watching this exchange with interest, not for any expected > outcome, but with hope of better understanding the interaction and > possible resolution of incongruent models of reality. > > It seems you have just recently experienced an update of your model, > possibly as a result of the debate, and I wonder if you would do me > (us) the favor of describing this experience from your point of view. > > It seems to me this question is highly relevent to the Extropy list. > > Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request. > > - Jef I have been updating my model many times since 2001 when it occurred to me that minds are not information. (It's disappointing to see most people haven't updated their thinking to at least that stage.) Usually, an update is a result of me finding out some nonobvious inconsistency with the theory. It begins with either a discussion of my theory on different boards or internal discussion. What happens during these discussions is that some people are on the right track but get stuck at some point and don't get the full picture of what I'm saying or people who don't get it at all. Most often the only thing that changes after these debates is the way I present the argument. New terms get introduced and their definitions get tweaked so that the audience can more easily grasp what is being said. For example, Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong but to show it was wrong I had to reexamine the essence of what the mind actually is. This internal examination lead me, in turn, to realize on my own that it is energy, not just activity of matter that is the true substance of the mind. And when you view Jeffrey's objection in light of the fact that mind process is an expression of energy, it should be clear why that objection breaks down because of conservation of energy law. And that's the mechanism that moves the theory forward. Criticism inspires reexamination of your most basic assumptions that sometimes leads to a new insight. But in order to gain any new insight one must be willing to reexamine his or her basic assumptions in the first place. There must be a commitment to finding the truth at the expense of personal feelings about the truth. Very often you *know* what the truth is long before you can consciously acknowledge it. There is definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths denial mechanism hides from you because it's an unconscious process. The only way to fight it is to commit to brutal criticism of your own ideas and willingness to open yourself to criticism of others. It is only logic that can defeat denial. So, in my case, it is constant questioning, "Does this concept really refer to a territory or just a map?" Or, as part of brutal criticism, you set up your own test cases *against* your own theory to see if it breaks down. And when it breaks down you correct the theory. As a result, this year my theory was *consciously* updated twice even though I *knew* the truth long before that. The updates were, "death is irreversible" and, most recently, "death happens often". Even though I realized these things on my own, the stimulus for conscious acknowledgment of these facts did come from people commenting on my theory on this board and elsewhere. Thanks for asking. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 00:30:10 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 20:30:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505001237.5809.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Heartland wrote: > "...Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong..." Jeffrey: > Well, suit yourself, but I beg to differ :-) > My impression is that you perhaps just don't fully understand what I'm saying. I > take responsibility for that, and I'll keep trying to convey it in different, and > hopefully more straightforward, ways. I think I understand what you are saying very well, but of course this might be just an illusion. What about my last post where I provided 2 different arguments for why mind process doesn't stop during a multiple of PI? You're not buying them? :) If so, then I wonder which parts you disagree with. > How did you arrive at the "death happens often" conclusion? Check my response to Eugen Leitl. S. From CHealey at unicom-inc.com Thu May 4 02:46:44 2006 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:46:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FA92B@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> > Heartland wrote: > > Of course not. The point is that if you have two > identical, but separate brains, this must add up > to two separate *instances* of one *type* of mind. > If you have any >experience in OOP, and I can't > imagine you don't, then you should know exactly > what I mean. Is forking an instance equivalent to type? I think not. From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 5 01:54:44 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 18:54:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605050154.k451sr3G013203@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:02 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future > > On 5/4/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > > > > On 5/4/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > For example, I should not be credited for the idea of "Jupiter > brains." > > Heh! :) > > Do a Google search on henson jupiter brain > > You only have 61,000 entries to fix. > > BillK Woohoo! I win. Google on spike jupiter brain: 153,000 hits! {8-] Uh oh, wait, I lose. Google on spike shit for brains: 234,000 hits. {8-[ spike Is Google the coolest thing to come along in recent memory, or what? {8-] From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 06:11:46 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 02:11:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FA92B@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Message-ID: >> Heartland wrote: >> Of course not. The point is that if you have two >> identical, but separate brains, this must add up >> to two separate *instances* of one *type* of mind. >> If you have any experience in OOP, and I can't >> imagine you don't, then you should know exactly >> what I mean. Christopher Healy: > Is forking an instance equivalent to type? I think not. Are you disagreeing with what seems to be your point? S. From anissimov at singinst.org Fri May 5 10:39:39 2006 From: anissimov at singinst.org (Michael Anissimov) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 03:39:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <445B2B6B.20501@singinst.org> Commentary on this important event: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog Thank you to Extropy Institute for introducing me to transhumanism. From alito at organicrobot.com Fri May 5 11:01:20 2006 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 21:01:20 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] was Re: ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future, but now tuned back to the usual program In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <1146826881.13392.244.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 17:10 -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > . > I think my contribution to that thread was a criticism that I have never > seen answered. Namely that beyond a certain point, you get less from more > since the amount of computation you can do goes up with the cube, but the > clock rate has to go down because of speed of light delays. > > Beyond a size that isn't a lot larger than a human head, you are going to > get a society of minds or one that thinks very slowly. But I have never > seen an analysis with numbers in it. Why would synchronicity of the clock determine the process identity? Chips already in commercial use have section-local clocks (P4 ALU runs at twice the speed of the rest of the chip) and there's design for clockless chips. Would a mind operating on those chips not be one mind but a society of minds? From natasha at natasha.cc Fri May 5 14:00:42 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 09:00:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <445B2B6B.20501@singinst.org> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <445B2B6B.20501@singinst.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060505085742.04e7e160@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Thank you Michael, One very big correct, and a couple of tid-bits: First, the VP Summit was in 2004, not 2001. Second, ExI had a follow up summit in 2005 to crystallize ideas, and lastly ExI website was totally overhauled in 2005. Just a few things that we did, but I believe these things are important to note. Best wishes, Natasha At 05:39 AM 5/5/2006, you wrote: >Commentary on this important event: > >http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog > >Thank you to Extropy Institute for introducing me to transhumanism. >_______________________________________________ >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 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 14:07:41 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 07:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Me: "How did you arrive at the "death happens often" conclusion?" Heartland: "Check my response to Eugen Leitl." Well, I did check your response to Eugen Leitl. That's not really an explanation. Saying that you will die when you die doesn't really explain anything. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 13:41:58 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 06:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060505134158.33697.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Heartland wrote: "I don't agree with this assertion. Mind process is powered by energy and that energy is being conserved during ~10^29 Planck Intervals. It's like you throw a ball upwards. Just because a ball becomes still at the highest point doesn't mean that during this time frame the energy that will force the movement of the ball downwards disappears." Plenty of *non-mind* processes are also powered by energy. Energy exchange is not the exclusive property of a mind. The energy of a tomato is also conserved during ~10^29 Planck Intervals. I never claimed that any energy "disappears". Energy is no doubt a component of the mind, but energy is also a component of *any* piece of matter. However, there is plenty of evidence that the human mind will cease in the absence of neuronal electrical discharges (which occur roughly only once every 10^29 Planck Intervals, in a normal brain), even while the life-support chemistry continues unabated. If you inject a syringe full of human neurotransmitters into a living tomato, the smart money says it is not going to become a mind. :-) Furthermore, you could theoretically "add" lots of extra neurotransmitters to the synaptic spaces of a medically deactivated human brain, and even with this new surplus the electrical discharges will not resume, until the patient revives by other means. Heartland: "Besides, mind process necessarily consists of many consecutive brain states (any shorter chain of states would be just a non-mind process) each one taking longer than ~10^29 Planck Intervals. You can't declare mind process absent by considering arbitrary time frames like PI. My whole argument occurs in 4D, not 3D where t=0. Mind process is an *object in time*." ~10^29 Planck Intervals is *not* a *single* "brain state". I've already explained that ~10^29 Planck Intervals represents a *span* of real time, in "motion". A *single* "brain state" would be represented by 1 Planck Interval... not ~10^29 of them. A physical *change* in the brain will occur within the passage of a only a few Planck Intervals. Therefore, a huge number of physical changes will occur within ~10^29 Planck Intervals. My argument has never been anything but "4-D". Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Jeffrey: "But as I said before, trajectory does not effect the functionality of any atom. Lets say I'm doing an open-skull surgery on a living, conscious human brain. I decide to remove a Carbon atom from a neuronal membrane. I can then insert *any* Carbon atom from my handy supply of Carbon atoms. It won't effect the functionality of that membrane in the slightest bit. The trajectory of an atom is a *byproduct* of the atoms existence and function; it doesn't give that atom any special properties, none. Trajectory from the past doesn't "run" a mind, real-time atoms do." I think we've addressed this issue before. Trajectories "don't run the mind." I don't think I ever said that. What I said was that trajectories give an objective observer the ability to distinguish between instances. That's it. They are only measurements of location of matter, nothing else. I'm not sure, but maybe you are confusing "trajectory" with "mind object". Perhaps a closer inspection of the definition of mind object I gave recently will be helpful. I said: "Mind object consists of all matter but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in energy exchanges that produce the mind (e.g. electrons streaming down synapses). Brain object consists of all nonessential matter that merely "contains" that energy exchange process (e.g. atoms of brain tissue)." So mind object consists of *only* that matter which is *presently and actively* involved in producing the mind. So, if you exchange one instance of matter for another, the old instance no longer makes up mind object and so, accordingly, trajectory of mind object no longer includes the trajectory of that old instance of matter. Jeffrey: "Consider this, Heartland. During ~10^29 Planck Intervals when no neurons are discharging, the "mind-process" is absent." I don't agree with this assertion. Mind process is powered by energy and that energy is being conserved during ~10^29 Planck Intervals. It's like you throw a ball upwards. Just because a ball becomes still at the highest point doesn't mean that during this time frame the energy that will force the movement of the ball downwards disappears. Besides, mind process necessarily consists of many consecutive brain states (any shorter chain of states would be just a non-mind process) each one taking longer than ~10^29 Planck Intervals. You can't declare mind process absent by considering arbitrary time frames like PI. My whole argument occurs in 4D, not 3D where t=0. Mind process is an *object in time*. Finally, Jeffrey, let me end this response with a surprising and depressing thought. You have been correct. It occurred to me very recently that we are really dying; not constantly, but "from time to time." Funny thing is that I reluctantly reached this conclusion using completely different reasoning from yours, based instead on my own argument justifying the "death occurs when mind process stops" part (i.e., the remaining part of my argument you disagree with). We are dying for a different reason but our present subjective experience is indeed a copy's illusion. I hate this. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 5 16:14:29 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 18:14:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10605040718n3d16853fwd92c6894c40d8adf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060505161428.GD26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:59:40PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > I have been updating my model many times since 2001 when it occurred to me that > minds are not information. (It's disappointing to see most people haven't updated It depends what your definition is (this is why I don't use the word mind, nor consciousness, nor similiar portmanteaus). Would you agree that a mind is a physical process, which happens to process information? So you only have to look at those relevant aspects of the physical system engaged in the abovementioned process, and can abstract away anything else? > their thinking to at least that stage.) Usually, an update is a result of me > finding out some nonobvious inconsistency with the theory. It begins with either a > discussion of my theory on different boards or internal discussion. What happens > during these discussions is that some people are on the right track but get stuck > at some point and don't get the full picture of what I'm saying or people who don't > get it at all. Most often the only thing that changes after these debates is the Are you sure that you're always getting of what other people are saying? No offense, but you were still arguing with yourself when I unsubscribed, and you don't seem to have made any progress since. > way I present the argument. New terms get introduced and their definitions get > tweaked so that the audience can more easily grasp what is being said. For example, > Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong but to show it was I don't see why you would invoke Planck timescale for what happens in the brain, unless for a gedanken (which is always dangerous, because people will take you literally). Not much relevent happens in the brain significantly under 1 ms time scale, and subjectively the biochronon is at 50 ms, or larger, depending on how complex stimulus processing is. > wrong I had to reexamine the essence of what the mind actually is. This internal > examination lead me, in turn, to realize on my own that it is energy, not just > activity of matter that is the true substance of the mind. And when you view Now you're picking some arbitrarily single characteristic of a physical process, and declare it to be the only thing what matters. On basis of which evidence? Declaring that mind is energy is about as meaningfull as declaring that mind is information. Or that the mind is a future predictor. None of it is completely wrong, but perhaps the blind men shouldn let go of the nose hairs of the trunk, and look at the whole animal. > Jeffrey's objection in light of the fact that mind process is an expression of > energy, it should be clear why that objection breaks down because of conservation > of energy law. And that's the mechanism that moves the theory forward. Criticism Huh? > inspires reexamination of your most basic assumptions that sometimes leads to a new > insight. Or maybe just an illusion of a new insight. You sound awfully sure, and awfully confused at the same time, this time. Are you realy sure you're making any progress when you're switching point of views? For an external observer, it looks like a random walk in concept space. > But in order to gain any new insight one must be willing to reexamine his or her > basic assumptions in the first place. There must be a commitment to finding the If you model the mind as a physical process, there's not much you can reexamine without leaving the domain of science. > truth at the expense of personal feelings about the truth. Very often you *know* > what the truth is long before you can consciously acknowledge it. There is Huh? > definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's > ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths You sound like a psychologist. This won't lead you anywhere. You need to be at least psychophysics-level tall to ride this ride. > denial mechanism hides from you because it's an unconscious process. The only way > to fight it is to commit to brutal criticism of your own ideas and willingness to > open yourself to criticism of others. It is only logic that can defeat denial. So, > in my case, it is constant questioning, "Does this concept really refer to a > territory or just a map?" Or, as part of brutal criticism, you set up your own test > cases *against* your own theory to see if it breaks down. And when it breaks down > you correct the theory. There's no need to get lost on the metalayer meanderings, when the issues are completely treatable with good old science and technology. > As a result, this year my theory was *consciously* updated twice even though I > *knew* the truth long before that. The updates were, "death is irreversible" and, What is death? You better define it first, because most people don't know what death is. (Death being irreversible is quite true, because it's the definition of death -- irreversible loss of knowledge about a particular physical process). > most recently, "death happens often". Even though I realized these things on my > own, the stimulus for conscious acknowledgment of these facts did come from people > commenting on my theory on this board and elsewhere. > > Thanks for asking. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From CHealey at unicom-inc.com Fri May 5 16:15:24 2006 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FAA40@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> > Chris Healey wrote: > > In troubleshooting complex systems, what appears to be the problem is > often really just the symptom of a deeper cause. In a similar way, we > should be careful that what appears to be an important structure in our > model of the mind is not just a surface indication of a deeper process > at work, a process that may work very differently than its surface > indications suggest. Heartland, Another point of my last paragraph is in regards to the definitions we use in uncovering truth. Whatever we *call* the things we describe, they are only labels, and ultimately labels shouldn't alter the measurable predictions we achieve. In doing what human minds do, they may occasionally, or even very often, do things that you label as dying. Some of those things could just as easily be labeled: operating as designed, system hibernation, or plain old "being alive". If it seems like we're dying an awful lot, but nobody seems to mind much, it's stronger evidence in support of revising our models, rather than revising our behavior. -Chris From jonkc at att.net Fri May 5 16:25:44 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:25:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> A B (Jeffrey Herrlich) Wrote: > Hi Heartland, > Saying that you will die when you die doesn't really explain anything. Yes, "you die when you die" really doesn't cut it, I had a similar problem with Heartland so he expanded on his answer and explained that the original is the original and the copy is the copy. In the post after that he told me that A is A and B is B. I still wasn't quite convinced he was right but then in yet another post said F is F and G is G, and suddenly it all clicked. John K Clark From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 17:48:36 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 10:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FAA40@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Message-ID: <20060505174836.28778.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Chris, Chris wrote: "If it seems like we're dying an awful lot, but nobody seems to mind much, it's stronger evidence in support of revising our models, rather than revising our behavior." Yes, I agree with the above. Heartland, if you believe as I do, that our subjective lives are a "copy's illusion",then *why not* sign up for cryonics? Or, allow anesthesia? If you can be revived in the future, then your continuing subjective experience will be no less satisfying than what you are experiencing at this moment. The major difference is that you would most likely be unimaginably more capable and happy after revival. Isn't that worth "surviving" via cryonics, if it is necessary? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Christopher Healey wrote: > Chris Healey wrote: > > In troubleshooting complex systems, what appears to be the problem is > often really just the symptom of a deeper cause. In a similar way, we > should be careful that what appears to be an important structure in our > model of the mind is not just a surface indication of a deeper process > at work, a process that may work very differently than its surface > indications suggest. Heartland, Another point of my last paragraph is in regards to the definitions we use in uncovering truth. Whatever we *call* the things we describe, they are only labels, and ultimately labels shouldn't alter the measurable predictions we achieve. In doing what human minds do, they may occasionally, or even very often, do things that you label as dying. Some of those things could just as easily be labeled: operating as designed, system hibernation, or plain old "being alive". If it seems like we're dying an awful lot, but nobody seems to mind much, it's stronger evidence in support of revising our models, rather than revising our behavior. -Chris _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Fri May 5 17:52:46 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:52:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <049001c6706c$d2d5e590$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > it occurred to me that minds are not information. It's true, minds are not information, at least that's not all they are; to make a mind you also need matter and energy. However atoms and energy are generic so they can't give us originality so it must be the information; if it's not information then it must be the soul just like the TV evangelists say. But I'm not a big fan of TV evangelists so I don't believe in souls. > Life is a subjective experience OK. >of being in the present moment. Redundant. "The present moment" is subjective. > Whenever an instance of that experience ends Let's change the word "ends" to "stops". > this resulting state becomes [..] what is currently considered as "death" That is a contradiction. If a mind objectively stops for a million years and then starts up again right where it left off what does it matter to the mind? You and I both agree that subjectivity is what's all important and subjectively nothing has stopped at all, his mind has been sailing along continuously without a hitch, the only thing he may notice is that the external world has made a very sudden jump, but that's the world's problem not his. >"Mind object consists of all matter but only that matter which is presently > and actively involved in energy exchanges that produce the mind > (e.g. electrons streaming down synapses). The only thing worse than trying to give individuality to atoms is trying to give individuality to electrons. > Brain object consists of all nonessential matter that merely "contains" > that energy exchange process You distinction between "brain object" and "mind objects" makes no sense. Zero. Far from being "nonessential" if that energy is not contained the mind will not work. And at the atomic level all interactions must involve an exchange process of some sort, an exchange of energy or charge or mass or spin. And if it doesn't involve an interaction there is no point in even talking about it. > our present subjective experience is indeed a copy's > llusion. I hate this. I don't see why you would hate this, I think it's wonderful. Your copy's "illusion" has served you very well your entire life, so I don't see why you'd suddenly become dissatisfied at the "illusion" your Cryonicly revived body produces. Put it another way, suppose just suppose tour subjective experience were NOT a copy's illusion, how would you be better off? For the life of me I can't think of any reason you would be. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 5 18:53:47 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 20:53:47 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <20060504124914.GJ26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060505185347.GS26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:10:33PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > That's right. Life is a subjective experience of being in the present moment. I don't know what you mean with this sentence, but since in your definition death is something we experience routinely it's certainly not death as we know it, Jim. > Whenever an instance of that experience ends, this resulting state becomes So basically you're into continuity. If you suspend your computer, and resume upon next day, it's an undead computer running zombie programs. If you go to sleep, and wake up tomorrow you're a zombie, too. Or do you make a distiction between flat-EEG lacunae and sleep? > functionally equivalent to a state of life before conception and after death (i.e., > what is currently considered as "death"). In all these 3 states you experience > nothing. This is the true essence of death. When I sleep (non-REM) I also experience nothing. That's not exactly death, though. > If my current instance ever reaches the death state I really don't care what > happens next or if my type of mind gets instantiated again or not. As an instance So basically if you're a zombie, I can kill you, and you wouldn't object? Or it wouldn't be you, but some zombie objecting? > I'm dead. As a > good person I can only try to ensure that the next instance of SE based on my mind > gets a better quality of experience then my current one so I would not reject > general anesthesia because living with pain and suffering is pointless. The above Wow. You *are* pretty extreme. If you're really into continuity religion nothing I say can change that. I can only hope you won't get hurt as a result of strange beliefs (similiarly as Jehowa's Witnesses reject blood transfusions, and thus have a much poorer survival prognosis in ER setting). > statement is nothing more than an expression of my own meaning of life theory I > developed few years ago which aims to optimize the *quality and quantity* of > subjective experience. Trying to create best possible environment for future Don't we all try to lead an interesting and fulfilling life? > instances of SE enhances the quality of my current instance of SE because I would > feel good about helping others, especially if others are the future instances of my > mind. I don't know what SE is, so I'm not understanding this sentence very well. So you seem to make a distinction between related spatiotemporal patterns, and unrelated one, treating both differently? If you would encounter a spacetime portal and would meet your future self, how would you treat yourself? > The only hope my current instance can have for immortality is definitely not > cryonics, but that some entity in the future invents time machine that will go back > and upload my current instance using Moravec Transfer. There's just no other way to But each individual neuron is being killed, so you're winding up with a self consisting of zombie neurons. You're just smoothly turning into a zombie, but you still wind up a zombie. No? > do this. > > I expect that one of fundamental poshuman rights should be the right to maintain > current instance of mind process. As of now, we, humans, are living in barbaric I presume this means that sentient processes should have a right to uninterrupted and unaltered (from an external observer position) execution. I agree that this is desirable. But what if e.g. for economical reasons, or because it constraints the rights of other sentient processes some alternation or discontinuation will be required? > times. Death comes often and there's nothing we can do about it. And that makes me > very sad. Yes, but it's only le petit mort. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri May 5 18:14:52 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:14:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] was Re: ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future, but now tuned back to the usual program In-Reply-To: <1146826881.13392.244.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <1146826881.13392.244.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <321D9901-D579-4175-B1FC-CA7637F7D33B@ceruleansystems.com> On May 5, 2006, at 4:01 AM, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > Why would synchronicity of the clock determine the process identity? > Chips already in commercial use have section-local clocks (P4 ALU runs > at twice the speed of the rest of the chip) and there's design for > clockless chips. Would a mind operating on those chips not be one > mind > but a society of minds? There is no meaningful reality to clock synchronicity, just a probabilistic presumption of synchronicity. This notion is such a pain that engineers frequently pretend that this is not true when they can get away with it (as a matter of probability). Latency bounds the complexity of problems that can be addressed in some amount of time with some probability of error. It is by convention that we classify "minds" along the boundaries of communication bottlenecks. There is nothing special about a particular arrangement that defines a mind beyond relatively low local latency. The defining latency could be re-defined at will. Some networks today have higher bandwidth and lower latency than single computers in yesteryear, but we do not call the networks single computers, though we could by many old standards. J. Andrew Rogers From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 19:17:34 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: <20060505161428.GD26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060505191734.71752.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Eugen, Eugen wrote: ..."I don't see why you would invoke Planck timescale for what happens in the brain, unless for a gedanken (which is always dangerous, because people will take you literally). Not much relevent happens in the brain significantly under 1 ms time scale, and subjectively the biochronon is at 50 ms, or larger, depending on how complex stimulus processing is."... Yes, it was not absolutely necessary for me to express the passage of time in Planck Intervals. Like yourself, I was aware that the "subjective moment" consisted of a humongous total number of Planck Intervals which far exceeded ~10^29 - a number that could be described just as validly in milliseconds. I chose Planck Intervals for the sake of simplifying my argument, because I was relating Time with neuronal discharges; because according to my calculation, approximately 10^29 Planck Intervals will elapse between the discharges of any two neurons (arbitrarily located anywhere in the brain). The total brain activity that would constitute the "subjective moment" would include far more discrete discharges than one or two, and hence, would occur over a far larger time span than 10^29 Planck Intervals - a time span perhaps better measured in milliseconds - but equally valid when described in Planck Intervals. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Eugen Leitl wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:59:40PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > I have been updating my model many times since 2001 when it occurred to me that > minds are not information. (It's disappointing to see most people haven't updated It depends what your definition is (this is why I don't use the word mind, nor consciousness, nor similiar portmanteaus). Would you agree that a mind is a physical process, which happens to process information? So you only have to look at those relevant aspects of the physical system engaged in the abovementioned process, and can abstract away anything else? > their thinking to at least that stage.) Usually, an update is a result of me > finding out some nonobvious inconsistency with the theory. It begins with either a > discussion of my theory on different boards or internal discussion. What happens > during these discussions is that some people are on the right track but get stuck > at some point and don't get the full picture of what I'm saying or people who don't > get it at all. Most often the only thing that changes after these debates is the Are you sure that you're always getting of what other people are saying? No offense, but you were still arguing with yourself when I unsubscribed, and you don't seem to have made any progress since. > way I present the argument. New terms get introduced and their definitions get > tweaked so that the audience can more easily grasp what is being said. For example, > Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong but to show it was I don't see why you would invoke Planck timescale for what happens in the brain, unless for a gedanken (which is always dangerous, because people will take you literally). Not much relevent happens in the brain significantly under 1 ms time scale, and subjectively the biochronon is at 50 ms, or larger, depending on how complex stimulus processing is. > wrong I had to reexamine the essence of what the mind actually is. This internal > examination lead me, in turn, to realize on my own that it is energy, not just > activity of matter that is the true substance of the mind. And when you view Now you're picking some arbitrarily single characteristic of a physical process, and declare it to be the only thing what matters. On basis of which evidence? Declaring that mind is energy is about as meaningfull as declaring that mind is information. Or that the mind is a future predictor. None of it is completely wrong, but perhaps the blind men shouldn let go of the nose hairs of the trunk, and look at the whole animal. > Jeffrey's objection in light of the fact that mind process is an expression of > energy, it should be clear why that objection breaks down because of conservation > of energy law. And that's the mechanism that moves the theory forward. Criticism Huh? > inspires reexamination of your most basic assumptions that sometimes leads to a new > insight. Or maybe just an illusion of a new insight. You sound awfully sure, and awfully confused at the same time, this time. Are you realy sure you're making any progress when you're switching point of views? For an external observer, it looks like a random walk in concept space. > But in order to gain any new insight one must be willing to reexamine his or her > basic assumptions in the first place. There must be a commitment to finding the If you model the mind as a physical process, there's not much you can reexamine without leaving the domain of science. > truth at the expense of personal feelings about the truth. Very often you *know* > what the truth is long before you can consciously acknowledge it. There is Huh? > definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's > ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths You sound like a psychologist. This won't lead you anywhere. You need to be at least psychophysics-level tall to ride this ride. > denial mechanism hides from you because it's an unconscious process. The only way > to fight it is to commit to brutal criticism of your own ideas and willingness to > open yourself to criticism of others. It is only logic that can defeat denial. So, > in my case, it is constant questioning, "Does this concept really refer to a > territory or just a map?" Or, as part of brutal criticism, you set up your own test > cases *against* your own theory to see if it breaks down. And when it breaks down > you correct the theory. There's no need to get lost on the metalayer meanderings, when the issues are completely treatable with good old science and technology. > As a result, this year my theory was *consciously* updated twice even though I > *knew* the truth long before that. The updates were, "death is irreversible" and, What is death? You better define it first, because most people don't know what death is. (Death being irreversible is quite true, because it's the definition of death -- irreversible loss of knowledge about a particular physical process). > most recently, "death happens often". Even though I realized these things on my > own, the stimulus for conscious acknowledgment of these facts did come from people > commenting on my theory on this board and elsewhere. > > Thanks for asking. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Fri May 5 20:36:17 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 22:36:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Video: "They are made out of meat" Message-ID: They are made out of meat! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-NAvPzdjj0&search=made%20out%20of%20meat ===================================================================== http://www.electricstory.com/stories/story.aspx?title=meat/meat They're Made Out of Meat From the collection Bears Discover Fire and Other Stories by Terry Bisson "They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "Meat. They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?" "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines." "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact." "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines." "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat." "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat." "Maybe they're like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage." "Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take long. Do you have any idea what's the life span of meat?" "Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside." "Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through." "No brain?" "Oh, there's a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat! That's what I've been trying to tell you." "So . . . what does the thinking?" "You're not understanding, are you? You're refusing to deal with what I'm telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat." "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!" "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?" "Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat." "Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years." "Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?" "First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, swap ideas and information. The usual." "We're supposed to talk to meat." "That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there? Anybody home?' That sort of thing." "They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?" "Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat." "I thought you just told me they used radio." "They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat." "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?" "Officially or unofficially?" "Both." "Officially, we are required to contact, welcome, and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear, or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing." "I was hoping you would say that." "It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?" "I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?" "Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they can only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact." "So we just pretend there's no one home in the Universe." "That's it." "Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You're sure they won't remember?" "They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them." "A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream." "And we marked the entire sector unoccupied." "Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?" "Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen-core cluster intelligence in a class-nine star in G445 zone was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again." "They always come around." "And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe would be if one were all alone . . . " -- ******************************************************************** 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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 5 20:57:41 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 16:57:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Video: They are made out of meat Message-ID: <380-22006555205741140@M2W013.mail2web.com> From: Amara Graps They are made out of meat! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-NAvPzdjj0&search=made%20out%20of%20meat Beautiful Amara! A refreshing read. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 21:18:55 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 17:18:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: >A B (Jeffrey Herrlich) Wrote: > >> Hi Heartland, >> Saying that you will die when you die doesn't really explain anything. Clark: > Yes, "you die when you die" really doesn't cut it, I had a similar problem > with Heartland so he expanded on his answer and explained that the original > is the original and the copy is the copy. In the post after that he told me > that A is A and B is B. I still wasn't quite convinced he was right but then > in yet another post said F is F and G is G, and suddenly it all clicked. Hey, I'm doing my best. I have no control over how people interpret my answers or if they understand what I'm saying. If I had an hour of face time with someone who *thinks* he's got a good argument against mine I could probably convince him, assuming I would be dealing with a rational person. I didn't say that "you die when you die." Why would you put your interpretation in quotes and imply that this is what I said? But you, Mr. Clark, haven't played fair from the beginning (insults, straw man after straw man) so why should you change your tactic now? I didn't expect anything else. But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail of an idea to have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to taking a principle and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? Instance is not a type. Activity is not information. Mind is not a brain. Would it be really so evil if I asked you or anyone else to think about these principles for a week, month or a year before challenging the conclusions that logically derive from these principles? S. From CHealey at unicom-inc.com Fri May 5 15:38:10 2006 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:38:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FAA37@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> >>> Heartland wrote: >>> Of course not. The point is that if you have two >>> identical, but separate brains, this must add up >>> to two separate *instances* of one *type* of mind. >>> If you have any experience in OOP, and I can't >>> imagine you don't, then you should know exactly >>> what I mean. > >Christopher Healy: >> Is forking an instance equivalent to type? I think not. > >Are you disagreeing with what seems to be your point? > >S. My point is that this seems like saying identical twins are really just two separate instances of type HumanBeing. Well, yeah! But it fails to capture the important distinction, and perhaps even subtly diverts attention from it: A particular instance possesses a higher amount of information content than a type, because in further constraining the realm of possibility, additional specification is always required. When forking a particular instance, all *specific* state information, as well as the type structure is preserved. To reduce the situation to a type comparison misses this deeper equivalence between the source and target instances. Jumping off this specific point, I don't think that this whole problem can be solved while simultaneously maintaining our current notions of identity. If we want to make useful progress on it, we need to put aside many of our deeply embedded notions regarding our everyday experience of life. We can't start off saying, "That cannot be the answer, for that would lead to the death of the mind!" We should instead simply say, "How does this thing we perceive as mind actually operate?" In troubleshooting complex systems, what appears to be the problem is often really just the symptom of a deeper cause. In a similar way, we should be careful that what appears to be an important structure in our model of the mind is not just a surface indication of a deeper process at work, a process that may work very differently than its surface indications suggest. -Chris Healey From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 22:10:50 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 18:10:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: > "How did you arrive at the "death happens often" conclusion?" Heartland: > "Check my response to Eugen Leitl." Jeffrey: "Well, I did check your response to Eugen Leitl. That's not really an explanation. Saying that you will die when you die doesn't really explain anything." That's not what I said. What I said was that the state of subjective experience that might occur during a lifetime of mind type (general anesthesia) would be functionally equivalent to state of subjective experience before conception and the state when the brain rots in the grave. What all these 3 states have in common is an absence of the part of mind process that creates subjective experience. But to realize that death should always be defined only as the absence of subjective experience, one must first understand that the essence of life is the presence of subjective experience. If all of this doesn't ring true intuitively, think about this. Let's say you are under general anesthesia, but not just for few hours, but forever. From perspective of life, wouldn't that be equivalent to a situation where the brain disintegrates in the grave or where the brain never existed at all? S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 21:41:05 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: <20060505185347.GS26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060505214105.59826.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Eugen, Eugen wrote: ..."Or do you make a distiction between flat-EEG lacunae and sleep?"... Generally speaking, there is a distinction. A brain is actually quite electrically active during sleep (over relevantly large time frames of course). Eugen: ..."When I sleep (non-REM) I also experience nothing."... My other arguments withstanding, I believe the brain retains some electrical activity during all phases of sleep, when viewed over the relevantly long time frames. So in my view, the "old" you is experiencing nothing because he is deceased, but the "copied" you does not experience nothing in the sense you are referring to. IOW, as it is commonly interpreted "you" will never experience true nothingness unless your brain is physically destroyed and incapable of supporting a conscious mind at a later time. Although, if viewed from my perspective, in reality the "you" of yesterday is experiencing nothingness, and the individual you are now is an imperfect copy who will very soon be replaced (I still can't say precisely how long this is - very complicated). Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Eugen Leitl wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:10:33PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > That's right. Life is a subjective experience of being in the present moment. I don't know what you mean with this sentence, but since in your definition death is something we experience routinely it's certainly not death as we know it, Jim. > Whenever an instance of that experience ends, this resulting state becomes So basically you're into continuity. If you suspend your computer, and resume upon next day, it's an undead computer running zombie programs. If you go to sleep, and wake up tomorrow you're a zombie, too. Or do you make a distiction between flat-EEG lacunae and sleep? > functionally equivalent to a state of life before conception and after death (i.e., > what is currently considered as "death"). In all these 3 states you experience > nothing. This is the true essence of death. When I sleep (non-REM) I also experience nothing. That's not exactly death, though. > If my current instance ever reaches the death state I really don't care what > happens next or if my type of mind gets instantiated again or not. As an instance So basically if you're a zombie, I can kill you, and you wouldn't object? Or it wouldn't be you, but some zombie objecting? > I'm dead. As a > good person I can only try to ensure that the next instance of SE based on my mind > gets a better quality of experience then my current one so I would not reject > general anesthesia because living with pain and suffering is pointless. The above Wow. You *are* pretty extreme. If you're really into continuity religion nothing I say can change that. I can only hope you won't get hurt as a result of strange beliefs (similiarly as Jehowa's Witnesses reject blood transfusions, and thus have a much poorer survival prognosis in ER setting). > statement is nothing more than an expression of my own meaning of life theory I > developed few years ago which aims to optimize the *quality and quantity* of > subjective experience. Trying to create best possible environment for future Don't we all try to lead an interesting and fulfilling life? > instances of SE enhances the quality of my current instance of SE because I would > feel good about helping others, especially if others are the future instances of my > mind. I don't know what SE is, so I'm not understanding this sentence very well. So you seem to make a distinction between related spatiotemporal patterns, and unrelated one, treating both differently? If you would encounter a spacetime portal and would meet your future self, how would you treat yourself? > The only hope my current instance can have for immortality is definitely not > cryonics, but that some entity in the future invents time machine that will go back > and upload my current instance using Moravec Transfer. There's just no other way to But each individual neuron is being killed, so you're winding up with a self consisting of zombie neurons. You're just smoothly turning into a zombie, but you still wind up a zombie. No? > do this. > > I expect that one of fundamental poshuman rights should be the right to maintain > current instance of mind process. As of now, we, humans, are living in barbaric I presume this means that sentient processes should have a right to uninterrupted and unaltered (from an external observer position) execution. I agree that this is desirable. But what if e.g. for economical reasons, or because it constraints the rights of other sentient processes some alternation or discontinuation will be required? > times. Death comes often and there's nothing we can do about it. And that makes me > very sad. Yes, but it's only le petit mort. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 21:58:26 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060505215826.83361.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I didn't mean to upset you. Believe me, I understand how it feels to present a strange or counter-intuitive argument. When many people begin to analyze or criticize your argument simultaneously, it can give you a feeling of being hounded or attacked. But, for your part, when you present an idea that goes against the grain, especially to a strongly science oriented group, you should *expect* a great deal of fine scrutiny. I expect the same thing for my very strange argument, and in fact I encourage it. The more constructive criticism I receive the better - it will either lead to a strengthening of my case or a weakening. If mine is an idea that should die, I'll let it die. I've largely refrained from any personal attacks, but I've tried to have a little fun with you on occasion. I'm sorry, if it led to a bad impression. Regarding the: ... you will die when you die ... comment. For the record, I didn't put it in quotations, and I didn't mean to imply those were your words. I expected anyone interested who read it, also read the full original. I think John was making a direct quotation of my summary and was not implying a quotation by you. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: >A B (Jeffrey Herrlich) Wrote: > >> Hi Heartland, >> Saying that you will die when you die doesn't really explain anything. Clark: > Yes, "you die when you die" really doesn't cut it, I had a similar problem > with Heartland so he expanded on his answer and explained that the original > is the original and the copy is the copy. In the post after that he told me > that A is A and B is B. I still wasn't quite convinced he was right but then > in yet another post said F is F and G is G, and suddenly it all clicked. Hey, I'm doing my best. I have no control over how people interpret my answers or if they understand what I'm saying. If I had an hour of face time with someone who *thinks* he's got a good argument against mine I could probably convince him, assuming I would be dealing with a rational person. I didn't say that "you die when you die." Why would you put your interpretation in quotes and imply that this is what I said? But you, Mr. Clark, haven't played fair from the beginning (insults, straw man after straw man) so why should you change your tactic now? I didn't expect anything else. But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail of an idea to have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to taking a principle and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? Instance is not a type. Activity is not information. Mind is not a brain. Would it be really so evil if I asked you or anyone else to think about these principles for a week, month or a year before challenging the conclusions that logically derive from these principles? S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 23:07:46 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:07:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FAA37@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Message-ID: Heartland: >>>> Of course not. The point is that if you have two >>>> identical, but separate brains, this must add up >>>> to two separate *instances* of one *type* of mind. >>>> If you have any experience in OOP, and I can't >>>> imagine you don't, then you should know exactly >>>> what I mean. Christopher Healey: >>> Is forking an instance equivalent to type? I think not. Heartland: >>Are you disagreeing with what seems to be your point? Christopher Healey: > My point is that this seems like saying identical twins are really just > two separate instances of type HumanBeing. Well, yeah! > > But it fails to capture the important distinction, and perhaps even > subtly diverts attention from it: A particular instance possesses a > higher amount of information content than a type, because in further > constraining the realm of possibility, additional specification is > always required. When forking a particular instance, all *specific* > state information, as well as the type structure is preserved. To > reduce the situation to a type comparison misses this deeper equivalence > between the source and target instances. Christopher, I suppose you joined this discussion late so let me reiterate my point. Type is an abstract concept and is fundamentally different from a concept of an instance of that type. I may be wrong but it seems to me that you agree with this. But if that's the case, even though what you say above is true, I think the conclusion is true for a different and more important reason, namely, that activity is the only sufficient representation of itself, meaning that no amount of information can ever be equivalent to activity. Type is information. Instance is an activity. No amount of information can preserve an instance of mind process. Type does not preserve instance. Cryonics preserves only type. Christopher Healey: > Jumping off this specific point, I don't think that this whole problem > can be solved while simultaneously maintaining our current notions of > identity. Yes. IMO, identity should be defined as the unique space-time trajectory of an instance of subjective experience. Last time I checked, this definition is still pretty far from the mainstream. :) Christopher Healey: > If we want to make useful progress on it, we need to put aside many of > our deeply embedded notions regarding our everyday experience of life. > We can't start off saying, "That cannot be the answer, for that would > lead to the death of the mind!" We should instead simply say, "How does > this thing we perceive as mind actually operate?" Yes. Christopher Healey: > In troubleshooting complex systems, what appears to be the problem is > often really just the symptom of a deeper cause. In a similar way, we > should be careful that what appears to be an important structure in our > model of the mind is not just a surface indication of a deeper process > at work, a process that may work very differently than its surface > indications suggest. I'm constantly aware of that, Christopher. Thanks. S. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri May 5 22:41:19 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 15:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060505224119.94111.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Heartland wrote: > Instance is not a type. Activity is > not information. Mind is not a brain. Would it be > really so evil if I asked you or > anyone else to think about these principles for a > week, month or a year before > challenging the conclusions that logically derive > from these principles? I would tend to agree with you, Heartland. A person's state of mind and subjective experience is colored and enriched by the action of numerous factors that lay outside of the brain. For example, constant action potentials from nerve endings throughout the body and hormonal stimulation from glands such as the gonads and the adrenals. If you just took my memories (information content) and loaded them onto a unix box, the lifeless simulacrum of me you would obtain would resemble the real me as much as a midi rendition of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" resembles the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra's version. Especially if you "mind captured" me on a bad day which would presumably be the case in cryonics as few people would volunteer to be frozen down in the midst of having the time of their life. So the "me" that you managed to recover would probably be in a pretty pissy mood or perhaps even in great anguish. In fact, without "happy hormones" to change my frame of mind, I might be stuck in asshole mode permanently. Of course for some people, that may not be a big change. ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri May 5 23:48:52 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 16:48:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain.) In-Reply-To: References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <467A2881-240B-4E70-AC1F-B4D6EF898B1B@ceruleansystems.com> On May 5, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Heartland wrote: > But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail > of an idea to > have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to > taking a principle > and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? The problem is that you do not make sense, and there is no clear logic to your conclusion. Many people have observed this so maybe, just maybe, it is not them and it really is you. At the very least you are not constructing a coherent argument, so let me help you out. In your arguments, you will do things such as stating that you "agree" with another poster on some point, and then proceed with some explanation that seems to logically contradict the very thing you just said you agreed with. And you've done it repeatedly. You also are repeatedly apparently failing to grok points of fundamental theory, and argue against them by couching your arguments in definition-free hand-waving that does not mean anything to anyone. What you are doing is not working, and for the obvious (to everyone else) reasons I've stated above among others. To get to the bottom of this and save us all a lot of time, you basically need to a RIGOROUS and STRICT construction of your argument: - Define, in as strict terms as possible, the basic concepts you are using (e.g. "brain","mind","die",etc) because without agreement on definitions, your logic is meaningless. Any basic concept that you do not define cannot be used in your argument, because there will be no established agreement on reasoning. Do not assume everyone is using the same definitions by default. - Specify, in as strict terms as possible, the assumptions that must be valid for your reasoning to be correct. Every conclusion is dependent on a range of assumed constraints for validity, and the applicability of the argument to a specific case can be determined by the particular set of assumptions used. Even mathematics assumes certain axioms when proving theorems. - Show, in as strict terms as possible, how your conclusion can be derived logically step-by-step from the definitions and assumptions previously agreed upon. Don't assert it, prove it. If you do all this, in proper order, by the time the process is complete there is a very good probability that most people will be able to agree with your reasoning, or a very excellently specified flaw will be isolated that invalidates the argument. You will be challenged at each step, but that is the way strong arguments are constructed and how agreement on the terms of discussion are set. One way or another, this will all be settled in a sequence of narrow assertions that are much easier to evaluate than the big ball of wax. So start defining all the terms of your argument that are to be used. After everyone agrees on the definitions, we can move on to constraints and assumptions. After all this is done, the logic and reasoning will almost write themselves. I think you will find the audience here very open to arguments carefully constructed in this fashion. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 23:55:28 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:55:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505215826.83361.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: > I didn't mean to upset you. You didn't. Jeffrey: "When many people begin to analyze or criticize your argument simultaneously, it can give you a feeling of being hounded or attacked. But, for your part, when you present an idea that goes against the grain, especially to a strongly science oriented group, you should *expect* a great deal of fine scrutiny." I don't feel attacked. Am I annoyed? Maybe just a tiny little bit. More importantly, I've not seen a single challenge that threatened the logic of my argument, except yours. But that's not an "attack" but a part of constructive debate. Actually, your challenge even strengthened the logic of the argument. I appreciate your input. The annoying part is only when someone essentially tries to argue using the strategy of, "Oh, but that's too weird for me so this must be wrong" or "Look, I don't get it, so this must be wrong." It happens all the time. Jeffrey: "I expect the same thing for my very strange argument, and in fact I encourage it. The more constructive criticism I receive the better - it will either lead to a strengthening of my case or a weakening. If mine is an idea that should die, I'll let it die. I've largely refrained from any personal attacks, but I've tried to have a little fun with you on occasion. I'm sorry, if it led to a bad impression." No, that was response to John Clark. Jeffrey: "Regarding the: ... you will die when you die ... comment. For the record, I didn't put it in quotations, and I didn't mean to imply those were your words. I expected anyone interested who read it, also read the full original." Judging from replies under my quotes, most people don't really pay attention to what is actually being said. They just point out what's wrong with their false interpretation of the actual content. What else is new? :) Jeffrey: "I think John was making a direct quotation of my summary and was not implying a quotation by you." So you see how the rumor spreads? Please don't paraphrase in a form of assertion. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sat May 6 00:56:31 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 20:56:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain.) References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> <467A2881-240B-4E70-AC1F-B4D6EF898B1B@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: Heartland wrote: >> But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail >> of an idea to >> have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to >> taking a principle >> and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? J. Andrew Rogers: > The problem is that you do not make sense, and there is no clear > logic to your conclusion. Many people have observed this so maybe, > just maybe, it is not them and it really is you. Also, many people don't follow everything that is being said during this long thread where we discuss definitions, assertions and steps that lead to final conclusion. It's not my fault. You can't just jump in the middle of discussion and expect me to encapsulate the whole argument in each post. J. Andrew Rogers: > At the very least > you are not constructing a coherent argument, so let me help you > out. In your arguments, you will do things such as stating that you > "agree" with another poster on some point, and then proceed with some > explanation that seems to logically contradict the very thing you > just said you agreed with. And you've done it repeatedly. Please provide at least one example. J. Andrew Rogers: > - Define, in as strict terms as possible, the basic concepts you are > using (e.g. "brain","mind","die",etc) because without agreement on > definitions, your logic is meaningless. Any basic concept that you > do not define cannot be used in your argument, because there will be > no established agreement on reasoning. Do not assume everyone is > using the same definitions by default. > > - Specify, in as strict terms as possible, the assumptions that must > be valid for your reasoning to be correct. Every conclusion is > dependent on a range of assumed constraints for validity, and the > applicability of the argument to a specific case can be determined by > the particular set of assumptions used. Even mathematics assumes > certain axioms when proving theorems. > > - Show, in as strict terms as possible, how your conclusion can be > derived logically step-by-step from the definitions and assumptions > previously agreed upon. Don't assert it, prove it. I think I've already done all that (I know, it's not conveniently in one place) but it seems like you didn't find the argument sufficient. In the future I can only try to expand each step and assertion. I admit that after thinking about this for so long some things seem obvious in retrospect that I feel like they don't require explanation. S. From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat May 6 01:33:01 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 18:33:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain.) In-Reply-To: References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> <467A2881-240B-4E70-AC1F-B4D6EF898B1B@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <174E8E62-1A79-4223-82CA-7DD6F26B3B2E@ceruleansystems.com> On May 5, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Heartland wrote: > I think I've already done all that (I know, it's not conveniently > in one place) but > it seems like you didn't find the argument sufficient. Either you have not already done it, or your argument really was not sufficient. Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion right now. I do not appear to be alone in my impression. J. Andrew Rogers From max at maxmore.com Sat May 6 02:45:39 2006 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 21:45:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> Thank you for your words, Hal. As Natasha and Mitch have said, plans are afoot to preserve all the public material -- in fact to make it more available than ever before. As we work on this project, it would be very helpful to hear from List subscribers (especially you long-timers): which do you think are the best and most memorable discussions that have appeared on the List? Which discussions or individual posts should be included in any selection? Once the bulk of the existing material is online and searchable, we would like to go further, using more advanced tools and perhaps making the Extropy Library a repository that continues to build. Onward! Max Hal Finney wrote: > I want to congratulate Natasha, Max, and the rest of the Extropy > Institute board for taking this difficult but proactive step rather than > letting ExI and its related concepts just fade away as happens with > so many institutions. When the time has come to move on, recognizing > and accepting that fact is always difficult. But the world has changed > enormously since the 1980s when Max and Tom invented the idea of Extropy, > and even since the early 1990s when this mailing list was born in its > earlier incarnation. Ideas which at that time were considered too > outlandish even for science fiction are now debated regularly in the > corridors of power and on the front pages of major newspapers and other > opinion leaders. > > My main concern during this time of transition is that the history > of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme > unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember > today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy > with regard to list archives. As a result, much of that free-wheeling > discussion has been lost, an information exchange which many of us > remember as among the most dynamic and engaging we have ever encountered. > > It may never be possible to reconstruct and restore those lost archives, > but eventually the list policy changed, and we should make sure that > what remains is not lost. Not only list archives, but the working > papers and other documents produced by ExI over the years, should all > be preserved for future study and reference. It's possible that someday > this material will be seen as representing the birth of ideas which turn > out to be key to the further development of humanity. > > Making data available for an indefinite period into the future will > not happen automatically. It will take time and effort to make the > preparations, and funds will be needed as well. If there are things I > could do to help, I hope Natasha will feel free to ask, and I am sure > that most of the rest of us in the community feel the same way. > > Hal Finney > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From jonkc at att.net Sat May 6 04:15:34 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 00:15:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002501c670c3$c11880e0$46094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > I didn't say that "you die when you die." Why would you put your > interpretation in quotes and imply that this is what I said? It wasn't my interpretation, I was quoting what somebody else interpreted what you said, a pretty accurate one in my opinion too. And in my though experiment when I asked you to point to the original you dodged it and just said nothing changed, when I asked you again to point to the original you said the original is the original, when I asked again to point to the original you said A is A and B is B, when I asked you again to point to the original you said F is F and G is G. I confess I've forgotten what F and G was but I'm certain you were correct, F is F and G is indeed G. But you still couldn't point to the original. > But you, Mr. Clark, haven't played fair from the beginning (insults, > straw man after straw man) Yes, I insulted your ideas but they were so dumb they deserved to be insulted, but I never used straw men. You kept saying my contempt of your reverence for atoms was a straw man, but then you'd start talking about trajectories in space time again and we're right back at atoms. Even worse you'd start talking about atoms (and even electrons) having individuality. > What happened to taking a principle and extrapolating it to its logical > conclusion? That's what I did, and what I got was that when two calculators add 2 +2 and display the symbol "4" they don't mean the same thing, and down that path leads madness. > Mind is not a brain. Exactly! Mind and brain are two different things, one is an object and one is not, one is made of atoms and one is not, one is a noun and one is an adjective. So there is no reason in principle why one brain couldn't produce two minds, or two brains produce one mind. It's true that with Human Beings you generally have one brain for each mind but that is an accident of Evolutional history not a fundamental truth. > Would it be really so evil if I asked you or anyone else to think about > these principles for a week, month or a year before challenging the > conclusions that logically derive from these principles? Mr. Heartland I strongly suspect I have thought about these matters longer than you have, I know for a fact I've thought about them deeper. John K Clark From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sat May 6 05:08:43 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 01:08:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> <002501c670c3$c11880e0$46094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John Clark: > And in my though > experiment when I asked you to point to the original you dodged it and just > said nothing changed, when I asked you again to point to the original you > said the original is the original, when I asked again to point to the > original you said A is A and B is B, when I asked you again to point to the > original you said F is F and G is G. I confess I've forgotten what F and G > was but I'm certain you were correct, F is F and G is indeed G. But you > still couldn't point to the original. You ask me to point the original 3 times and when I do exactly what you want me to do, each time you scream that I dodged the question. So, regardless of anything I say or don't say, you win. So, congratulations on winning this argument. Can you please torture someone else now? Thanks. (BTW, F and G stand for trajectories of A and B. A crucial piece of information that you have conveniently "forgotten".) ;-) S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sat May 6 06:11:20 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 02:11:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <22360fa10605040718n3d16853fwd92c6894c40d8adf@mail.gmail.com> <20060505161428.GD26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen: "Would you agree that a mind is a physical process, which happens to process information? So you only have to look at those relevant aspects of the physical system engaged in the abovementioned process, and can abstract away anything else?" All the "relevant aspects" contain all that is required for a mind to exist and function, nothing else is necessary. Otherwise they would be "irrelevant". Eugen: "Are you sure that you're always getting of what other people are saying?" Not always. Eugen: "No offense, but you were still arguing with yourself when I unsubscribed, and you don't seem to have made any progress since." "Arguing with yourself?" What does it mean? If you define "progress" as my ability to understand more about the problem then yes, I've made progress. If you mean the ability to convey that understanding to others, then no, I haven't seen much progress. I'm more interested in the first than the second definition. Eugen: "Declaring that mind is energy is about as meaningfull as declaring that mind is information. Or that the mind is a future predictor. None of it is completely wrong, but perhaps the blind men shouldn let go of the nose hairs of the trunk, and look at the whole animal." Okay, so what does that "whole animal" look like according to you? Eugen: "Are you realy sure you're making any progress when you're switching point of views?" No, the point of view is the same. I just sometimes realize new things based on that view. Heartland: > definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's > ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths Eugen: "You sound like a psychologist. This won't lead you anywhere. You need to be at least psychophysics-level tall to ride this ride." Look, Jef Allbright asked me for *personal* perspective on how I make an update to my argument. What you are responding to are only my personal impressions of that process, that's all. I'm not proposing the theory of everything here. Relax. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sat May 6 06:18:39 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 02:18:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060504124914.GJ26713@leitl.org> <20060505185347.GS26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: Heartland: Death comes often and there's nothing we can do about it. Eugen: "Yes, but it's only le petit mort." Can you be "little" pregnant too? S. From CHealey at unicom-inc.com Fri May 5 18:24:22 2006 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:24:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542961B7B27@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> This post referenced another I had sent about 5 minutes previously. The original did not make it though, apparently, so I'm resending the original again now, below. -------------------------------------- >>> Heartland wrote: >>> Of course not. The point is that if you have two identical, but >>> separate brains, this must add up to two separate *instances* of one >>> *type* of mind. >>> If you have any experience in OOP, and I can't imagine you don't, >>> then you should know exactly what I mean. > >Christopher Healy: >> Is forking an instance equivalent to type? I think not. > >Are you disagreeing with what seems to be your point? > >S. My point is that this seems like saying identical twins are really just two separate instances of type HumanBeing. Well, yeah! But it fails to capture the important distinction, and perhaps even subtly diverts attention from it: A particular instance possesses a higher amount of information content than a type, because in further constraining the realm of possibility, additional specification is always required. When forking a particular instance, all *specific* state information, as well as the type structure is preserved. To reduce the situation to a type comparison misses this deeper equivalence between the source and target instances. Jumping off this specific point, I don't think that this whole problem can be solved while simultaneously maintaining our current notions of identity. If we want to make useful progress on it, we need to put aside many of our deeply embedded notions regarding our everyday experience of life. We can't start off saying, "That cannot be the answer, for that would lead to the death of the mind!" We should instead simply say, "How does this thing we perceive as mind actually operate?" In troubleshooting complex systems, what appears to be the problem is often really just the symptom of a deeper cause. In a similar way, we should be careful that what appears to be an important structure in our model of the mind is not just a surface indication of a deeper process at work, a process that may work very differently than its surface indications suggest. -Chris Healey -------------------------------------- [and this was the intended follow-up message, which was the only one to get through...] Heartland, Another point of my last paragraph is in regards to the definitions we use in uncovering truth. Whatever we *call* the things we describe, they are only labels, and ultimately labels shouldn't alter the measurable predictions we achieve. In doing what human minds do, they may occasionally, or even very often, do things that you label as dying. Some of those things could just as easily be labeled: operating as designed, system hibernation, or plain old "being alive". If it seems like we're dying an awful lot, but nobody seems to mind much, it's stronger evidence in support of revising our models, rather than revising our behavior. -Chris From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 6 16:18:09 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 12:18:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <1146826881.13392.244.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:01 PM 5/5/2006 +1000, you wrote: >On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 17:10 -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > > . > > I think my contribution to that thread was a criticism that I have never > > seen answered. Namely that beyond a certain point, you get less from more > > since the amount of computation you can do goes up with the cube, but the > > clock rate has to go down because of speed of light delays. > > > > Beyond a size that isn't a lot larger than a human head, you are going to > > get a society of minds or one that thinks very slowly. But I have never > > seen an analysis with numbers in it. > >Why would synchronicity of the clock determine the process identity? >Chips already in commercial use have section-local clocks (P4 ALU runs >at twice the speed of the rest of the chip) and there's design for >clockless chips. Would a mind operating on those chips not be one mind >but a society of minds? I have engaged in this discussion before and completely failed to convey what I consider to be the problem. It is probably tied up in my notion of "spirit," that is an entity you can interact with, time subjectivity and a grim understanding of engineering fundamentals that nanotech will *not* change. Assuming you can't get around the speed of light, imagine an AI mind spread out over a cubic light year. If a person operating at human speeds tries to interact with such a creature, they better have life extension because there is no way such a thing can respond to them quickly in a way that engages the far corners of its "mind." The same kind of problem shows up in the design of computer systems. That's why looking out from the CPU we have levels of cache memory (extremely fast), main memory (fast) and disk (really slow). The problems have become *worse,* not better, as CPU speeds go up. At some point depending on the maximum practical clock rate, far away memory or processing power becomes of low value for real time interactions. Sure there are special uses (SETI, folding) being made of processing power on distributed net connected computers, but can you imagine trying to implement an AI you could talk to that way? To put scaling numbers on this, consider a human mind as operating at about 1 TPS (thought per second), supported by processors that run at 100 Hz. Speed of light says it could be spread over perhaps .001 light second, huge, a million feet or 200 miles. Run the processor speed up to 100 GHz though and that size drops by 10 exp -9. At some point in the run up, you reach the point where there just isn't enough volume to stick in the parts, power the hardware and cool it. *As a guess* this is within an order of magnitude of 1 foot, which implies a speed up in thinking on the order of a million times. I seem to remember that Eric Drexler came to similar conclusions in EoC. I don't have time to search either my hard copy or on line, but maybe some reader could do that. We don't consider the speed of light often because for our thinking rate and planetary dimensions it close enough to zero delay. But for creatures thinking a million times as fast, it is going to be a problem. Keith Henson From jonkc at att.net Sat May 6 16:47:05 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:47:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer><002501c670c3$c11880e0$46094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002801c6712c$b8da6ce0$03084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > You ask me to point the original 3 times I think it was 4 times actually. > and when I do exactly what you want me to > do, each time you scream that I dodged the question. You NEVER did what I asked you to do, I asked is A the original or is B the original, and you informed me, as if you'd made a profound discovery, that the original is the original and A is A and B is B. Well thanks a bunch for that info buddy, but to this day you never said is A the original or is B the original like I asked about twelve posts ago. And that is what is called dodging the question. > BTW, F and G stand for trajectories of A and B. A crucial piece of > information that you have conveniently "forgotten". Oh yes, your famous trajectory made by a sacred atom that is unique and profoundly different from any other atom in the universe, yes, I can see why I've forgotten that. I must admit however that what you said was true, F=F and G=G, although it's not exactly higher mathematics. > Can you please torture someone else now? No, you're on the Extropian list, you can't post bilge and expect it to go unchallenged. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. John K Clark From exi at syzygy.com Sat May 6 17:31:54 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 6 May 2006 17:31:54 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> Keith: >Assuming you can't get around the speed of light, imagine an AI mind spread >out over a cubic light year. If a person operating at human speeds tries >to interact with such a creature, they better have life extension because >there is no way such a thing can respond to them quickly in a way that >engages the far corners of its "mind." While this is true, think about how much of that AI would really be needed to respond to a human: not very much. Suppose the AI operates as a collection of independent mind processes that are each spatially located to maintain local clock synchronization. They talk to each other over connections that become progressively less coordinated as the distance increases. The AI as a whole "changes it's mind" only very slowly, but local subunits can react quickly. I imagine such creatures would occasionally divide, with each portion competing for resources to grow again. If a set of such creatures is willing to form a corporate entity, does that turn it into a larger creature again? Hmmmmm..... -eric From starman2100 at cableone.net Sat May 6 17:19:45 2006 From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 10:19:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: <1146935985_79819@S1.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfj.eav at gmail.com Sat May 6 18:46:01 2006 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 13:46:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Life after Extropy.org Message-ID: <61c8738e0605061146o3ed1f577u2a3900f0f9aad4fe@mail.gmail.com> Over the last 4 months I have completed a HACCP Diploma course, the first of its kind in Canada, they say. As part of our course we took part in a Canadian Food Inspection Agency conference. At the end between finals and getting the diplomas I attended a conference called Improving Human Health at which the keynot speaker was the Global Head of Business Development for Bayer Cropscience. As well I note the shut-down of Extropy. >From these I have some observations: We are now in the quiet period where the Robin Hansens's , Ray Kurzweils, Aubrey-De-Gray's of the world and a thousand others are moving from small scale academia, and mom-pop businesses, and consultancies to engage the engine of change and take ownership of the delivery process to implement the Singularity. Yes, some fear like with agbiotech that the dog-in-the -mangers, luddites and such will derail a future before we can capture it and each personally surf the wave to an indeterminate lifespan etc. I sense that the "Black Projects" of the world are already well onstream and see the singularity as a beneficial thing. The problem is the 6.5 billlion people who are in varying stages from stone age to energy dependant high tech sophisticated person's still lack the mindset required to survive in a post-human singularity civilization. The 6.5 billion are one huge "omics" project from which will emerge the new species or should I say genesis of divergent life forms suited to each of the niches humanity is headed for. A borgian future is no doubt in store for some. That is simply a networked AI and 100,000 to 1,000,000 biological nodes in human flesh. The post singularity, in part will depend upon that which we do not know such as the universal limitations of matter and computation which most likely are just beyond the scope of our peception as we speak. Morris -- LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. 306-290-8734 Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com megao at sasktel.net, arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com extropian.pharmer at gmail.com Extreme Life-Extension ..."The most dangerous idea on earth" -Leon Kass , Bioethics Advisor to George Herbert Walker Bush, June 2005 Extropian Smoke Signals Waft Softly but Carry a big Schtick ... Morris Johnson - June 2005* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 6 19:17:42 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 14:17:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTS: Ubiq: A Mental Odyssey Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060506141537.02f7b500@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Ubiq: A Mental Odyssey "Marseilles-based artist Mathieu Briand works in various installation forms with computers, electronic music, robots and video technology to explore systems of stimulation, play and perception. His use of new technologies requires active participation and engagement, playing with the viewer's point of view and questioning the reality of his/her perceptions. Briand's extraordinary output engages users and mechanisms, technology and anarchy responding to informal movements in consumption, particularly techno or rave culture and the constant struggle to enhance everyday experience through technology." http://redcat.org/gallery/0506/briand.php Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sat May 6 19:49:39 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:49:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060506194939.25209.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I think the advice from J. Andrew Rogers is sound and helpful. I can say for myself that so far my own sub-arguments and illustrations have been somewhat sloppy and informal. I think that now would be a good opportunity for both of us to solidify our argument(s). It appears that you and I have reached essentially the same conclusion. The method by which we both reached this conclusion seems to be different, and without a doubt some of the details don't match up perfectly. However, it is my impression (and there is a chance that I am wrong) that at least some of the spectators and commentators to this thread have not rejected the principle of our shared conclusion: That our current subjective lives are a "copy's illusion", and previous "versions" of "ourselves" are now permanently deceased and "experience" nothingness. (Heartland, please correct me if you don't share this particular conclusion). Given that you and I (and possibly others) now roughly agree on the conclusion, I think that the exchanges between you and I (and possibly others) can take the form of a constructive collaboration, rather than a *pure* disagreement. The conclusion is in place, now it's time to formalize the premises and tidy up the structure, if this can be done. I think this idea is something that could definitely benefit from the participation of as many interested people on this list as possible. I've made this invitation before, but, I would like to extend it again: If any interested person on this list has evidence, or an argument that the above-mentioned conclusion is impossible or improbable, *please* share it with me/us. Condemning evidence or a strong counter-argument can reveal this idea as a dead horse, and could save us a lot of time and effort. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Heartland wrote: >> But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail >> of an idea to >> have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to >> taking a principle >> and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? J. Andrew Rogers: > The problem is that you do not make sense, and there is no clear > logic to your conclusion. Many people have observed this so maybe, > just maybe, it is not them and it really is you. Also, many people don't follow everything that is being said during this long thread where we discuss definitions, assertions and steps that lead to final conclusion. It's not my fault. You can't just jump in the middle of discussion and expect me to encapsulate the whole argument in each post. J. Andrew Rogers: > At the very least > you are not constructing a coherent argument, so let me help you > out. In your arguments, you will do things such as stating that you > "agree" with another poster on some point, and then proceed with some > explanation that seems to logically contradict the very thing you > just said you agreed with. And you've done it repeatedly. Please provide at least one example. J. Andrew Rogers: > - Define, in as strict terms as possible, the basic concepts you are > using (e.g. "brain","mind","die",etc) because without agreement on > definitions, your logic is meaningless. Any basic concept that you > do not define cannot be used in your argument, because there will be > no established agreement on reasoning. Do not assume everyone is > using the same definitions by default. > > - Specify, in as strict terms as possible, the assumptions that must > be valid for your reasoning to be correct. Every conclusion is > dependent on a range of assumed constraints for validity, and the > applicability of the argument to a specific case can be determined by > the particular set of assumptions used. Even mathematics assumes > certain axioms when proving theorems. > > - Show, in as strict terms as possible, how your conclusion can be > derived logically step-by-step from the definitions and assumptions > previously agreed upon. Don't assert it, prove it. I think I've already done all that (I know, it's not conveniently in one place) but it seems like you didn't find the argument sufficient. In the future I can only try to expand each step and assertion. I admit that after thinking about this for so long some things seem obvious in retrospect that I feel like they don't require explanation. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 6 21:04:06 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 14:04:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <20060505215826.83361.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 5, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Heartland wrote: > Jeffrey: >> I didn't mean to upset you. > > You didn't. > > Jeffrey: > "When many people begin to analyze or criticize your argument > simultaneously, it > can give you a feeling of being hounded or attacked. But, for your > part, when you > present an idea that goes against the grain, especially to a > strongly science > oriented group, you should *expect* a great deal of fine scrutiny." > > I don't feel attacked. Am I annoyed? Maybe just a tiny little bit. > More > importantly, I've not seen a single challenge that threatened the > logic of my > argument, except yours. But that's not an "attack" but a part of > constructive > debate. Actually, your challenge even strengthened the logic of the > argument. I > appreciate your input. > > The annoying part is only when someone essentially tries to argue > using the > strategy of, "Oh, but that's too weird for me so this must be > wrong" or "Look, I > don't get it, so this must be wrong." It happens all the time. > Please drop the meta level assertions about other people. I agree roughly with with the assessment of J. Rogers. I have stayed out of this discussion because so much of it, especially from you, appears "not even wrong". It appears to me too sloppy and loose and at the same time strident to be worthwhile in its current form. - samantha From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sat May 6 21:33:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 14:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain.) In-Reply-To: <20060506194939.25209.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060506213337.49082.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And for "God Sakes" (how does one write this expression??), let's get rid of the horrid title of this thread! "Dead Time of the Brain". I made it up, and even I hate it. I must have been exhausted at the time... :-) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich A B wrote: Hi Heartland, I think the advice from J. Andrew Rogers is sound and helpful. I can say for myself that so far my own sub-arguments and illustrations have been somewhat sloppy and informal. I think that now would be a good opportunity for both of us to solidify our argument(s). It appears that you and I have reached essentially the same conclusion. The method by which we both reached this conclusion seems to be different, and without a doubt some of the details don't match up perfectly. However, it is my impression (and there is a chance that I am wrong) that at least some of the spectators and commentators to this thread have not rejected the principle of our shared conclusion: That our current subjective lives are a "copy's illusion", and previous "versions" of "ourselves" are now permanently deceased and "experience" nothingness. (Heartland, please correct me if you don't share this particular conclusion). Given that you and I (and possibly others) now roughly agree on the conclusion, I think that the exchanges between you and I (and possibly others) can take the form of a constructive collaboration, rather than a *pure* disagreement. The conclusion is in place, now it's time to formalize the premises and tidy up the structure, if this can be done. I think this idea is something that could definitely benefit from the participation of as many interested people on this list as possible. I've made this invitation before, but, I would like to extend it again: If any interested person on this list has evidence, or an argument that the above-mentioned conclusion is impossible or improbable, *please* share it with me/us. Condemning evidence or a strong counter-argument can reveal this idea as a dead horse, and could save us a lot of time and effort. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Heartland wrote: >> But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail >> of an idea to >> have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to >> taking a principle >> and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? J. Andrew Rogers: > The problem is that you do not make sense, and there is no clear > logic to your conclusion. Many people have observed this so maybe, > just maybe, it is not them and it really is you. Also, many people don't follow everything that is being said during this long thread where we discuss definitions, assertions and steps that lead to final conclusion. It's not my fault. You can't just jump in the middle of discussion and expect me to encapsulate the whole argument in each post. J. Andrew Rogers: > At the very least > you are not constructing a coherent argument, so let me help you > out. In your arguments, you will do things such as stating that you > "agree" with another poster on some point, and then proceed with some > explanation that seems to logically contradict the very thing you > just said you agreed with. And you've done it repeatedly. Please provide at least one example. J. Andrew Rogers: > - Define, in as strict terms as possible, the basic concepts you are > using (e.g. "brain","mind","die",etc) because without agreement on > definitions, your logic is meaningless. Any basic concept that you > do not define cannot be used in your argument, because there will be > no established agreement on reasoning. Do not assume everyone is > using the same definitions by default. > > - Specify, in as strict terms as possible, the assumptions that must > be valid for your reasoning to be correct. Every conclusion is > dependent on a range of assumed constraints for validity, and the > applicability of the argument to a specific case can be determined by > the particular set of assumptions used. Even mathematics assumes > certain axioms when proving theorems. > > - Show, in as strict terms as possible, how your conclusion can be > derived logically step-by-step from the definitions and assumptions > previously agreed upon. Don't assert it, prove it. I think I've already done all that (I know, it's not conveniently in one place) but it seems like you didn't find the argument sufficient. In the future I can only try to expand each step and assertion. I admit that after thinking about this for so long some things seem obvious in retrospect that I feel like they don't require explanation. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates._______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sat May 6 22:37:09 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 18:37:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again References: <20060506194939.25209.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: "I think the advice from J. Andrew Rogers is sound and helpful. I can say for myself that so far my own sub-arguments and illustrations have been somewhat sloppy and informal. I think that now would be a good opportunity for both of us to solidify our argument(s)." Let me ask you this, Jeffrey. As probably the only one person on this list who followed the whole thing from the beginning, do you think you at least understand my logic? Or is it that you, like others, still have no idea what I'm talking about? And if so, then could you tell me at what point I lost you? The more specific you get, the better. What concepts or definitions that I introduced were not clear? Which steps did not seem to follow from others? Jeffrey: "It appears that you and I have reached essentially the same conclusion. The method by which we both reached this conclusion seems to be different, and without a doubt some of the details don't match up perfectly. However, it is my impression (and there is a chance that I am wrong) that at least some of the spectators and commentators to this thread have not rejected the principle of our shared conclusion: That our current subjective lives are a "copy's illusion", and previous "versions" of "ourselves" are now permanently deceased and "experience" nothingness. (Heartland, please correct me if you don't share this particular conclusion)." That is exactly what you and I claim, yes. "Given that you and I (and possibly others) now roughly agree on the conclusion, I think that the exchanges between you and I (and possibly others) can take the form of a constructive collaboration, rather than a *pure* disagreement. The conclusion is in place, now it's time to formalize the premises and tidy up the structure, if this can be done." Following the advice from J. Andrew Rogers, I wrote very short list of steps followed by brief explanations that encapsulates the argument for why death is irreversible even if the information about the original mind exists. Maybe it will be sufficient to show why the conclusion is true. This should appear on the list in a matter of days. It's not going to be something you, Jeffrey, have not seen before, but at least it's going to be in one short post. Jeffrey: "If any interested person on this list has evidence, or an argument that the above-mentioned conclusion is impossible or improbable, *please* share it with me/us. Condemning evidence or a strong counter-argument can reveal this idea as a dead horse, and could save us a lot of time and effort." That's a good challenge to the list. S. From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat May 6 22:00:14 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 15:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060506220014.15746.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The ExI is shutting down...but what is the ExI? Is it the list? No, the list will remain. Is it the group of people trying to achieve a certain set of transhumanist goals? No, they're still trying, although they are changing their stated objectives and means. The Website is changing, becoming a memorial/archive. But clearly the ExI was far more than just its Website - and even that still has present and future use, as a rally site for the Proactionary Principle. Is it the drive to establish transhumanism as a respectable idea? As Samantha pointed out, that mission is far from even "essentially" completed. Even today, publically identifying oneself as a transhumanist is more likely, in many - possibly most - places in First World countries, to have negative consequences than positive. So...what's shutting down? We'll see, of course. But this feels more like a transformation of a still-living thing than an ending. From starman2100 at cableone.net Sun May 7 02:30:11 2006 From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 19:30:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor: A Question for Eliezer about the SI Message-ID: <1146969011_89895@S4.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 7 01:56:00 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 18:56:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor: A Question for Eliezer about the SI In-Reply-To: <1146969011_89895@S4.cableone.net> References: <1146969011_89895@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <445D53B0.8080404@pobox.com> starman2100 at cableone.net wrote: > Well..., I've now largely gotten over the shock that the Extropy > Institute is closing its doors. But now I'm wondering what it would > take for Eliezer to declare that the Singularity Institute has achieved > its goals and no longer needs to be around! heehee I would think I > could safely guess that until the Singularity wave passes over us, he > would never say his work is finished. Correct. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 7 02:34:09 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 19:34:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <445D5CA1.1050504@pobox.com> If the maximum size of a mind is limited by the requirement for all of its computing elements be within roughly one clock tick of each other... Then the Great Old Ones think their vast, incomprehensible thoughts very slowly. By the time a mind was a few trillion times the size of a human, she would have to slow down to around a human clock rate. When she grew to a few quintillion times the size of a human, she might start to see the stars moving in their slow dance across the sky. ...what's so wrong about that? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 7 14:43:31 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 10:43:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <445D5CA1.1050504@pobox.com> References: <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:34 PM 5/6/2006 -0700, you wrote: >If the maximum size of a mind is limited by the requirement for all of >its computing elements be within roughly one clock tick of each other... > >Then the Great Old Ones think their vast, incomprehensible thoughts very >slowly. > >By the time a mind was a few trillion times the size of a human, she >would have to slow down to around a human clock rate. When she grew to >a few quintillion times the size of a human, she might start to see the >stars moving in their slow dance across the sky. > >...what's so wrong about that? It *is* a way to avoid boredom while you wait for the end of the universe. At warp 8 (slowing your clock by 10 exp -8) and .5 c, you can cross the galaxy in a subjective 8 hours while you watch 1000 super novas twinkle. Subjective time is an element of AIs. If you knew how to do it at all, you could implement an AI on an Apple II. But I would not expect it to do well on a timed intelligence test. The point being that speed of light and the size of processor elements (ultimately the granularity of atoms) will interact to limit the largest practical size of an AI's hardware. And I would bet that limit is a good deal smaller than Jupiter. Keith Henson From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun May 7 16:03:23 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 09:03:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Refusniks References: <22360fa10605040718n3d16853fwd92c6894c40d8adf@mail.gmail.com><20060505161428.GD26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <005f01c671ef$c5197460$6600a8c0@brainiac> The article is in a facetious tone, the death occurrences cited may not be statistically significant, but note how it ends: "Some scientists envision a day when people could live to be 150. Hmm ... 150. Hard to imagine. Even then, die-hards may be holding on, just a little bit longer, to see the Cubs win a World Series.": http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0605070415may07,0,202135.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed One who loves imagining what may be hard to imagine, Olga From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 7 17:06:07 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 19:06:07 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060507170607.GD26713@leitl.org> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 10:43:31AM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > It *is* a way to avoid boredom while you wait for the end of the universe. Living beings know no boredom. Co-evolutionary pressure will require everybody running at the fastest rates (not clocks, global clocks don't exist), after just a few iterations. Sartre would have said something about others making you optimize for Ops/s instead of Ops/J. > At warp 8 (slowing your clock by 10 exp -8) and .5 c, you can cross the > galaxy in a subjective 8 hours while you watch 1000 super novas twinkle. If you're travelling at mere 0.5 c, you will be overtaken in transit by later but faster others, and won't arrive at the target you set out to arrive. > Subjective time is an element of AIs. If you knew how to do it at all, you > could implement an AI on an Apple II. But I would not expect it to do well Everybody has been claiming AI needs only 5 MIPS, but I must admit 2 MHz 6502 is a genuine novelty. > on a timed intelligence test. An Apple ][ might not do too badly -- against a virus. > The point being that speed of light and the size of processor elements > (ultimately the granularity of atoms) will interact to limit the largest > practical size of an AI's hardware. There are always limits. Not nearly as tight limits as biology currently suffers (~120 m/s, ~1 l, ~20 W). Superpersonal organization levels allow you to synchronize loosely (but at a very high level), while achieving full-realtime personal response. Including some primitive but meaningful response at the um/ps level. > And I would bet that limit is a good deal smaller than Jupiter. I'm sure procaryontes would have considered our brain something quite impossible. Nevertheless, here we are, and busily organizing ourselves at the ~lightsecond level, reaching out towards ~lighthour level. I honestly don't share your disappointment. Yes, there will be limits. But nothing like the limits we're currently laboring under. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 7 18:48:05 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 14:48:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <20060507170607.GD26713@leitl.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:06 PM 5/7/2006 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 10:43:31AM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > > > It *is* a way to avoid boredom while you wait for the end of the universe. > >Living beings know no boredom. Co-evolutionary pressure will require >everybody running at the fastest rates (not clocks, global clocks don't >exist), after just a few iterations. Sartre would have said something >about others making you optimize for Ops/s instead of Ops/J As a bet you are not an engineer. Getting rid of waste heat is the bane of engineers. > > At warp 8 (slowing your clock by 10 exp -8) and .5 c, you can cross the > > galaxy in a subjective 8 hours while you watch 1000 super novas twinkle. > >If you're travelling at mere 0.5 c, you will be overtaken in transit >by later but faster others, and won't arrive at the target you set >out to arrive. That was just to put a number on it, but in fact, some speed short of c, perhaps way short, may be as fast as it is practical to go. Depends on how much dust you run into. > > Subjective time is an element of AIs. If you knew how to do it at all, > you > > could implement an AI on an Apple II. But I would not expect it to do > well > >Everybody has been claiming AI needs only 5 MIPS, but I must admit 2 MHz 6502 >is a genuine novelty. Any reasonable computer can emulate another. Of course the performance might really suck. > > on a timed intelligence test. > >An Apple ][ might not do too badly -- against a virus. > > > The point being that speed of light and the size of processor elements > > (ultimately the granularity of atoms) will interact to limit the largest > > practical size of an AI's hardware. > >There are always limits. Not nearly as tight limits as biology currently >suffers (~120 m/s, ~1 l, ~20 W). Superpersonal organization levels allow you >to synchronize loosely (but at a very high level), while achieving >full-realtime >personal response. Including some primitive but meaningful response at the >um/ps level. um I am not sure of. If ps is pico second, I really don't understand. > > And I would bet that limit is a good deal smaller than Jupiter. > >I'm sure procaryontes would have considered our brain something quite >impossible. Nevertheless, here we are, and busily organizing >ourselves at the ~lightsecond level, reaching out towards ~lighthour >level. > >I honestly don't share your disappointment. Yes, there will be limits. >But nothing like the limits we're currently laboring under. Oh I am not disappointed. Wasn't interested in becoming a "Jupiter brain," just thought the notion was silly. And if you agree that there are any limits at all, you are in my camp because that argues for more than one AI. Keith From jonkc at att.net Sun May 7 20:50:05 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 16:50:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060506194939.25209.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <10ea01c67218$1aff7a50$730a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > is it that you, like others, still have no idea what I'm talking about? > And if so, then could you tell me at what point I lost you? The more > specific you get, the better. What concepts or definitions that I > introduced were not clear? Which steps did not seem to follow from others? Mr. Heartland asked for specifics and I have done so, I do not claim this is a comprehensive list of the difficulties with his ideas but it's a start: 1) Mr. Heartland says having someone tomorrow who remembers being you today is not sufficient to conclude you have survived into tomorrow, he says more is required but he never explains what or why. This leads to rather odd conclusions, like anesthesia is equivalent to death and like you may have died yesterday and not even know it. Mr. Hartland thinks your subjectivity is an "illusion" created by a copy of you, Mr. Hartland says he hates this and thinks it is a great tragedy, but even if true he never explains why this is supposed to be upsetting. 2) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but he ignores the fact that our atoms get recycled every few weeks. 3) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but science can find no difference between one atom and another. Mr. Heartland points out, quite correctly, that subjectivity and consciousness are what we should be concerned about, but then he says particular atoms are what makes our consciousness unique. It's true that the scientific method can not investigate consciousness directly so nobody will ever be able to prove the idea is wrong, nobody will ever prove that there isn't a difference between atoms that the scientific method can't detect, but theologians since the middle ages have been making the exact same argument about the existence of the human soul. It seems a little too pat that the only difference between atoms is something the scientific method can not see but nevertheless is of profound astronomical importance, it's just like saying atoms have souls. 4) Mr. Heartland says the history (or if you want to sound scientific brainy and cool "the space time trajectory") of atoms are what makes atoms unique; but many atoms have no history and even for those that do it is not permanent, the entire record of an atom's past exploits can be erased from the universe and it's not difficult to do. This is not theory, this has been proven in the lab and any theory that just ignores that fact can not be called scientific. 5) Mr. Heartland insists his theory is consistent and logically rigorous but he is unwilling or unable to answer the simplest questions about it, like is A the original or B. Instead Mr. Heartland thinks informing us that A=A and B=B is sufficient. 6) Several times Mr. Heartland informed us that location is vital in determining which mind is which, but he never explained why because mind by itself can never determine it's location. Also Mr. Heartland never explains the position relative to what as we've known for over a century that absolute position is meaningless. 7) Mr. Heartland, wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists or not" and then he wrote "My copy" is not me". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 8) Mr. Heartland wrote "Mind is not a brain" and he was absolutely correct about that, but then he said mind "is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 9) As noted above Mr. Heartland thinks mind is a "4-D mind object", but he is unable on unwilling to give the 4-D coordinates of the vital things the constitute mind, like fun or red or fast or logic or love or fear or the number eleven or my memory of yesterday. 10) Mr. Heartland wrote "creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type" but if so he never explained why two calculators the add 2 +2 would not produce answers that were profoundly different; and if they are profoundly different he never explained how it is possible to do science. 11) Mr. Heartland insists that if two CD's are synchronized and playing the same symphony then two symphonies are playing, but a CD is just a number thus there are always profound differences even between the same number, and 9 is not equal to 9. If true Mr. Heartland is unable to explain how it is nevertheless possible to do science. Finally I believe another reason many find it difficult to take Mr. Heartland seriously is his treatment of criticism, whenever somebody point out a flaw in his ideas he either ignores it, pleads persecution, or makes assurances without giving one bit of evidence. For example, the existence of Bose Einstein Condensations, the fact that Mr. Heartland's trajectories through space time are temporary things that are easy to erase would seem to blow a very large hole in his theory, but Mr. Heartland says it does not, in fact he says his theory "has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensations". Mr. Heartland does not explain how he reached this astonishing conclusion, we must just take it on faith. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 7 21:20:40 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 23:20:40 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060507212040.GF26713@leitl.org> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > As a bet you are not an engineer. Getting rid of waste heat is the bane of > engineers. One of my hats is a chemist. The other, molecular biologist. Third, computational chemist. A yet another is someone who takes an interest in cluster supercomputing, and operates enough hardware concentration in the rack that power dissipation density is an issue. (I have also other headgear that is less used, but that's enough for the moment). Outside of an engineer's domain, a bee's brain takes a microwatt, and a human brain ~20 W. Also outside of an engineer's domain there are supercold condensed phase, reversible computation, and nonclassical (quantum) computation. Biology makes many things differently than classical engineering, one of them is dealing with power issues creatively. Biology has other limits however, so there are no reasons why we can't beat biology by many orders of magnitude still as it comes to computation efficiency. Spintronics in a buckytronics context makes any synapse turn GFP-green from envy. If you look into Nanosystems, the limits on manageable power dissipation density are quite wide, so things remain quite interesting even for classical systems in few 100 K range. I must admit I never bought into Jupiter Brains much, because of a power issue. Assemblies of computational nodes revolving around their own gravitation center have a problem of being powered from the outside (pumped by a larger assembly of photovoltaics modules in a circumstellar orbit), while being able to dissipate simulataneously. This are more suitable if there's a power source at the center (a microsingularity, or similiar), or if each individual node is being powered by a fusion power source. I must admit I don't see why one just doesn't surround the star with an optically (semi-)opaque cloud of modules, and just uses the star's output directly, and dumps into the 4 K cosmic background. You need a lot of orbiting stuff to blot out a star, so locally the concentration is at leat Jupiter Brain grade, but it wraps a thick cloud shell around the star. > That was just to put a number on it, but in fact, some speed short of c, > perhaps way short, may be as fast as it is practical to go. Depends on how > much dust you run into. Because you see where you're going in advance, mapping dust is not difficult. Because impact damage is localized, and relativistic launches will be done using redundant probe clusters, individual destructive encounters are manageable (of course if you hit a big dark body in transit you're just emulating a few MT of nuclear firework equivalents -- very pretty, end of the journey). Because resilient, self-rebuilding probes are a must and just because of the neutral hydrogen background (which is equivalent to a pretty luminous proton beam if you're travelling really fast) localized circuitry nuking is not a problem by design. You can't travel unless you have a metabolism, and a very active background rebuilding machinery. D. radidurans would never have a chance. > Any reasonable computer can emulate another. Of course the performance One reasonable computer can emulate another -- provided it has more memory (compression accounted for) than the system emulated. If it doesn't, it can't. I can't emulate an Apple ][ 48 k running ucsd-p on a 4 k Sinclair Z-80. I can't emulate even Alfred E. Neumann with a current Blue Gene. > might really suck. If I need 10^13 real years to simulate 1 ms of what happens within a biological system (assuming, I have enough storage to represent said system) effectively I can't run this simulation. In practical terms, currently, any simulation taking more than 2-3 years is impractical. > um I am not sure of. If ps is pico second, I really don't understand. It appears reasonable that you can emulate what 1 ms scale biological processes do in solid-state classical computation at 1 ns to 1 ps range (1 ns is certain, 1 ps might be pushing it depending on issues like power dissipation density, and computation reversibility (if your ratio of ones and zeros roughly balance each other locally, no need to erase thermodynamics bits). That's a speedup of 10^6..10^9 in regards to the wall clock. > Oh I am not disappointed. Wasn't interested in becoming a "Jupiter brain," > just thought the notion was silly. > > And if you agree that there are any limits at all, you are in my camp > because that argues for more than one AI. Absolutely. I'm in the postradiation/postspeciation high-diversity population of postbiological beings scenario. Some of them smart, most of them (by weight) dumb, just like a rain forest/tropical reef, only in deep space, and lots faster (most of processing involving moving bits, much less atoms). A lot of the activity has to occur at the physical layer, though, given that whoever controls the physical layer, controls everything. You can't control nanopests gnawing away at cyberleviathans unless you have a physical-layer immune system operating. Best perimeter security gives you naught if someone sneaks up, and eats your crunchy computronium chunk brains with a little sunlight. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sun May 7 22:07:45 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <10ea01c67218$1aff7a50$730a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi John, Your criticisms are useful. Thank you for them. I suspect that Heartland and/or I (or others) will try to address some or all of them in the near future. However, it's important to keep in mind, that this conclusion/idea is still *very* young. It's only a few weeks old, at most. Heartland reluctantly accepted the conclusion only a matter of days ago. I think that some of the criticisms below only apply to an earlier stage of development, while the final conclusion was still unclear in everyone's mind. I don't deny that huge holes are missing from the argument; I think it will take a long time to resolve this issue. The more participants, the better. I am not an expert in any field relevant to this discussion, but I realize that many people on this list are experts, and can provide helpful nudges if they are inclined. I propose something of a clean slate for this idea. Let's take the conclusion and work backwards to put together a convincing argument, further supported by evidence if possible. I still believe, in some ways that I can't yet articulate, that the conclusion is true. That's the only reason I've remained in this debate. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich P.S. Does anyone have an idea for a new name for the thread? (Oh dear, this may be a dangerous question :-) ) John K Clark wrote: "Heartland" > is it that you, like others, still have no idea what I'm talking about? > And if so, then could you tell me at what point I lost you? The more > specific you get, the better. What concepts or definitions that I > introduced were not clear? Which steps did not seem to follow from others? Mr. Heartland asked for specifics and I have done so, I do not claim this is a comprehensive list of the difficulties with his ideas but it's a start: 1) Mr. Heartland says having someone tomorrow who remembers being you today is not sufficient to conclude you have survived into tomorrow, he says more is required but he never explains what or why. This leads to rather odd conclusions, like anesthesia is equivalent to death and like you may have died yesterday and not even know it. Mr. Hartland thinks your subjectivity is an "illusion" created by a copy of you, Mr. Hartland says he hates this and thinks it is a great tragedy, but even if true he never explains why this is supposed to be upsetting. 2) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but he ignores the fact that our atoms get recycled every few weeks. 3) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but science can find no difference between one atom and another. Mr. Heartland points out, quite correctly, that subjectivity and consciousness are what we should be concerned about, but then he says particular atoms are what makes our consciousness unique. It's true that the scientific method can not investigate consciousness directly so nobody will ever be able to prove the idea is wrong, nobody will ever prove that there isn't a difference between atoms that the scientific method can't detect, but theologians since the middle ages have been making the exact same argument about the existence of the human soul. It seems a little too pat that the only difference between atoms is something the scientific method can not see but nevertheless is of profound astronomical importance, it's just like saying atoms have souls. 4) Mr. Heartland says the history (or if you want to sound scientific brainy and cool "the space time trajectory") of atoms are what makes atoms unique; but many atoms have no history and even for those that do it is not permanent, the entire record of an atom's past exploits can be erased from the universe and it's not difficult to do. This is not theory, this has been proven in the lab and any theory that just ignores that fact can not be called scientific. 5) Mr. Heartland insists his theory is consistent and logically rigorous but he is unwilling or unable to answer the simplest questions about it, like is A the original or B. Instead Mr. Heartland thinks informing us that A=A and B=B is sufficient. 6) Several times Mr. Heartland informed us that location is vital in determining which mind is which, but he never explained why because mind by itself can never determine it's location. Also Mr. Heartland never explains the position relative to what as we've known for over a century that absolute position is meaningless. 7) Mr. Heartland, wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists or not" and then he wrote "My copy" is not me". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 8) Mr. Heartland wrote "Mind is not a brain" and he was absolutely correct about that, but then he said mind "is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 9) As noted above Mr. Heartland thinks mind is a "4-D mind object", but he is unable on unwilling to give the 4-D coordinates of the vital things the constitute mind, like fun or red or fast or logic or love or fear or the number eleven or my memory of yesterday. 10) Mr. Heartland wrote "creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type" but if so he never explained why two calculators the add 2 +2 would not produce answers that were profoundly different; and if they are profoundly different he never explained how it is possible to do science. 11) Mr. Heartland insists that if two CD's are synchronized and playing the same symphony then two symphonies are playing, but a CD is just a number thus there are always profound differences even between the same number, and 9 is not equal to 9. If true Mr. Heartland is unable to explain how it is nevertheless possible to do science. Finally I believe another reason many find it difficult to take Mr. Heartland seriously is his treatment of criticism, whenever somebody point out a flaw in his ideas he either ignores it, pleads persecution, or makes assurances without giving one bit of evidence. For example, the existence of Bose Einstein Condensations, the fact that Mr. Heartland's trajectories through space time are temporary things that are easy to erase would seem to blow a very large hole in his theory, but Mr. Heartland says it does not, in fact he says his theory "has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensations". Mr. Heartland does not explain how he reached this astonishing conclusion, we must just take it on faith. John K Clark _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sun May 7 22:33:46 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 18:33:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060506194939.25209.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <10ea01c67218$1aff7a50$730a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >> is it that you, like others, still have no idea what I'm talking about? >> And if so, then could you tell me at what point I lost you? The more >> specific you get, the better. What concepts or definitions that I >> introduced were not clear? Which steps did not seem to follow from others? John Clark: > Mr. Heartland asked for specifics and I have done so, I do not claim this > is a comprehensive list of the difficulties with his ideas but it's a > start: Just for the record, what follows "Mr. Heartland says" in John Clark's list is a personal interpretation of what I actually said or meant to say. Some of it is correct, most of it is not. I accept it as an indication of my failure to present this view in a coherent form, not a failure of the argument itself, and will try to apply all that criticism toward a clearer version of the argument. Thank you. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sun May 7 22:45:02 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 15:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060507224502.78807.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Heartland wrote: "...do you think you at least understand my logic?" Generally speaking, I *understand* what you are *saying*, although I have had many *disagreements* with you. I would say, that I probably have a greater understanding of what you write, than you frequently think I do. In other words, I do understand the point you are trying to make, but I have frequently disagreed with the logic you have used, and with the validity of the point itself. Although on several important points, we have agreed fully, and we do both agree on the conclusion at least. I would definitely not say that I "have no idea what you are saying" (paraphrasing from below). I generally feel that I fully comprehend the specific sentences that you write. As you have indicated, you may unconsciously be taking some of your own explanations for granted, without sharing them with us. Heartland: "...could you tell me at what point I lost you?" This thread is soooo long that this is a difficult question to answer. I currently lack a perfect memory or the time available to review all the different posts under this thread. In the course of this debate, you have entered many new terms, definitions, and explanations and some of them don't really seem back-compatible. I would recommend, that we basically resume with a *blank slate* and provide strict and robust definitions as J. Andrew Rogers suggested. You and I, and others, can all widdle away at these terms and definitions until we are all satisfied that they are adequate. The same applies for the concepts we introduce. Heartland: "...I wrote very short list of steps followed by brief explanations that encapsulates the argument for why death is irreversible even if the information about the original mind exists." I very much look forward to reading this, and providing feedback. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Jeffrey: "I think the advice from J. Andrew Rogers is sound and helpful. I can say for myself that so far my own sub-arguments and illustrations have been somewhat sloppy and informal. I think that now would be a good opportunity for both of us to solidify our argument(s)." Let me ask you this, Jeffrey. As probably the only one person on this list who followed the whole thing from the beginning, do you think you at least understand my logic? Or is it that you, like others, still have no idea what I'm talking about? And if so, then could you tell me at what point I lost you? The more specific you get, the better. What concepts or definitions that I introduced were not clear? Which steps did not seem to follow from others? Jeffrey: "It appears that you and I have reached essentially the same conclusion. The method by which we both reached this conclusion seems to be different, and without a doubt some of the details don't match up perfectly. However, it is my impression (and there is a chance that I am wrong) that at least some of the spectators and commentators to this thread have not rejected the principle of our shared conclusion: That our current subjective lives are a "copy's illusion", and previous "versions" of "ourselves" are now permanently deceased and "experience" nothingness. (Heartland, please correct me if you don't share this particular conclusion)." That is exactly what you and I claim, yes. "Given that you and I (and possibly others) now roughly agree on the conclusion, I think that the exchanges between you and I (and possibly others) can take the form of a constructive collaboration, rather than a *pure* disagreement. The conclusion is in place, now it's time to formalize the premises and tidy up the structure, if this can be done." Following the advice from J. Andrew Rogers, I wrote very short list of steps followed by brief explanations that encapsulates the argument for why death is irreversible even if the information about the original mind exists. Maybe it will be sufficient to show why the conclusion is true. This should appear on the list in a matter of days. It's not going to be something you, Jeffrey, have not seen before, but at least it's going to be in one short post. Jeffrey: "If any interested person on this list has evidence, or an argument that the above-mentioned conclusion is impossible or improbable, *please* share it with me/us. Condemning evidence or a strong counter-argument can reveal this idea as a dead horse, and could save us a lot of time and effort." That's a good challenge to the list. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sun May 7 23:16:24 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 19:16:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: "However, it's important to keep in mind, that this conclusion/idea is still *very* young. It's only a few weeks old, at most. Heartland reluctantly accepted the conclusion only a matter of days ago." While this particular conclusion is indeed fresh, the underlying logic that inevitably leads to this conclusion is probably 5 years old. It's the same logic that led to much older conclusions that mind is a process and that death is irreversible. In one form or the other, I've been explaining that logic for years on forums just like this one. :) S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sun May 7 23:34:26 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 16:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060507233426.8599.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Yes, I accept that what you've written below is true. I think we would both agree that this particular (new) conclusion is very bizarre and counter-intuitive, and it will be a steeply uphill battle to prove that it is true. This new conclusion will probably also require some major alterations to the arguments that have brought you up to this point. We basically need to work backwards and start over, in my humble opinion. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Jeffrey: "However, it's important to keep in mind, that this conclusion/idea is still *very* young. It's only a few weeks old, at most. Heartland reluctantly accepted the conclusion only a matter of days ago." While this particular conclusion is indeed fresh, the underlying logic that inevitably leads to this conclusion is probably 5 years old. It's the same logic that led to much older conclusions that mind is a process and that death is irreversible. In one form or the other, I've been explaining that logic for years on forums just like this one. :) S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 00:51:44 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:51:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I. Terms and definitions: Subjective experience - Collective sense of perception and/or cognition. Process/activity by which mind experiences reality. Death/Nonexistence - Subjective experience of nothingness. Absence of that part of mind process which is responsible for producing subjective experience. (A type of subjective experience one would have if one did not exist at all). Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. It is the presence of that part of mind process/activity which is responsible for producing subjective experience. Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space consisting of all matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in producing the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter and energy in time and space. Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that consists of all matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary to support its existence. Trajectory of an object - Space-time path of matter making up that object. It is a list of all present space-time locations of all matter that currently makes up the object. Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and space. Type - A category of things that share some characteristic. For example, apples and oranges are types of fruit. In this case "fruit" is the type. Instance of a type - Individual object that belongs to the same type. For example, an apple is an instance of fruit type and an orange is also an instance of fruit type. ------ II. The argument: 1. Instances of the same type are distinguishable. Assuming that instances of an object contain energy, each instance has its own unique trajectory in time and space that is parallel to a trajectory of any other instance, including an instance of the same type. At no point all four space-time coordinates for all particles of matter that make up the object will be equal which gives an objective observer the ability to distinguish between instances, including instances of the same type. 1a. A single break in the trajectory produces two instances that are different and distinguishable. 1b. Instances are always isolated from different instances, including instances of the same type. Two different instances cannot occupy same space and time. 2. Activity itself cannot be stored in information. Someone throws a baseball. Series of cameras record this event. Measurement equipment precisely traces trajectory of flight of the ball and the values of 4-D coordinates are being stored in a file. Another file stores a complete molecular structure of the ball. Extrapolation of this measurement process could result in a state where everything that can be known about this event could be translated into information. But is this information the event itself? For that to be true the fact of existence of information itself would have to cause the event. But even if I replay the tape, look at the coordinates of a trajectory or inspect a molecular structure of the ball, this won't cause the event to occur. No amount of information about the activity can store that activity itself. (It is perhaps because information is dimensionless and matterless while activity occurs in dimensions of space and time and requires matter. It is impossible for an activity itself to exist in the form of information.) 3. Activities based on the same information about the activity are distinguishable. Each activity is an instance so the rules of instances apply to activities. Each activity of matter in space and time has a unique trajectory so that it is distinguishable from any other activity (1). 4. Subjective experience is an activity so it is also distinguishable from any other instance of subjective experience, including any duplicate instance of the same type of subjective experience (3). 5. An absence of subjective experience activity marks the end of an instance of that subjective experience (1a). Conclusion: A new instance of that subjective experience is verifiably different from the old one (4), so since (5), (1b), (2), the old instance experiences nothingness instead of whatever the new instance experiences. Death is irreversible despite the existence of any amount of information about the mind. S. From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 8 03:23:00 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 23:23:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <20060507212040.GF26713@leitl.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507215848.025a5208@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:20 PM 5/7/2006 +0200, you wrote: >On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > > > As a bet you are not an engineer. Getting rid of waste heat is the > bane of > > engineers. > >One of my hats is a chemist. The other, molecular biologist. Third, >computational >chemist. A yet another is someone who takes an interest in cluster >supercomputing, >and operates enough hardware concentration in the rack that power dissipation >density is an issue. (I have also other headgear that is less used, but >that's >enough for the moment). > >Outside of an engineer's domain, a bee's brain takes a microwatt, and a human >brain ~20 W. Also outside of an engineer's domain there are supercold >condensed phase, reversible computation, and nonclassical (quantum) >computation. >Biology makes many things differently than classical engineering, one >of them is dealing with power issues creatively. Biology has other limits >however, so there are no reasons why we can't beat biology by many orders >of magnitude still as it comes to computation efficiency. Spintronics >in a buckytronics context makes any synapse turn GFP-green from envy. All this indicates to me that you think computation per joule is going to be a consideration up there with c/second. Even if you have lots of energy, it's no good if your brain catches on fire. >If you look into Nanosystems, My wife is listed as one of the editors. I read it first in draft. >the limits on manageable power dissipation >density are quite wide, so things remain quite interesting even for >classical systems in few 100 K range. I must admit I never bought into >Jupiter Brains much, because of a power issue. Assemblies of computational >nodes revolving around their own gravitation center have a problem of >being powered from the outside (pumped by a larger assembly of photovoltaics >modules in a circumstellar orbit), while being able to dissipate >simulataneously. >This are more suitable if there's a power source at the center (a >microsingularity, >or similiar), or if each individual node is being powered by a fusion >power source. >I must admit I don't see why one just doesn't surround the star with an >optically >(semi-)opaque cloud of modules, and just uses the star's output directly, >and dumps >into the 4 K cosmic background. You need a lot of orbiting stuff to blot out >a star, so locally the concentration is at leat Jupiter Brain grade, but it >wraps a thick cloud shell around the star. If you can keep the average thickness down to the equal of a few nanometer of aluminum you can float on the light and surround the star without being in orbit. If you leave the cover off one side, the star becomes a fusion/photon drive (for those not in a hurry). If you are going to orbit, a computation node becomes mostly power plant and radiator. In 1979 Drexler and I wrote a paper for a conference at Princeton on space radiators that used ground up rock as the heat transfer medium. I scanned in a copy of it a few days ago if you would like to see it. One of the discoveries we made is that radiators have a inherent square root dis-economy of scale. > > That was just to put a number on it, but in fact, some speed short of c, > > perhaps way short, may be as fast as it is practical to go. Depends on > how > > much dust you run into. > >Because you see where you're going in advance, mapping dust is not difficult. I would be really interested in how you would do this. If you are going to probe the path to the target with a laser before launch, you might as well launch at 1/3 c. >Because impact damage is localized, and relativistic launches will be done >using redundant probe clusters, individual destructive encounters are >manageable (of course if you hit a big dark body in transit you're just >emulating >a few MT of nuclear firework equivalents -- very pretty, end of the journey). >Because resilient, self-rebuilding probes are a must and just because of >the neutral hydrogen background (which is equivalent to a pretty luminous >proton beam if you're travelling really fast) localized circuitry nuking is >not a problem by design. You can't travel unless you have a metabolism, >and a very active background rebuilding machinery. D. radidurans would >never have a chance. > > > Any reasonable computer can emulate another. Of course the performance > >One reasonable computer can emulate another -- provided it has more >memory (compression accounted for) than the system emulated. If it doesn't, >it can't. I can't emulate an Apple ][ 48 k running ucsd-p on a 4 k >Sinclair Z-80. I can't emulate even Alfred E. Neumann with a current >Blue Gene. > > > might really suck. > >If I need 10^13 real years to simulate 1 ms of what happens within >a biological system (assuming, I have enough storage to represent >said system) effectively I can't run this simulation. In practical >terms, currently, any simulation taking more than 2-3 years is >impractical. 10 exp 13 years might try the patience of even the immortals. > > um I am not sure of. If ps is pico second, I really don't understand. > >It appears reasonable that you can emulate what 1 ms scale biological >processes do in solid-state classical computation at 1 ns to 1 ps range >(1 ns is certain, 1 ps might be pushing it depending on issues like power >dissipation density, and computation reversibility (if your ratio of >ones and zeros roughly balance each other locally, no need to erase >thermodynamics bits). That's a speedup of 10^6..10^9 in regards to the >wall clock. That's about what I get. Spiffy, but the stars recede out of reach. > > Oh I am not disappointed. Wasn't interested in becoming a "Jupiter > brain," > > just thought the notion was silly. > > > > And if you agree that there are any limits at all, you are in my camp > > because that argues for more than one AI. > >Absolutely. I'm in the postradiation/postspeciation high-diversity >population of postbiological beings scenario. Some of them smart, most >of them (by weight) dumb, just like a rain forest/tropical reef, only in >deep space, and lots faster (most of processing involving moving bits, >much less atoms). A lot of the activity has to occur at the physical >layer, though, given that whoever controls the physical layer, controls >everything. You can't control nanopests gnawing away at cyberleviathans >unless you have a physical-layer immune system operating. Best perimeter >security gives you naught if someone sneaks up, and eats your crunchy >computronium chunk brains with a little sunlight. It could happen. It could also be very different. Keith Henson From jonkc at att.net Mon May 8 04:56:29 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 00:56:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005001c6725b$cbd67de0$ab0a4e0c@MyComputer> A B Wrote: > it's important to keep in mind, that this conclusion/idea is still *very* > young. Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as old as the hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves this can not possibly be true. Mr. Heartland's could have presented a stronger case in the 19'th century than he can now, but even then the idea that the you of yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been crazy. > I don't deny that huge holes are missing from the argument When there are far more holes than arguments it's time to look for another theory. > Let's take the conclusion and work backwards to put together a convincing > argument, further supported by evidence if possible. That's not the way science works, you don't decide what is true and then look for evidence of it, you look at the evidence and then form a conclusion. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Mon May 8 05:51:11 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 01:51:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005d01c67263$7da40db0$ab0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. Since it is imposable to talk about the present moment without bringing in subjective the above means "A subjective experience of being subjective", a comment without content. > Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space Mr. Heartland has said this many many many times, and each time he has I have asked him the space time coordinates of things that make up a mind, things like logic and love and the number 9, and each time he has responded to this very reasonable question with silence. I have also asked him over and over why if position is so important in determining a mind why is it that a mind by itself has absolutely no way of knowing even approximately where it is? And again Mr. Heartland resounded to this question with silence. > Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space OK. > that consists of all matter that currently does not make up mind object > but is necessary to support its existence. If a "brain object" is "necessary to support its existence" then why isn't it what you call a "mind object", after all you say the definition is "matter which is presently and actively involved in producing the mind". This is rigor? I have pointed this out before and received the usual response from Mr. Heartland, silence. > Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and > space. As I said in another post, it you had said that 90 years ago it might have sounded reasonable, and naive intuition would seem to support it; but we now know there is no way that can be correct. And even if it were correct it would be irrelevant because some things, even very important things, are not objects. Mind is one of them. > Subjective experience is an activity so it is also distinguishable from > any other instance of subjective experience, including any duplicate > instance of the same type of subjective experience Distinguishable by who? An outside observer may or may not be able to distinguish who is the original and who is the copy (although you can arrange things so NOBODY knows) but the original and copy have no way by themselves of doing so, and subjectivity is what's important not objectivity. If subjectively I'm alive then I don't give a rat's ass if objectively I'm dead. > A new instance of that subjective experience is verifiably different from > the old one (4) I add 2 +2 on my calculator and get 4, I add 2 +2 again and get 4 again, but the second 4 is vastly different from the first 4. I don't think so. John K Clark From exi at syzygy.com Mon May 8 05:58:31 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 8 May 2006 05:58:31 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060508055831.4873.qmail@syzygy.com> Heartland writes: >I. Terms and definitions: >[...] >Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space consisting of all >matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in producing >the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter and energy in >time and space. > >Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that consists of all >matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary to support its >existence. These are curious definitions. You've defined mind and brain as disjoint physical objects. I would think that the physical objects that are involved in a mind would be a subset of the physical objects that we would ordinarily call a brain. On the other hand, you can say from these definitions that the entire body is part of the mind object, since all of it is in use supporting the activity of mind. Without the heart to pump blood, the brain dies and mind ceases, so mind object must include the heart, and by extension the rest of the body. Actually, by extension it includes the rest of the universe, so that means it's not a very useful definition. So, can we restrict it somewhat and say that the mind object is composed of all of the neurons in a single body? It's still an odd definition, because thinking of the mind as a physical object rather than an activity is quite unconventional. This particular point has been hashed about for a while in this thread, and I think it's (one of) the fundamental disagreement(s). >[...] >1. Instances of the same type are distinguishable. >[...] >1a. A single break in the trajectory produces two instances that are different and >distinguishable. > >1b. Instances are always isolated from different instances, including instances of >the same type. Two different instances cannot occupy same space and time. You're not allowing any grey area here, where there really needs to be some. Two minds could be operating with a large portion of their constituent objects in common, with a small amount of state that is unique to each instance. That state would not be sufficient to form a mind, it only specifies the differences from a complete mind. Such instances would not be completely distinct. Part of this problem stems from the physical object definition of mind, rather than the activity definition. >2. Activity itself cannot be stored in information. No, but sufficient information about an activity can be stored to continue the activity. This is the essence of the "Planck interval" argument from earlier in the thread. The universe stores enough information about the state of an activity at any given Planck interval to allow it to continue in the next one. An important point is that much of that information is superfluous. We don't really need to know the exact positions of all of the neurotransmitters within a synapse to know when it is firing. We could record the necessary information and restart the process later. This is in essence no different from the universe recording information for restarting the process one Planck interval later. There is no bright line difference between these two processes. >[...] >Conclusion: >A new instance of that subjective experience is verifiably different from the old >one (4), so since (5), (1b), (2), the old instance experiences nothingness instead >of whatever the new instance experiences. Death is irreversible despite the >existence of any amount of information about the mind. The old instance does not "experience nothingness". It does not experience. The new instance continues the subjective experience which the old instance started. Death becomes irreversible when the information about the mind can no longer be reconstructed with sufficient fidelity to continue the mind. This is the distinction between metabolic death (the cessation of activity necessary to support a mind), and information theoretic death (the loss of information about a mind). -eric From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 8 08:31:37 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 09:31:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/8/06, Heartland wrote: > > Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space consisting of all > matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in producing > the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter and energy in > time and space. > > Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that consists of all > matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary to support > its existence. > > Trajectory of an object - Space-time path of matter making up that object. It is a > list of all present space-time locations of all matter that currently makes up the > object. > > Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and space. > Where does multiple personality disorder fit in to these speculations? Dissociative identity disorder is a diagnosis described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Revised, as the existence in an individual of two or more distinct identities or personalities, each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment. At least two of these personalities are considered to routinely take control of the individual's behavior, and there is also some associated memory loss, which is beyond normal forgetfulness. This memory loss is often referred to as "losing time". ------------------------ Sounds like two or more of your 'minds' sharing the same brain and the same atoms to maintain themselves. They have different memories, identities and experiences and neither remembers what the other was doing. Each identity must be 'dying' in your terms then restarting again as each mind hands the brain over to another. But, of course, they're not dying. They just go to sleep, like we do every night, or under anesthesia, or when we get hit by Frank Tyson. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 8 10:17:40 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 12:17:40 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507215848.025a5208@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507215848.025a5208@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060508101740.GR26713@leitl.org> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:23:00PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > All this indicates to me that you think computation per joule is going to > be a consideration up there with c/second. Even if you have lots of > energy, it's no good if your brain catches on fire. With current high-flux reactor cores we can easily remove some 20 MW from a volume of a paper basket. Whether with weaved buckytronic, cooled by a stiff flux of helium through orthogonal nanotube channel array or fractal channels in diamond or sapphire I don't see how you could dump enough power into a ~l chunk of machinery while doing computing and being unable to cool it. Dark horses like reversible computing and nonclassical computing even not considered. > >If you look into Nanosystems, > > My wife is listed as one of the editors. I read it first in draft. Yeah, I read it as a preprint too, as one of my organics profs was doing a stint in Stanford before. He thought it was crap, I wasn't so sure. It took me a while to understand why machine-phase is so different from both biology and organic chemistry. > If you can keep the average thickness down to the equal of a few nanometer > of aluminum you can float on the light and surround the star without being > in orbit. If you leave the cover off one side, the star becomes a > fusion/photon drive (for those not in a hurry). Yes, but I want to power hardware. Whether um or mm, that's way too heavy to be anywhere else than in orbit. Solid shells could be an option for small (<100 km) assemblies around a central power source (microsingularity, or matter/antimatter reactor). I can't quite imagine a cloud of fat nodes, each with a tokamak rotating around their own gravity center. It strikes me as improbable, though I can't put my finger on it. It's probably the bloat. > If you are going to orbit, a computation node becomes mostly power plant > and radiator. In 1979 Drexler and I wrote a paper for a conference at To minimize signalling latency you have to have a spherical assembly. I'm assuming a large flat panel powering a small spherical (cubical) computation node, and talking to neighbour nodes in flyby by line of sight laser. > Princeton on space radiators that used ground up rock as the heat transfer > medium. I scanned in a copy of it a few days ago if you would like to see > it. One of the discoveries we made is that radiators have a inherent square > root dis-economy of scale. What I see as a problem if that the node density is so high you no longer have an occasional line of sight to colder space to dump heat to. There might be ways to have the inner cloud work at some 800 K, and reradiate it a couple of times, until you eventually power some ultra-cold machinery lighthours/lighdays away from the hot core. > >Because you see where you're going in advance, mapping dust is not difficult. > > I would be really interested in how you would do this. If you are going to > probe the path to the target with a laser before launch, you might as well > launch at 1/3 c. I mean you're looking towards the star you're travelling to, so you use star's photons to see how much dust is there. Moreover, you're launching with a high-power microwave beam (by a said circumstellar assembly, acting as a phased-array microwave source pushing your carbon sail(s), with the trailing probe(s). The photon flux is dense enough to heat your carbon sail to white incandescence, so it's going to clear a path in the interstellar medium before you come through. You could still meet a pebble, but that's what redundant probes are there for. > 10 exp 13 years might try the patience of even the immortals. They need not be immortals, nor do they need to be very smart. I don't expect Darwin to exist the stage to the left. Postbiology is like biology, only more so. Some of them will be smart. Some of them will be gods. But even gods have fleas. And a metabolism. > That's about what I get. Spiffy, but the stars recede out of reach. The local ecology will never interact with antipode ecology, but it continues nevertheless. A cubic mile of circuitry is also harboring an ecosystem. Does inviduality have to cease to exist? I don't think so. Our cells have individual indentities, and bees and people have individual identities, even though being part of a superorganism. If you tweak a cell, it will jump. If you poke a bee, it will sting. If you kick a human, he will respond -- though you might send a diplomatic note or try a hostile takeover if you want to evoke some high-order behaviour. So I think even Very Large Beings will be highly responsive on the local scale. But it could take a megayear to get a meaningful high-level response. That's okay, though, because whoever that great whale is singing to is a leviathan just as ponderous and slow. > It could happen. It could also be very different. No disagreement. But I have to use specific models in order to deal with postbiology. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 11:07:15 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 07:07:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: BillK: > Where does multiple personality disorder fit in to these speculations? The only relevant aspect of subjective experience to this argument is whether subjective experience exists or not. The *content* of that subjective experience does not impact the argument in any way. It is because the focus of the argument is on the physical "substance" of subjective experience (activity of matter in time and space), not its information content. BillK: > Sounds like two or more of your 'minds' sharing the same brain and the > same atoms to maintain themselves. They have different memories, > identities and experiences and neither remembers what the other was > doing. Each identity must be 'dying' in your terms then restarting > again as each mind hands the brain over to another. This would be true from "mind is a pattern of information" perspective, which is implied here, but it certainly wouldn't be true from my perspective, which is that "mind is an instance of activity of matter in time and space." According to the argument, a person with this disorder would maintain the same identity (in the physical sense) for the duration of an instance of his subjective experience regardless of personality changes (the content of that subjective experience). The same would be true for any other person not suffering from this disorder. S. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 8 12:35:00 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:35:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/06, Heartland wrote: [argument snipped] This seems quite clear (though it is not a position I myself hold); it also implies that you (like the rest of us) are currently under a death sentence (which you quite reasonably wish to avoid) - with no hope of cryonics providing a reprieve by your definition. Given that, impressive though the length of this argument has been, would it not be a more productive use of your time to do everything you can to further the progress of biological life extension? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 13:11:14 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 09:11:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060508055831.4873.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: Heartland: >>Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space consisting of all >>matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in >>producing >>the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter and energy in >>time and space. >> >>Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that consists of all >>matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary to support >>its >>existence. Eric: > These are curious definitions. You've defined mind and brain as > disjoint physical objects. I would think that the physical objects > that are involved in a mind would be a subset of the physical objects > that we would ordinarily call a brain. > On the other hand, you can say from these definitions that the entire > body is part of the mind object, since all of it is in use supporting > the activity of mind. Without the heart to pump blood, the brain dies > and mind ceases, so mind object must include the heart, and by > extension the rest of the body. Actually, by extension it includes > the rest of the universe, so that means it's not a very useful > definition. According to the definition, mind consists of *only* that activity of matter which directly implements mind. That excludes heart or any other organ. The point of the definition is to delineate between relevant activity that creates mind and all other activities that indirectly support existence of that mind. There is the mind, and everything else that supports it is replaceable, therefore, not relevant to this analysis. Eric: > So, can we restrict it somewhat and say that the mind object is > composed of all of the neurons in a single body? But that wouldn't be correct. To say that mind is composed of neurons would be analogous to a claim that flight is composed of plane's engines. Eric: > It's still an odd definition, because thinking of the mind as a > physical object rather than an activity is quite unconventional. This > particular point has been hashed about for a while in this thread, and > I think it's (one of) the fundamental disagreement(s). It's counterintuitive for anyone to imagine a mind as an "object." This is probably the main reason why it's so hard for me to convey these ideas. Maybe this will be helpful. Mind is an activity. Now, any activity necessarily requires four things to exist. The first is matter. The second is energy. The third is space. And the fourth is time. In other words, any activity isn't something that is abstract and dimensionless. It is not just "matter and energy" but "matter and energy in time and space." And since activity consists of matter, it must have properties of matter, just like any object made of matter. Hence, "mind object" - an "object in time and space." Heartland: >>1. Instances of the same type are distinguishable. >>1b. Instances are always isolated from different instances, including instances >>of >>the same type. Two different instances cannot occupy same space and time. Eric: > You're not allowing any grey area here, where there really needs to be > some. Two minds could be operating with a large portion of their > constituent objects in common, with a small amount of state that is > unique to each instance. If "two minds" operate "with a large portion of their constituent objects in common, with a small amount of state that is unique to each instance," then, by definition, they have become a single instance of a mind. It is not possible to merge two different minds into one instance, because the merger process would inevitably reach a "critical" point when one mind would be forced to "switch off/sacrifice" its own instance of subjective experience for another. Heartland: >>2. Activity itself cannot be stored in information. Eric: > No, but sufficient information about an activity can be stored to > continue the activity. True, but that doesn't change the fact that activity *itself* cannot be stored in information. Heartland: >>Conclusion: >>A new instance of that subjective experience is verifiably different from the old >>one (4), so since (5), (1b), (2), the old instance experiences nothingness >>instead >>of whatever the new instance experiences. Death is irreversible despite the >>existence of any amount of information about the mind. Eric: > The old instance does not "experience nothingness". It does not > experience. That's basically the point I'm trying to make. :) Old instance experiences nothingness <=> Old instance doesn't exist. It's what cryonics patients "experience" at this time. According to my argument, this state will last forever. > The new instance continues the subjective experience > which the old instance started. Rather, it starts from the last state of the old instance and experiences an illusion of continuity. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 14:10:23 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:10:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell: "This seems quite clear (though it is not a position I myself hold); it also implies that you (like the rest of us) are currently under a death sentence (which you quite reasonably wish to avoid) - with no hope of cryonics providing a reprieve by your definition." Russell, if the argument seems clear, and yet it failed to convince you, then it should be clear to you what is wrong with it. If you know what that is, please don't hesitate to point that out. Russell: "Given that, impressive though the length of this argument has been, would it not be a more productive use of your time to do everything you can to further the progress of biological life extension?" You mean more productive than writing arguments like these? Perhaps arguments like these will someday help further the progress of biological life extension by steering that progress in the right direction. One can only hope. I don't think I like the idea of altering my behavior to appease the ghost of economics of time management with its goal to maximize productivity in shortest amount of time. This subgoal may not serve well the goal of maximizing the quality of my subjective experience (whatever remains of it, that is). I don't know. S. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 8 14:55:52 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:55:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605080755h4c69e3ffv52bc5cfcaf64a9c2@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/06, Heartland wrote: > > Russell, if the argument seems clear, and yet it failed to convince you, > then it > should be clear to you what is wrong with it. If you know what that is, > please > don't hesitate to point that out. Sure: you said intelligence is more like a brick than a symphony. It's not; it's more like a symphony ^.^ (I'm not proposing to join this debate - more than enough electrons have been spilled on it already; I'm happy to leave naming the pattern, thread and substrate views as my contribution. But I've answered the question you asked.) You mean more productive than writing arguments like these? Perhaps > arguments like > these will someday help further the progress of biological life extension > by > steering that progress in the right direction. One can only hope. Let's be honest here: we all know that anyone who's going to be persuaded by this argument to change their actions, has been persuaded already. If one finds it fun to continue such arguments anyway, then by all means; but let's call things entertainment when they are entertainment, and productive when they are productive, and not deceive ourselves about which is which. I don't think I like the idea of altering my behavior to appease the ghost > of > economics of time management with its goal to maximize productivity in > shortest > amount of time. This subgoal may not serve well the goal of maximizing the > quality > of my subjective experience (whatever remains of it, that is). I don't > know. > Your time is of course yours to dispose of as you choose, but I figure it's worth making this point (in general, not addressed only to you): We are evolved to want to spend a lot of time debating politics, religion and philosophy with our neighbors, to believe it's an important thing to do - because it _was_ important when our world consisted primarily of a tribe of 200 people and our chance of finding a mate and producing healthy offspring depended heavily on our social status within that tribe. This situation no longer holds, but we still have the instincts that evolved therein; it takes conscious thought to realize they are maladaptive and an effort of will to override them. What's important now is to bring about a better future (and preferably quickly enough that we - as many as possible of the six billion of us - live to see it). To bring it about not only as a plausible sounding argument, but a state of affairs that actually exists in the physical world. Arguing with fellow subscribers to extropy-chat can contribute to that goal when it helps bring about better understanding, but once each side is clear on the other's views and the reasoning behind them, once there's nothing new being said on the topic, the expected utility of further argument is low. Sitting down in the laboratory and doing the actual work; contributing money and time to support those who are doing so; marketing for better public appreciation and campaigning for more resources for those who are doing the work - those are the things that retain their value. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 8 13:59:40 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 06:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <005001c6725b$cbd67de0$ab0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi John, John wrote: "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as old as the hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves this can not possibly be true."... When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, I actually died yesterday." John, "...the idea that the you of yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been crazy." I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that alone is not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. John: "When there are far more holes than arguments it's time to look for another theory." Except in cases where the answer is staring you in the blood face, almost all theories begin with far more holes than arguments. Radical theories typically begin with only the faintest insight, and then build up from there. If a new idea was dismissed every time an inconsistency appeared, we would still be living in the 12th Century. John: "That's not the way science works, you don't decide what is true and then look for evidence of it, you look at the evidence and then form a conclusion." In almost all cases, the evidence alone is fragmentary and insufficient. You bring as much evidence together as you can and form a *hypothesis* which you then attempt to strengthen through experimentation or logic. Our conclusion as of right now represents our hypothesis. If this were a simple 3 part argument, we would prefer to move in a beginning-to-end direction. But this hypothesis is not simple or straightforward, it's ugly and counter-intuitive. If in the end, the logic is perfectly sound and the conclusion is proven true, it won't matter how we arrived at it; it's still valid, even if not pretty during construction. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich John K Clark wrote: A B Wrote: > it's important to keep in mind, that this conclusion/idea is still *very* > young. Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as old as the hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves this can not possibly be true. Mr. Heartland's could have presented a stronger case in the 19'th century than he can now, but even then the idea that the you of yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been crazy. > I don't deny that huge holes are missing from the argument When there are far more holes than arguments it's time to look for another theory. > Let's take the conclusion and work backwards to put together a convincing > argument, further supported by evidence if possible. That's not the way science works, you don't decide what is true and then look for evidence of it, you look at the evidence and then form a conclusion. John K Clark _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 8 14:19:47 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 07:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060508141947.72293.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Russel, This is something that I'm unclear on also. If Heartland believes that he is already experiencing a "copy's illusion", and after revival his "copy's illusion" would remain, I don't understand his reason for refusing Cryonics. I intend to sign to up. Heartland, perhaps you can clarify your position on this for us. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Russell Wallace wrote: On 5/8/06, Heartland wrote: [argument snipped] This seems quite clear (though it is not a position I myself hold); it also implies that you (like the rest of us) are currently under a death sentence (which you quite reasonably wish to avoid) - with no hope of cryonics providing a reprieve by your definition. Given that, impressive though the length of this argument has been, would it not be a more productive use of your time to do everything you can to further the progress of biological life extension? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon May 8 15:31:48 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:31:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007d01c672b4$952334b0$ac084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > mind is an instance of activity of matter in time and space. A keen grasp of the obvious, ALL activities happen at a time and at a place, the question is when do these activities do the same thing. I add 2 +2 at one time and one place with my calculator, I add 2+ 2 at another time and another place with another calculator; and both times I get the exact same 4. > a person with this disorder [multiple personality disorder] would maintain > the same identity (in the physical sense) for the duration of an instance > of his subjective experience regardless of personality changes You say 2 minds with completely different memories, completely different intelligence and completely different personalities have the "same identity", but before when we were talking about identical copies you said minds with identical memories identical intelligence and identical personalities do NOT have the "same identity". This can only be true if the phrase "same identity" is not applicable to the scientific method. In other words the phrase "same identity" has no consistent meaning in your vocabulary. > mind consists of *only* that activity of matter which directly implements > mind. You say this is a scientific theory so you must be precise and clear, exactly how direct must it be for you to call it "directly"? When a sodium or potassium ion enters a neuron does that "directly" implement the mind? The ion by itself will not cause the synapse to fire, it takes many to do that. Does a synapse firing "directly" implement the mind? One synapse firing will not form a memory, it takes lots of firings before Long Term Potentiation sets in. On the other hand the heart does directly influence the mind, if you remove the heart the mind will change very quickly and rather dramatically. Your distinction between directly and indirectly is arbitrary and artificial. > To say that mind is composed of neurons would be > analogous to a claim that flight is composed of plane's engines. To say mind is composed of matter of any sort is analogous to saying flight is composed of airplane. Gibberish. John K Clark From jef at jefallbright.net Mon May 8 15:51:27 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 08:51:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <005001c6725b$cbd67de0$ab0a4e0c@MyComputer> <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605080851l53366897g988a6b6a6576a577@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/06, A B wrote: > > Hi John, > > John wrote: > "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as old as > the > hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves this can > not possibly be true."... > > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) conclusion > which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I doubt any philosopher > from the past has stood before his peers and claimed with a straight face: > "Though I appear to you to be alive, I actually died yesterday." > > Jeffrey - This topic is thousands of years old. For examples, google "Ship of Theseus." - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From exi at syzygy.com Mon May 8 17:00:10 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 8 May 2006 17:00:10 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060508055831.4873.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <20060508170010.6969.qmail@syzygy.com> Eric: >> So, can we restrict it somewhat and say that the mind object is >> composed of all of the neurons in a single body? Heartland: >But that wouldn't be correct. To say that mind is composed of neurons would be >analogous to a claim that flight is composed of plane's engines. But I didn't say "mind is composed of neurons", I said "mind *object* is composed of [...] neurons". I'm trying to use your terminology here. You have made a distinction between mind (an activity) and mind object (the physical stuff involved in that activity). I'm trying to figure out which physical stuff is important enough to warrant being included in the mind object. So, let's consider the entirety of all of the neurons in a body as a physical object, and call it the "nervous system". We're excluding glial cells here, otherwise we'd have most of the mass of the brain, and that would keep brain object from being distinct enough from mind object to be useful. What relationship does "nervous system" have to "mind object"? Is it a subset, a superset, do they intersect, or not? >[...] >If "two minds" operate "with a large portion of their constituent objects in >common, with a small amount of state that is unique to each instance," then, by >definition, they have become a single instance of a mind. What if two mind objects start out as separate, then merge one percent of their hardware, so 99% of each mind is distinct, and 1% shared? Then we continue the merging until it is 99% shared and 1% distinct. This process must involve grey areas where it becomes difficult to talk about the separate identity of each of the mind objects. >It is not possible to merge two different minds into one instance, because the >merger process would inevitably reach a "critical" point when one mind would be >forced to "switch off/sacrifice" its own instance of subjective experience for >another. That depends on how the merger process takes place. Again, you're trying to describe a grey area with a binary distinction. It just doesn't work. >> No, but sufficient information about an activity can be stored to >> continue the activity. > >True, but that doesn't change the fact that activity *itself* cannot be stored in >information. Activity is not information, but can be encoded in information. You're placing activity in the supreme position as the defining characteristic of mind, but you run headlong into the Planck interval argument again. There is no activity between Planck intervals. Activity is what we label as the change in information content over time. Activity can be slowed, stopped, and resumed. It's only a question of how long the delay is. >> The old instance does not "experience nothingness". It does not >> experience. > >That's basically the point I'm trying to make. :) Old instance experiences >nothingness <=> Old instance doesn't exist. > >It's what cryonics patients "experience" at this time. According to my argument, >this state will last forever. > >> The new instance continues the subjective experience >> which the old instance started. > >Rather, it starts from the last state of the old instance and experiences an >illusion of continuity. Ok, the old instance is dead. The new instance only thinks it's a continuation of the old one. If we use the model of cryonics where the actual brain of a suspendee is revived as a biological entity, then the neurons that are involved in the new instance are the same as the neurons in the old instance. All that has happened is that we've slowed the activity of mind to a stop, then restarted it. For a while it was stopped. So what? Back to Planck: For a while between Planck intervals it was stopped. Again, so what? No one cares at that time scale. There is no bright line where this description changes fundamentally. Why should anyone care at the new time scale? We can track in 4 space the trajectories of all of the atoms involved in the mind object through the suspension period. They slow down, they speed up. Their identity does not change. The activity of those atoms does not stop, it only slows. At what point is the atomic activity no longer sufficient to maintain the continuity of the mind object? -eric From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 8 17:21:15 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605080851l53366897g988a6b6a6576a577@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060508172115.52086.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Jef, I looked over the first few Google entries under "Ship of Theseus". It seems to be a more general description of the difficulties of establishing the identity of things that change; I didn't find a specific reference to the debate we are having here except possibly through a quote from Heraclitus: "No man can cross the same river twice, because neither the man nor the river are the same." But, I couldn't fully interpret that implying that the "first man" died, and the "second man" is a copy. I interpreted it as saying that a human will change over time, eg. a child growing into an adult. But, my interpretation could be wrong. But, you could easily be right, and this particular hypothesis might be very old. I simply assumed it was not, because until now, no one on the list suggested it was. If it is very old, perhaps the "answer" can already be found somewhere ;-) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Jef Allbright wrote: On 5/8/06, A B wrote: Hi John, John wrote: "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as old as the hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves this can not possibly be true."... When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, I actually died yesterday." Jeffrey - This topic is thousands of years old. For examples, google "Ship of Theseus." - Jef _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 8 17:35:43 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605080755h4c69e3ffv52bc5cfcaf64a9c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060508173543.57767.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Russell, I think Russell makes a good point. Perhaps this discussion could best be conducted off-list, so that more pro-actionary things can be discussed here. That's just my 2 cents. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich P.S. I still certainly hope that everyone here makes Cryonics arrangements, if they are able and interested. Russell Wallace wrote: On 5/8/06, Heartland wrote: Russell, if the argument seems clear, and yet it failed to convince you, then it should be clear to you what is wrong with it. If you know what that is, please don't hesitate to point that out. Sure: you said intelligence is more like a brick than a symphony. It's not; it's more like a symphony ^.^ (I'm not proposing to join this debate - more than enough electrons have been spilled on it already; I'm happy to leave naming the pattern, thread and substrate views as my contribution. But I've answered the question you asked.) You mean more productive than writing arguments like these? Perhaps arguments like these will someday help further the progress of biological life extension by steering that progress in the right direction. One can only hope. Let's be honest here: we all know that anyone who's going to be persuaded by this argument to change their actions, has been persuaded already. If one finds it fun to continue such arguments anyway, then by all means; but let's call things entertainment when they are entertainment, and productive when they are productive, and not deceive ourselves about which is which. I don't think I like the idea of altering my behavior to appease the ghost of economics of time management with its goal to maximize productivity in shortest amount of time. This subgoal may not serve well the goal of maximizing the quality of my subjective experience (whatever remains of it, that is). I don't know. Your time is of course yours to dispose of as you choose, but I figure it's worth making this point (in general, not addressed only to you): We are evolved to want to spend a lot of time debating politics, religion and philosophy with our neighbors, to believe it's an important thing to do - because it _was_ important when our world consisted primarily of a tribe of 200 people and our chance of finding a mate and producing healthy offspring depended heavily on our social status within that tribe. This situation no longer holds, but we still have the instincts that evolved therein; it takes conscious thought to realize they are maladaptive and an effort of will to override them. What's important now is to bring about a better future (and preferably quickly enough that we - as many as possible of the six billion of us - live to see it). To bring it about not only as a plausible sounding argument, but a state of affairs that actually exists in the physical world. Arguing with fellow subscribers to extropy-chat can contribute to that goal when it helps bring about better understanding, but once each side is clear on the other's views and the reasoning behind them, once there's nothing new being said on the topic, the expected utility of further argument is low. Sitting down in the laboratory and doing the actual work; contributing money and time to support those who are doing so; marketing for better public appreciation and campaigning for more resources for those who are doing the work - those are the things that retain their value. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 8 17:53:57 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:53:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> On May 7, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Heartland wrote: > I. Terms and definitions: > > Subjective experience - Collective sense of perception and/or > cognition. > Process/activity by which mind experiences reality. What is the "collective" for? Collective among what? Would "sum of" be better? What about self-identity or reflection? > > Death/Nonexistence - Subjective experience of nothingness. Absence > of that part of > mind process which is responsible for producing subjective > experience. (A type of > subjective experience one would have if one did not exist at all). > Death is a subjective experience? Really? I thought you agreed it is a lack of any experience. How can that which does not exist have any experience? > Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. It is > the presence of > that part of mind process/activity which is responsible for > producing subjective > experience. Huh? This is the total of your definition of "life"? > > Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space > consisting of all > matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively > involved in producing > the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter > and energy in > time and space. > This is circular and meaningless. A delimited subset of all matter "involved in producing the mind" cannot be a definition of "mind". > Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that > consists of all > matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary > to support its > existence. What? You have mind as a material object as far as I can tell but brain as some other material object not part of "mind object"? This is confusing. You need to have mind as a process and not an object to make this work I think. > > Trajectory of an object - Space-time path of matter making up that > object. It is a > list of all present space-time locations of all matter that > currently makes up the > object. > What is this useful for? There is only one space-time location for an object at any moment. Are you speaking of across the entire existence of said object? > Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and > space. > Nope. You can't have identity be the same as the trajectory because then you leave the question "trajectory of what" unanswered. > Type - A category of things that share some characteristic. For > example, apples and > oranges are types of fruit. In this case "fruit" is the type. > All three are types. Apple and Orange are more specific types of Fruit. > Instance of a type - Individual object that belongs to the same > type. For example, > an apple is an instance of fruit type and an orange is also an > instance of fruit > type. > > ------ > II. The argument: With the above broken definitions you have no basis for an argument. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 8 18:20:57 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:20:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8460289F-3DE6-4B5F-9421-843BC2C39619@mac.com> On May 8, 2006, at 6:59 AM, A B wrote: > Hi John, > > John wrote: > "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as > old as the > hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves > this can > not possibly be true."... > > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) > conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I > doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and > claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, > I actually died yesterday." > > John, > "...the idea that the you of > yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been > crazy." > > I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that > alone is not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. In absence of a convincing argument, which certainly has not been provided, we have quite sufficient grounds for dismissing these assertions as nonsense. Can we move on to something productive now? - samantha From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 8 18:51:43 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <8460289F-3DE6-4B5F-9421-843BC2C39619@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060508185143.66566.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Samantha, It is equally inappropriate to claim that the idea is "nonsense", unless you have relevant evidence or a counter-argument. However, I agree that there are more pressing matters at this time. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 8, 2006, at 6:59 AM, A B wrote: > Hi John, > > John wrote: > "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as > old as the > hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves > this can > not possibly be true."... > > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) > conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I > doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and > claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, > I actually died yesterday." > > John, > "...the idea that the you of > yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been > crazy." > > I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that > alone is not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. In absence of a convincing argument, which certainly has not been provided, we have quite sufficient grounds for dismissing these assertions as nonsense. Can we move on to something productive now? - samantha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon May 8 20:33:20 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 16:33:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer> Jeffrey Herrlich > I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that alone is > not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. That' true, I've always loved the Niels Bohr quote: " Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true". However when I say Mr. Heartland's ideas are crazy I don't just mean they are very odd, I mean they are illogical and not connected to reality. According to him if I went to the dentist yesterday to have a tooth pulled and had a anesthetic then I died and today I am only one day old, I am going to the dentist again tomorrow but Mr. Hartland would advise me not to or the same horrible thing would happen to me again. The disconnect from reality is that apart from the loss of a tooth nothing horrible happened to me yesterday so there is no reason to fear the dentist tomorrow. If I "die" tomorrow in the same way I "died" yesterday then I don't care, the word has lost its power and meaning. > I doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and > claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, I > actually died yesterday." I couldn't say that with a straight face either, but I know one man who could. John K Clark From ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk Mon May 8 20:10:34 2006 From: ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk (Pes Udoname) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 21:10:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Introduction Message-ID: <20060508201034.96590.qmail@web26404.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Ok, slightly unsure about this as there seems to be something about extropy shuting down, so this might be a bad time to make an introduction post, but anyway. Also after the introduction bit I would like some advice about what to study.. Introduction bit: I'm, currently at university in the UK studying on a maths degree. Due to being exposed to a lot of science early on, as well as reading serious S.F., I first realised about transhumanism several years ago, but assumed the technology would be a long time in the future. Also anyone I mentioned my thoughts about life extension to reacted hostility and I assumed no-one thought like me. Then while doing some research for the computing section of my degree I came across the singularity institute site, and realised that there are people who think like me, and also that the singularity is much closer then I thought. I folowed links and eventually ended up here. >From my own egotistical point of view, being young I am less worried about life extiention and cryonics then I am about the singularity, which will (hopefully) happen before I get old. I think the risks of an unfreindly singularity are best avoided by getting there first, and by not giving AIs equal rights as humans/posthumans. And then there is the problem of what exactly consionusness is, and to cap it all the bioconservatives want us dead..... I think I am immune to future shock by now. I want to live forever, or at least a mind-bogglingly long time. I also want to be uploaded, but it is important to do this in a way that ensures that it is you that is uploaded, not just a copy. Once I finish my degree I want to get involved in recearch in some transhumanist field, but I'm not sure what... any advice will be appreacated. I am taking this seriously. I want to get invoved and I am prepared to devote time to whatever will help the singularity. What else is there to say? Philosophically I am a weak athist and libertarian. I take omega 3 and eat a healthy diet, but it's frustrating being healthy while at uni when your friends drink and smoke and take 'shrooms... I can't wait for the future. "Say goodbye to gravity and say goodbye to death, Hello to eternity and live for every breath....." Advice bit: I am currently worried that my maths course has little relivence to real life in any way. I am doing some computing, but it is getting frustrating the ammount of time I have to spend debugging stuff. So what should I specialise in? Is there any point in pure maths? Does knowing about Riemann intergration help with anything? I would like to do somthing that would help towards transhumanism/ singulartarianism in the future. Options I have: Pure maths like group theory, Galois theory etc Pure maths like Riemann intergration etc, all of which seems too rigorous to me Applied maths Physics- quantum mechanics, thermodynamics Computing - formal logic, computer algebra Computing - actually coding stuff (very annoying) Any advice ASAP would be very much appreciated. :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk Mon May 8 21:07:18 2006 From: ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk (Pes Udoname) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:07:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro Message-ID: <20060508210718.89077.qmail@web26406.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Ok, slightly unsure about this as there seems to be something about extropy shuting down, so this might be a bad time to make an introduction post, but anyway. Also after the introduction bit I would like some advice about what to study.. Introduction bit: I'm, currently at university in the UK studying on a maths degree. Due to being exposed to a lot of science early on, as well as reading serious S.F., I first realised about transhumanism several years ago, but assumed the technology would be a long time in the future. Also anyone I mentioned my thoughts about life extension to reacted hostility and I assumed no-one thought like me. Then while doing some research for the computing section of my degree I came across the singularity institute site, and realised that there are people who think like me, and also that the singularity is much closer then I thought. I folowed links and eventually ended up here. >From my own egotistical point of view, being young I am less worried about life extiention and cryonics then I am about the singularity, which will (hopefully) happen before I get old. I think the risks of an unfreindly singularity are best avoided by getting there first, and by not giving AIs equal rights as humans/posthumans. And then there is the problem of what exactly consionusness is, and to cap it all the bioconservatives want us dead..... I think I am immune to future shock by now. I want to live forever, or at least a mind-bogglingly long time. I also want to be uploaded, but it is important to do this in a way that ensures that it is you that is uploaded, not just a copy. Once I finish my degree I want to get involved in recearch in some transhumanist field, but I'm not sure what... any advice will be appreacated. I am taking this seriously. I want to get invoved and I am prepared to devote time to whatever will help the singularity. What else is there to say? Philosophically I am a weak athist and libertarian. I take omega 3 and eat a healthy diet, but it's frustrating being healthy while at uni when your friends drink and smoke and take 'shrooms... I can't wait for the future. "Say goodbye to gravity and say goodbye to death, Hello to eternity and live for every breath....." Advice bit: I am currently worried that my maths course has little relivence to real life in any way. I am doing some computing, but it is getting frustrating the ammount of time I have to spend debugging stuff. So what should I specialise in? Is there any point in pure maths? Does knowing about Riemann intergration help with anything? I would like to do somthing that would help towards transhumanism/ singulartarianism in the future. Options I have: Pure maths like group theory, Galois theory etc Pure maths like Riemann intergration etc, all of which seems too rigorous to me Applied maths Physics- quantum mechanics, thermodynamics Computing - formal logic, computer algebra Computing - actually coding stuff (very annoying) Any advice ASAP would be very much appreciated. :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk Mon May 8 21:17:46 2006 From: ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk (Pes Udoname) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:17:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro Message-ID: <20060508211746.87849.qmail@web26412.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Ok, slightly unsure about this as there seems to be something about extropy shuting down, so this might be a bad time to make an introduction post, but anyway. Also after the introduction bit I would like some advice about what to study.. Introduction bit: I'm, currently at university in the UK studying on a maths degree. Due to being exposed to a lot of science early on, as well as reading serious S.F., I first realised about transhumanism several years ago, but assumed the technology would be a long time in the future. Also anyone I mentioned my thoughts about life extension to reacted hostility and I assumed no-one thought like me. Then while doing some research for the computing section of my degree I came across the singularity institute site, and realised that there are people who think like me, and also that the singularity is much closer then I thought. I folowed links and eventually ended up here. >From my own egotistical point of view, being young I am less worried about life extiention and cryonics then I am about the singularity, which will (hopefully) happen before I get old. I think the risks of an unfreindly singularity are best avoided by getting there first, and by not giving AIs equal rights as humans/posthumans. And then there is the problem of what exactly consionusness is, and to cap it all the bioconservatives want us dead..... I think I am immune to future shock by now. I want to live forever, or at least a mind-bogglingly long time. I also want to be uploaded, but it is important to do this in a way that ensures that it is you that is uploaded, not just a copy. Once I finish my degree I want to get involved in recearch in some transhumanist field, but I'm not sure what... any advice will be appreacated. I am taking this seriously. I want to get invoved and I am prepared to devote time to whatever will help the singularity. What else is there to say? Philosophically I am a weak athist and libertarian. I take omega 3 and eat a healthy diet, but it's frustrating being healthy while at uni when your friends drink and smoke and take 'shrooms... I can't wait for the future. "Say goodbye to gravity and say goodbye to death, Hello to eternity and live for every breath....." Advice bit: I am currently worried that my maths course has little relivence to real life in any way. I am doing some computing, but it is getting frustrating the ammount of time I have to spend debugging stuff. So what should I specialise in? Is there any point in pure maths? Does knowing about Riemann intergration help with anything? I would like to do somthing that would help towards transhumanism/ singulartarianism in the future. Options I have: Pure maths like group theory, Galois theory etc Pure maths like Riemann intergration etc, all of which seems too rigorous to me Applied maths Physics- quantum mechanics, thermodynamics Computing - formal logic, computer algebra Computing - actually coding stuff (very annoying) Any advice ASAP would be very much appreciated. :-) --------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Mon May 8 22:05:18 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 23:05:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <445FC09E.1060700@lineone.net> This is just getting worse and worse. Heartland writes: "According to the definition, mind consists of *only* that activity of matter which directly implements mind" So X consists of /activity which implements/ X? ben From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 23:35:12 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 19:35:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <445FC09E.1060700@lineone.net> Message-ID: > Heartland writes: > "According to the definition, mind consists of *only* that activity of > matter which directly implements mind" Ben: > So X consists of /activity which implements/ X? No, what I actually said was that X consists of **Y of Z** which directly implements X. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 23:51:07 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 19:51:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <005001c6725b$cbd67de0$ab0a4e0c@MyComputer><20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22360fa10605080851l53366897g988a6b6a6576a577@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) conclusion > which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I doubt any philosopher > from the past has stood before his peers and claimed with a straight face: > "Though I appear to you to be alive, I actually died yesterday." Jef: "This topic is thousands of years old. For examples, google "Ship of Theseus" Thanks for this great link. Yes, it appears that this *topic* or problem is thousands years old. However, the *solution* is just few years old and some *conclusions* based on that solution are months or weeks old. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 00:11:43 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 20:11:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Jeffrey: >> I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that alone is >> not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. John: > That' true, I've always loved the Niels Bohr quote: > " Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true". However when > I say Mr. Heartland's ideas are crazy I don't just mean they are very odd, I > mean they are illogical and not connected to reality. Please don't make such empty statements without being specific. Which points in the argument are illogical and why? Which are not connected to reality? Show, don't tell. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 00:30:56 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 20:30:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605080755h4c69e3ffv52bc5cfcaf64a9c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Heartland: > Russell, if the argument seems clear, and yet it failed to convince you, > then it should be clear to you what is wrong with it. If you know what that is, > please don't hesitate to point that out. Russell: "Sure: you said intelligence is more like a brick than a symphony. It's not; it's more like a symphony " Except I didn't say "intelligence," but "mind." What I meant by "mind is more like a brick" was that mind requires matter so it must have properties of matter, but it's not *just* matter. It's *matter in time and space.* (In the next version of the argument I'm definitely dropping the terms like "object" and replacing "matter in time and space" by a single term to avoid the confusion with static "matter.") S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 01:39:55 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 21:39:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> Message-ID: Heartland: >> Subjective experience - Collective sense of perception and/or >> cognition. >> Process/activity by which mind experiences reality. Samantha: > What is the "collective" for? Collective among what? Would "sum of" > be better? Sure, "sum of" could work just as well. >What about self-identity or reflection? All part of the "sum." Heartland: >> Death/Nonexistence - Subjective experience of nothingness. Absence >> of that part of >> mind process which is responsible for producing subjective >> experience. (A type of >> subjective experience one would have if one did not exist at all). Samantha: > Death is a subjective experience? Really? I thought you agreed it > is a lack of any experience. How can that which does not exist have > any experience? The point of "you would experience nothingness" is to help the audience imagine that experience. I'm just using poetic license here to make that particular point across. It's absolutely the case that, "subjective experience of nothingness <=> subjective experience doesn't exist." Or just "subjective experience doesn't exist." Heartland: >> Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. It is >> the presence of >> that part of mind process/activity which is responsible for >> producing subjective >> experience. Samantha: > Huh? This is the total of your definition of "life"? Remember that this argument deals exclusively, as it should, with the physical substance of life, not its *content* or meanings of that content. So, physically, that's precisely what life is. Heartland: >> Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space >> consisting of all >> matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively >> involved in producing >> the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter >> and energy in >> time and space. Samantha: > This is circular and meaningless. A delimited subset of all matter > "involved in producing the mind" cannot be a definition of "mind". You misinterpreted the definition. Mind isn't a "subset of all matter." It's a subset of all "activity of matter in time and space," that produces the mind. There's a huge difference. I will adjust this definition to better reflect the true meaning. Heartland: >> Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that >> consists of all >> matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary >> to support its >> existence. Samantha: > What? You have mind as a material object as far as I can tell but > brain as some other material object not part of "mind object"? This > is confusing. You need to have mind as a process and not an object > to make this work I think. I hear you loud and clear. There will be no more "objects" in the next iteration of this argument. It's just too confusing to people and makes them miss the whole point. Mind, as any process/activity, requires matter, among other things, to exist. When I say "mind object," it gives the audience wrong impression that mind is *just* static matter. It's not fair to "other things that allow activity to exist" to leave them out of the term. Heartland: >> Trajectory of an object - Space-time path of matter making up that >> object. It is a >> list of all present space-time locations of all matter that >> currently makes up the >> object. Samantha: > What is this useful for? There is only one space-time location for > an object at any moment. Are you speaking of across the entire > existence of said object? Objective observer uses trajectories to distinguish between instances of matter or activities of matter in time and space, including instances of the same type, across the entire existence of an instance. Heartland: >> Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and >> space. Samantha: > Nope. You can't have identity be the same as the trajectory because > then you leave the question "trajectory of what" unanswered. But that answer is always automatically assumed before the process of distinguishing between instances can begin. Hence, "identity of an object," instead of "identity." We can't distinguish between things if we don't already know what these things are in the first place. Heartland: >> Type - A category of things that share some characteristic. For >> example, apples and >> oranges are types of fruit. In this case "fruit" is the type. Samantha: > All three are types. Apple and Orange are more specific types of Fruit. They are, but their instances would require matter to exist. Types are dimensionless and matterless so they can't store matter. In other words, types (information) do not have physical presence in this universe. Only instances actually exist. Samantha: > With the above broken definitions you have no basis for an argument. I'll just need to slightly adjust few descriptions, not meanings, that's all. Thank you for your feedback. S. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 9 00:43:32 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 17:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible - unless you are a cute little moss piglet. In-Reply-To: <445FC09E.1060700@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20060509004332.81027.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Behold the "water bears" aka "moss piglets" - phylum tardigrada. Yeah, they have their own phylum all to themselves with about 650 representative species. The videos on the first site are exceptionally cool. http://www.tardigrades.com/ http://www.iwu.edu/~tardisdp/tardigrade_facts.html When the going gets rough, they can just shut down metabolism to undetectable levels in a process called cryptobiosis that theoretically last for a century or more. Then when things start looking up again, they come back to life and pick up right where they left off. They make their own cyroprotectant that lets them run around at temperatures below freezing. They can survive, high and low pressures, heat, cold, dessication, acids, solvents, and tons of radiation. Yeah so what? Lots of microorganisms make ultra-resistant spores that cheat death you say? Well the really cool thing about these guys is that they don't form spores but instead they turn into little corpses called tuns that look like little mummified versions of themselves. Furthermore they are not bacteria, not fungi, and are not even unicellular organisms, but bona fide ANIMALS composed of cells and organs. They have eyes, muscles, legs, claws, and even multi-lobed BRAINS. They come in male and female varieties and have red-hot-animal-sex. I wonder if they subscribe to the thread or pattern view of consciousness? :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 02:27:41 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:27:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060508055831.4873.qmail@syzygy.com> <20060508170010.6969.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: >Eric: >>> So, can we restrict it somewhat and say that the mind object is >>> composed of all of the neurons in a single body? > > Heartland: >>But that wouldn't be correct. To say that mind is composed of neurons would be >>analogous to a claim that flight is composed of plane's engines. Eric: > But I didn't say "mind is composed of neurons", I said "mind *object* > is composed of [...] neurons". I'm trying to use your terminology > here. You have made a distinction between mind (an activity) and mind > object (the physical stuff involved in that activity). I'm trying to > figure out which physical stuff is important enough to warrant being > included in the mind object. Okay, I see what you were getting at. I think that the stuff that mind is made of looks more like electrons than neurons. And if we dig to the bottom of it, it is energy. (I refrained from using energy in the argument to avoid any more confusion, but, ultimately, a true argument should use energy.) Eric: > So, let's consider the entirety of all of the neurons in a body as a > physical object, and call it the "nervous system". We're excluding > glial cells here, otherwise we'd have most of the mass of the brain, > and that would keep brain object from being distinct enough from mind > object to be useful. > What relationship does "nervous system" have to "mind object"?> > Is it a subset, a superset, do they intersect, or not? "Nervous system" is a superset of "mind object." Heartland: >>If "two minds" operate "with a large portion of their constituent objects in >>common, with a small amount of state that is unique to each instance," then, by >>definition, they have become a single instance of a mind. Eric: > What if two mind objects start out as separate, then merge one percent > of their hardware, so 99% of each mind is distinct, and 1% shared? > Then we continue the merging until it is 99% shared and 1% distinct. > This process must involve grey areas where it becomes difficult to > talk about the separate identity of each of the mind objects. Heartland: >>It is not possible to merge two different minds into one instance, because the >>merger process would inevitably reach a "critical" point when one mind would be >>forced to "switch off/sacrifice" its own instance of subjective experience for >>another. Eric: > That depends on how the merger process takes place. Again, you're > trying to describe a grey area with a binary distinction. It just > doesn't work. Why? Heartland: >>>>Activity itself cannot be stored by information. Eric: >>> No, but sufficient information about an activity can be stored to >>> continue the activity. Heartland: >>True, but that doesn't change the fact that activity *itself* cannot be stored in >>information. Eric: > Activity is not information, but can be encoded in information. Only *information about an activity* can be encoded in information, not that activity *itself.* Eric: > You're placing activity in the supreme position as the defining > characteristic of mind, but you run headlong into the Planck interval > argument again. There is no activity between Planck intervals. But there exists potential energy during PI that causes that activity to continue. Eric: > Activity is what we label as the change in information content over > time. And that "change" is what mind physically is. Eric: >>> The new instance continues the subjective experience >>> which the old instance started. Heartland: >>Rather, it starts from the last state of the old instance and experiences an >>illusion of continuity. Eric: > Ok, the old instance is dead. The new instance only thinks it's a > continuation of the old one. > If we use the model of cryonics where the actual brain of a suspendee > is revived as a biological entity, then the neurons that are involved > in the new instance are the same as the neurons in the old instance. > All that has happened is that we've slowed the activity of mind to a > stop, then restarted it. What actually happened was that all the energy that powered that activity has dissipated, causing irreversible end of an instance. Eric: > For a while it was stopped. So what? You will remain dead forever. Thanks for the feedback, Eric. S. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue May 9 03:07:11 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 23:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... Message-ID: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm trying to understand cryonics a bit better and I had a few questions. (These questions are on a broad sense.) Is mind solely information and is the brain just matter? Will reversal cryonics only be made available when mind experiences will be able to be transfered and/or when the matter can be transfered? If I'm not understanding clearly please let me know, it would be appreciated. Thanks Anna --------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail --------------------------------- Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From exi at syzygy.com Tue May 9 04:17:52 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 9 May 2006 04:17:52 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060508055831.4873.qmail@syzygy.com> <20060508170010.6969.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <20060509041752.12429.qmail@syzygy.com> Heartland: >Okay, I see what you were getting at. I think that the stuff that mind is made of >looks more like electrons than neurons. And if we dig to the bottom of it, it is >energy. (I refrained from using energy in the argument to avoid any more confusion, >but, ultimately, a true argument should use energy.) and: >"Nervous system" is a superset of "mind object." Good. That makes sense to me. Mitochondria (among other things) within neurons are part of the support structure for the neuron, but are not fundamental to the process of producing mind. If the mind is running on a different type of substrate there may be no mitochondria. A silicon computer simulating a neuron need not include such support structures if the simulation is of mind operations rather than metabolic functions. My understanding is that the important pieces of activity are the following: Electrical impulses polarize the cellular membrane (change the relative electrical potential of the inside versus the outside). Polarization affects the shape of ion channels in the membrane allowing charged particles to diffuse through the channels. That diffusion maintains and propagates electrical impulses. When an electrical impulse reaches a synapse, the altered polarization causes conformational changes to molecules embedded in the cell wall, resulting in the release of neurotransmitters into the synaptic gap. The neurotransmitters diffuse across the synaptic gap to the another neuron, where they bind to receptor molecules on the outer surface of the cellular membrane. Those molecules change their conformation in response to binding the neurotransmitter. That conformational change extends to the interior of the post-synaptic neuron where it activates enzymes which perform chemical reactions within the cell. Those reactions change the concentration of various chemicals within the post-synaptic neuron. The concentrations control various functions within the cell. The cell may become more or less likely to fire an electrical impulse as a result of the change in concentration. The cell may become more susceptible to firing in the future. The cell may manufacture more receptors to strengthen the synaptic connection. The cell may begin growing new dendrites which can form new connections with other neurons. These changes occur at various time scales, and control processes that occur at similar time scales. Single electrical impulses can propagate from one neuron to another on the order of milliseconds. Changes in the synaptic strength can last for minutes or hours, and result in the formation of active memories. Permanent changes in synaptic strength, or the number of synapses result in long term memories. In addition to the release of neurotransmitters affecting cells across a synaptic gap, neurotransmitters and other hormones can diffuse through the brain and change the behavior of larger numbers of neurons in a much less localized manner. So, the crucial pieces of information are: What are the physical locations of all of the synapses and the neural cell walls that connect them? This is needed to deal with diffuse neurotransmitters. What neurons connect to what other neurons? What are the type and strength of all of the synapses in each of those connections? This is necessary to deal with the propagation of electrical impulses. What are the concentrations and concentration gradients of the active chemicals within and around each neuron? This is necessary to model the chemical changes which mediate the slower changes in the neurons. These are the things which have to be included in a "mind object". Heartland: >>>It is not possible to merge two different minds into one instance, because the >>>merger process would inevitably reach a "critical" point when one mind would be >>>forced to "switch off/sacrifice" its own instance of subjective experience for >>>another. Eric: >> That depends on how the merger process takes place. Again, you're >> trying to describe a grey area with a binary distinction. It just >> doesn't work. Heartland: >Why? Because the merger process can be gradual. If you pour a bucket of red paint and a bucket of blue paint into a third bucket, at some point you end up with a bucket of purple paint. When was there no longer a bucket of red paint? Heartland: >Only *information about an activity* can be encoded in information, not that >activity *itself.* Yes. Activity is embodied in matter in motion. Matter can be set into motion based on information. Information can be generated based on the activity of matter. The two are equivalent ways of looking at the same system. I think you may not accept the above statement. I think it is the key to why people are disagreeing with you. We record and reproduce activity all the time, but not yet at the fidelity necessary to reproduce mind. Can you accept that we will be able to do that? Heartland: >What actually happened was that all the energy that powered that activity has >dissipated, causing irreversible end of an instance. No! The energy is not all dissipated. The kinetic energy has mostly (but not totally) dissipated. There remains a significant amount of potential energy. How do we know this? It took energy -- metabolism -- to construct the cells of the brain. That energy is still there. A brain is at a higher potential energy than a cloud of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen atoms. They're held together by the molecular binding energy of the bonds between the atoms. And, there's information content in those bonds. They tell how the brain would have reacted to a stimulus while it was alive. Eric: >> For a while it was stopped. So what? Heartland: >You will remain dead forever. Not if we can restart the activity. The instance retains it's identity as long as the information encoding the mind can still be used to reconstruct the mind. >Thanks for the feedback, Eric. No problem. -eric From jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 04:47:34 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:47:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com><8d71341e0605080755h4c69e3ffv52bc5cfcaf64a9c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001801c67323$b57c2720$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > What I meant by "mind is more like a brick" was that mind requires matter > so it must have properties of matter A symphony requires matter too. Hardness requires matter also, so does wetness, but any matter will do, neither requires a particular bit of matter, and neither is an object, and neither is a noun. > but it's not *just* matter. It's *matter in time and space.* You keep saying that over and over as if you've made the discovery of the ages, yes things happen at a time and at a place, chimpanzees have figured that out, in fact so have sea slugs, so can you go on to something more interesting. > In the next version of the argument I'm definitely dropping the terms like > "object" and replacing "matter in time and space" I know it doesn't sound as cool but unless you can tell us about matter not in time and space why not just call it matter, or better yet use one of Richard Feynman's favorite words "stuff". Feynman's ideas were so profound he didn't need pompous words to make them sound intelligent. John K Clark From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 04:54:36 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:54:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anna: > Is mind solely information and is the brain just > matter? The physical essence of mind is an activity of matter in time and space. Information cannot store activity itself while static matter by itself isn't activity so a frozen, static brain matter plus information about the structure of that brain is not enough to preserve an instance of a mind because laws of physics simply do not allow it. It's not a conventional view even among transhumanists, but I'm confident that with time it will be accepted as an undisputed fact. Even though an *instance* of mind cannot be preserved, cryonics should be able to preserve the *type* of the mind. You just need to decide what's more important to you, your type or your instance. If it's type then I think it would be a good idea to sign up for suspension. If it's instance, then I'm afraid that time travel technology is the only hope. S. From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 9 05:10:49 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:10:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:54:36AM -0400, Heartland wrote: > Anna: Anna: don't listen to him, he's confused. > > Is mind solely information and is the brain just > > matter? > > The physical essence of mind is an activity of matter in time and space. > Information cannot store activity itself while static matter by itself isn't > activity so a frozen, static brain matter plus information about the structure of > that brain is not enough to preserve an instance of a mind because laws of physics > simply do not allow it. It's not a conventional view even among transhumanists, but > I'm confident that with time it will be accepted as an undisputed fact. > > Even though an *instance* of mind cannot be preserved, cryonics should be able to > preserve the *type* of the mind. You just need to decide what's more important to > you, your type or your instance. If it's type then I think it would be a good idea > to sign up for suspension. If it's instance, then I'm afraid that time travel > technology is the only hope. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 05:21:47 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 01:21:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <006c01c67328$97f66030$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" Wrote: > it appears that this *topic* or problem is thousands years old. However, > the *solution* is just few years old and some *conclusions* based on that > solution are months or weeks old. Never let it be said that Mr. Heartland does not have a sense of humor. > Which points in the argument are illogical and why? Which are not > connected to reality? Show, don't tell. Just yesterday at his request I posted eleven very specific points in his theory that were illogical or not connected to reality. And he did respond to my objections, his responded with ten words, that's less than one word per point, all he said was "Some of it is correct, most of it is not". Apparently Mr. Heartland's long term memory is not very good for he seems to have forgotten all about it, for his benefit I repeat them now. I'm hoping he writes a response immediately after reading them before he forgets again, perhaps then he can break the one word per point response barrier. 1) Mr. Heartland says having someone tomorrow who remembers being you today is not sufficient to conclude you have survived into tomorrow, he says more is required but he never explains what or why. This leads to rather odd conclusions, like anesthesia is equivalent to death and like you may have died yesterday and not even know it. Mr. Hartland thinks your subjectivity is an "illusion" created by a copy of you, Mr. Hartland says he hates this and thinks it is a great tragedy, but even if true he never explains why this is supposed to be upsetting. 2) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but he ignores the fact that our atoms get recycled every few weeks. 3) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but science can find no difference between one atom and another. Mr. Heartland points out, quite correctly, that subjectivity and consciousness are what we should be concerned about, but then he says particular atoms are what makes our consciousness unique. It's true that the scientific method can not investigate consciousness directly so nobody will ever be able to prove the idea is wrong, nobody will ever prove that there isn't a difference between atoms that the scientific method can't detect, but theologians since the middle ages have been making the exact same argument about the existence of the human soul. It seems a little too pat that the only difference between atoms is something the scientific method can not see but nevertheless is of profound astronomical importance, it's just like saying atoms have souls. 4) Mr. Heartland says the history (or if you want to sound scientific brainy and cool "the space time trajectory") of atoms are what makes atoms unique; but many atoms have no history and even for those that do it is not permanent, the entire record of an atom's past exploits can be erased from the universe and it's not difficult to do. This is not theory, this has been proven in the lab and any theory that just ignores that fact can not be called scientific. 5) Mr. Heartland insists his theory is consistent and logically rigorous but he is unwilling or unable to answer the simplest questions about it, like is A the original or B. Instead Mr. Heartland thinks informing us that A=A and B=B is sufficient. 6) Several times Mr. Heartland informed us that location is vital in determining which mind is which, but he never explained why because mind by itself can never determine it's location. Also Mr. Heartland never explains the position relative to what as we've known for over a century that absolute position is meaningless. 7) Mr. Heartland, wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists or not" and then he wrote "My copy" is not me". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 8) Mr. Heartland wrote "Mind is not a brain" and he was absolutely correct about that, but then he said mind "is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 9) As noted above Mr. Heartland thinks mind is a "4-D mind object", but he is unable on unwilling to give the 4-D coordinates of the vital things the constitute mind, like fun or red or fast or logic or love or fear or the number eleven or my memory of yesterday. 10) Mr. Heartland wrote "creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type" but if so he never explained why two calculators the add 2 +2 would not produce answers that were profoundly different; and if they are profoundly different he never explained how it is possible to do science. 11) Mr. Heartland insists that if two CD's are synchronized and playing the same symphony then two symphonies are playing, but a CD is just a number thus there are always profound differences even between the same number, and 9 is not equal to 9. If true Mr. Heartland is unable to explain how it is nevertheless possible to do science. Finally I believe another reason many find it difficult to take Mr. Heartland seriously is his treatment of criticism, whenever somebody point out a flaw in his ideas he either ignores it, pleads persecution, or makes assurances without giving one bit of evidence. For example, the existence of Bose Einstein Condensations, the fact that Mr. Heartland's trajectories through space time are temporary things that are easy to erase would seem to blow a very large hole in his theory, but Mr. Heartland says it does not, in fact he says his theory "has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensations". Mr. Heartland does not explain how he reached this astonishing conclusion, we must just take it on faith. John K Clark From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 05:35:39 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 01:35:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen: "Anna: don't listen to him, he's confused." Personal opinions don't count. From my point of view you are very confused yourself. So what? Either provide an argument that proves my view wrong or don't say anything. Thank you. S. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue May 9 05:45:06 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:45:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/8/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Is mind solely information and is the brain just matter? > > Will reversal cryonics only be made available when > mind experiences will be able to be transfered > and/or when the matter can be transfered? > For all practical purposes one can consider the "brain" (as in the biological system) to be the matter which the mind. You can to a large degree (at least IMO) consider the "mind" to be the successive information states that brain goes through. For example you can consider taking a piece of paper and turning it into an origami crane. The paper goes through successive information states each a little different from the one before it. You can kind of consider the "mind" to be the successive forms that the paper (brain) goes through in the process of going from a flat sheet to a folded crane. Cryonics "reversal" or "reanimation" as I like to call it will depend upon the technical capabilities which may be developed in the future. One group of followers prefers to believe that the brain will be restored and the "mind" will be reactivated. (Similar to individuals who recover from a low temperature drowning). Another group of followers prefers the option of simply transferring the information state from the brain to a computer which can perform the identical or highly similar processing functions (this is commonly known as uploading). There at least a third form which I've been thinking about lately where a person may choose to have their "information" recovered (i.e. memory readout) but require that the essential structure/information which would allow one to run the mind. This is kind of the difference between restoring a computer from a "suspend" state (nanobiological cryonics reanimation), rebooting the computer [on different hardware which can function "like the original" [1]] (uploading) and data restoration (from a hard drive, tape, etc.). To a large degree what will be possible may depend on when one attempts them. I happen to think that the order in which they will be developed will be: 1) Biological reanimation (probably leveraged using nanorobots). 2) Information recovery (memory readout). 3) Full uploading onto non-wet-brain hardware. #2 is probably a prerequisite for #3. Whether (1) or (2 + 3) will be first developed first remains an open question. I tend to lean towards (1) as being possible probably 5-10 years before (2 + 3). Also, IMO, I would expect that humanity would have to suffer a severe developmental setback ( e.g. an "Armageddon" type event) for these not to be available by the 2050-2060 time frame. If we pushed a little harder on them we could have them in the 2020-2030 time frame. Some people might want to ask why you would ever want #2 and not #3. My answer would be that most people do not like to function in environments in which they are not comfortable. Most people transitioning from the slow run up to the singularity to the stage where it becomes painfully unavoidable may consciously choose to not want to have to live in that "crazy" world. They might however want to leave humanity their memorys, insights, stories, etc. Right now one only has available very crude tools for sharing oneself (teaching children or students, establishing foundations, created entities (companies, art, estates, etc.), writing autobiographies, ...). Choosing #2 without #3 allows you to give humanity literally "all of oneself" without having the problem of getting up sometime in 20, 30 or 40 years and having to upload 100, 102, 104, 108, 116, 132, etc. terabytes of information *each* successive morning just to keep up with everything that changed in the world while you were sleeping. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 06:13:05 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 02:13:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00a901c6732f$ab13da60$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > The physical essence of mind is an activity of matter in time and space. Cool! And I just made a brilliant discovery too, I'm responding to you post by punching keys on my keyboard in time and space. > Information cannot store activity Information can initiate activity, it can also suppress activity. > static brain matter plus information about the structure of that brain is > not enough to preserve an instance of a mind because laws of physics > simply do not allow it. If that were true, if the laws of physics did not allow you to stop a mind and then restart the same mind then that would mean there must be some test you could use to see if a mind had been temporarily halted or not, BUT NO SUCH TEST EXISTS. > Even though an *instance* of mind cannot be preserved, cryonics should be > able to preserve the *type* of the mind. So the last post from you that I read on my computer was just a *type* of your post, perhaps that's why it didn't convince me. I need to read an *instance* of your post, but to do that I need to read it on your computer and I need to read it at the same time and place you wrote it. So all you need to do to convince me is send me an airline ticket and a time machine. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 06:22:56 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 02:22:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <00b901c67331$0798bd40$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> > Eugen: > "Anna: don't listen to him, he's confused." "Heartland" > Either provide an argument that proves my view wrong or don't > say anything. Thank you. Why should Eugen do that? If Eugen had bothered to write a list of the things he found wrong with your ideas you'd just ignore them as you did with me, and the next day you'd complain that he hadn't sent it. And Anna, Eugen is right, Heartland is very very confused. John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 9 05:53:16 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:53:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cool! foresight institute in the national news In-Reply-To: <321D9901-D579-4175-B1FC-CA7637F7D33B@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <200605090629.k496TeKr013070@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Check this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194734,00.html Nanotech Policy Faces No Small Hurdles Monday, May 08, 2006 By Greg Simmons WASHINGTON - Air purifiers, cosmetics, sports equipment, computers, clothing, bedding, household appliances, medical devices. Nearly every item of daily life has been made - and made better, say supporters - with nanotechnology. But with billions spent by U.S. taxpayers and private industry on nanotechnology research and product development, some policymakers, scientists and business leaders are still trying to figure out exactly what nanotechnology is, what it can do and whether it is harmful to consumers. "It's very, very broad. ... It's like everything and the kitchen sink is nanotechnology," said Christine Peterson, who has been following nanotech issues since before most people knew nanotechnology existed. She founded the Foresight Nanotech Institute in 1986 and is now its vice president for public policy. Nanotechnology is the broad term used to describe both materials constructed at the atomic and molecular levels and the research and development of them. A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter, or about .00000004 inches. As a matter of scale, a sheet of office copy paper is about .004 inches thick, or about 10,000 nanometers. Most of the materials created by nanotech researchers tend to be between 1 and 100 nanometers wide. Peterson said she thinks the federal government isn't acting quickly enough to get nanotech research into regular use, though she qualified her criticism by saying it may not be possible. "You know, I don't think it can," she said, explaining that massive changes in technology - aviation or open-heart surgery, for instance - have taken years to perfect and be declared safe. It's unrealistic, she said, for people to expect the government to be completely prepared for all the impacts of nanotechnology. But Andrew Maynard, a scientist and research fellow with the Woodrow Wilson Institute for International Scholars, said the government is behind the private sector in developing uses and safeguards for nanotechnology products. "The [federal] government is the conductor who is running after the train ... but the train is accelerating pretty fast," he said. In March, Maynard's organization released what is believed to be the first listing of products that use nanotechnology and are available to the general public. The list is more than 200 products long. Maynard and his colleagues said that while his organization tried to include every product that boasts the use of the technology in its literature, the list is by no means exhaustive. Buckeyballs and Nanotubes Among the creations credited to nanotechnology are buckeyballs, microscopic balls made from carbon that can be used as lubricants, and nanotubes, tiny-sized additives used to strengthen metals or construction materials. Similar technology is being developed by scientists in the United States and around the world to combat cancer, improve fuel efficiency, fight lethal viruses like AIDS, harness solar power, make lighter materials for aircraft and remove air and water pollutants, to name a few. But serious questions have arisen with the technology, including how the resources are being developed, how international trade of the materials should be handled, whether nanotechnology can or should be used to develop weapons and whether it poses any health risks. Another question that is frequently asked is what the government's role is in protecting the public from would-be misuse or dangerous side effects of the products. Because developments in nanotechnology have the possibility of affecting any, and maybe every, manmade material, U.S. lawmakers say the federal government is going to continue to play an important role in both fostering its potential and protecting citizens from harm. "As we move forward, we need to adequately address the potential safety concerns that are raised by this dynamic field of development and, at the same time, be cautious about introducing premature regulations that could unintentionally squelch the positive innovation that is occurring in the field," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness, which recently held hearings on nanotechnology development. "The potential economic and societal benefits of nanotechnology are truly endless," added Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the committee. "Since we still know so little about this emerging field, we must be diligent in understanding the health, safety and environmental consequences of nanotechnology and adopt appropriate safeguards to ensure this technology is deployed in a responsible way." Federal Government Goes Nano Five years since the government established its nanotech program - called the National Nanotechnology Initiative - this year's nanotech research budget is approximately $1.3 billion and the spending of it will involve about 150 universities nationwide, said Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, an agency nestled in the bureaucracy of a Cabinet-level advisory group, the National Science and Technology Council. Teague is often called to testify before Congress, and it is his job to know what is going on with the nearly 40 government agencies that either are funding nanotechnology research, have some regulatory jurisdiction over it or have a vested interest in its use. The agencies interested in nanotechnology include the departments of Defense, Energy, Commerce, Agriculture, Homeland Security and Transportation, as well as regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration, research-oriented centers like the National Institutes of Health and the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health and about a dozen or so U.S. intelligence agencies. Teague said that dozens of officials from different agencies meet regularly to discuss nanotechnology developments and to share new ideas. The council reports directly to the president. The subcommittee that Teague's office serves in the council has established a set of priorities for nanotechnology, forming the guiding documents on how the government intends to handle nanotech issues. "With respect to how we coordinate across all the government agencies participating," the federal government is proceeding "quite carefully," he said. Teague said the most important thing for government to do right now is to continue expanding its capacity to learn about nanoscience by funding research and helping to build facilities and laboratories specifically used for nanoscience. But equally important, he said, is trying to find ways to put the research to use in the marketplace, and looking at what the societal implications might be, including the impact it might have on the health and safety of Americans. "Everyone of them are critical investment areas ... [in] the ultimate bringing of this technology for benefiting our society," Teague said. Early Warnings Several government offices are already being forced to grapple with nanotech problems. The Food and Drug Administration, for instance, last month announced it would hold a public meeting on nanotech issues to be held in October. The announcement was spurred by a scare in Germany where officials were forced to recall a product called "Magic Nano," a household cleaner that caused breathing problems in dozens of people around that country. It still isn't clear whether the product actually uses a nanotech material. As a result of the incident in Germany, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which hasn't yet had any product recalls, is also looking into safety concerns. The agency has released a three-page policy statement on the issue, but officials there acknowledge that they still have much to learn. "Because of the wide variation in potential health effects and the dearth of data on exposure and toxicity data of specific nanomaterials, CPSC staff is unable to make any general statements about the potential consumer exposures to or the health effects that may result from exposure to nanomaterials during the consumer use and disposal," the statement reads. The statement goes on to say that one of the top priorities of the CPSC is to determine the type of nanomaterial in a product and then figure out a way to determine the potential health hazards. It also says that without any other specific regulation regarding nanotechnology - or any other product for that matter - CPSC doesn't begin looking at products until they hit the market. "That's about as much as we've put out about" nanotechnology, said CPSC spokesman Mark Ross. "Basically, we're monitoring the situation and ... looking out for any possible problems that could develop." Teague said that most other government agencies have similar policy statements, which can be accessed through his office's Web site. Gargantuan Challenges Posed By Very Small Particles While a number of congressional hearings have been held about the impact and developments of nanotechnology, one measure of Congress' interest suggests nanotechnology isn't really a priority: The Government Accountability Office, which produces more than 1,000 reports a year for Congress on topics of all kinds, had yet to receive a request for any report regarding nanotechnology by mid-April, an agency spokeswoman said. Press aides for Ensign and Kerry did not respond to questions about what, if any legislative measures regarding nanotechnology were being considered. Peterson and others say Congress has plenty of avenues on which to make its mark. Aside from the basic budgeting of nanoscience at the federal level, intellectual property rules need to be considered. She said current patent law makes it easy for companies to sweep up patents given to universities, making it difficult for others to access the technology. "It's potentially a problem, and some companies are complaining about the system," Peterson said. "The whole purpose of universities and research is to share information. ... This constrains the information from being shared." >From the academic side, Gary Rubloff, who directs the University of Maryland, College Park's nanotechnology research center, said it is taking a lot longer to get patents than in the past. Rubloff, who is also a researcher and acts as a liaison between university staff, public officials and the research community, said a slow patent process could end up tying the technology in litigation, or preventing investment dollars from getting where they need to be. Peterson also pointed to international trade and its impact on the economy. She said she's heard discussions about limiting nanotech exports, especially ones that could hurt national security. But harsher controls could do more harm than good, she said. Tighter controls might force a company with a controversial product to go overseas, and "then they're just totally out of our control. ... It's not clear that this is the way to go," she said. Ethical questions over nanotechnology, however, could be the ones that decide whether nanotechnology truly catches on, or whether its potential remains untapped, said Nigel Cameron, director of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. "This is a discussion about human values," Cameron said. One of the last technological breakthroughs - genetically modified food - has been a major disappointment, and nanotech could suffer the same fate if it's not handled correctly. Europeans, in particular, label genetically modified products "Franken-food." And like the genetically modified food discussion and genetics as a whole, nanotech developments raise deep philosophical questions over what it means to be human, and the change of the human condition. "That conversation haunts every discussion about nanotechnology," Cameron said. Cameron said one frightening development is so-called "transhumanism," where people might create things to replace human functions like thinking with nanotechnology. While a technology could be used for a good purpose, like recovering from a stroke, "the same technology could allow you to have Google in your brain," Cameron said, which "raises huge questions for public policy." Cameron said he also can foresee the use of nanotechnology further widening class divisions. With expensive nanotech solutions for cancer or other health problems, it's likely that those with the best health care would be able to get the new care and live longer whereas the poor would be left behind. A Nano Future Despite the pitfalls and the unknown direction that nanotechnology is headed, it's certain that it is here and will be around for years to come. Teague, the government nanotech specialist, said no specific topic for nanotech research has taken a priority. Health care, energy, materials, environmental clean-up and the like are all being looked at equally, and that is one reason why nanotechnology is such an important subject, and also progressing at an uneven pace. "I think it will be one of the most transforming technologies that have come to the fore, certainly in the last 100 years," Teague said. "Almost every aspect of life, I think, will ultimately be transformed by it." And Rubloff, said regardless of the problems nanotech faces and the strides nanotech has made, the real focus is on the future. "It's going to be the next industrial revolution. ... I think there's no doubt about it," Rubloff said. From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 9 10:03:57 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 03:03:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <20060508185143.66566.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060508185143.66566.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9275E8CE-21B9-43A7-A9B1-0348D4E40D93@mac.com> On May 8, 2006, at 11:51 AM, A B wrote: > Hi Samantha, > > It is equally inappropriate to claim that the idea is "nonsense", > unless you have relevant evidence or a counter-argument. However, I > agree that there are more pressing matters at this time. > What do I mean by nonsense? That which is counter to what we already regard as true within the context of our knowledge and which adds nothing of value to our knowledge and does not add to the ability to make sense of our world and which has nothing at all compelling to recommend it is nonsense. Especially when it proclaims at length that it is the most accurate position to hold on the matters under consideration. - samantha > > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On May 8, 2006, at 6:59 AM, A B wrote: > > > Hi John, > > > > John wrote: > > "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as > > old as the > > hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves > > this can > > not possibly be true."... > > > > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) > > conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I > > doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and > > claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, > > I actually died yesterday." > > > > John, > > "...the idea that the you of > > yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been > > crazy." > > > > I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that > > alone is not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. > > > In absence of a convincing argument, which certainly has not been > provided, we have quite sufficient grounds for dismissing these > assertions as nonsense. Can we move on to something productive now? > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 9 10:32:06 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 03:32:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> Message-ID: On May 8, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Heartland wrote: > > Heartland: >>> Death/Nonexistence - Subjective experience of nothingness. Absence >>> of that part of >>> mind process which is responsible for producing subjective >>> experience. (A type of >>> subjective experience one would have if one did not exist at all). > > Samantha: >> Death is a subjective experience? Really? I thought you agreed it >> is a lack of any experience. How can that which does not exist have >> any experience? > > The point of "you would experience nothingness" is to help the > audience imagine > that experience. I'm just using poetic license here to make that > particular point > across. > When you are supposedly attempting to be more rigorous is a poor time to wax poetic. The cessation of consciousness does not allow you to experience anything including that cessation. All cessations of consciousness are not death. > It's absolutely the case that, "subjective experience of > nothingness <=> subjective > experience doesn't exist." Or just "subjective experience doesn't > exist." > No, it isn't. > Heartland: >>> Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. It is >>> the presence of >>> that part of mind process/activity which is responsible for >>> producing subjective >>> experience. > > Samantha: >> Huh? This is the total of your definition of "life"? > > Remember that this argument deals exclusively, as it should, with > the physical > substance of life, not its *content* or meanings of that content. > So, physically, > that's precisely what life is. > No, it isn't. Your definition is subjective, not physical, not objective and is woefully incomplete. > Heartland: >>> Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space >>> consisting of all >>> matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively >>> involved in producing >>> the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter >>> and energy in >>> time and space. > > Samantha: >> This is circular and meaningless. A delimited subset of all matter >> "involved in producing the mind" cannot be a definition of "mind". > > You misinterpreted the definition. Mind isn't a "subset of all > matter." It's a > subset of all "activity of matter in time and space," that produces > the mind. > There's a huge difference. I will adjust this definition to better > reflect the true > meaning. Same objection. You are defining "mind" using "mind" as part of the definition. > > Heartland: >>> Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that >>> consists of all >>> matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary >>> to support its >>> existence. > > Samantha: >> What? You have mind as a material object as far as I can tell but >> brain as some other material object not part of "mind object"? This >> is confusing. You need to have mind as a process and not an object >> to make this work I think. > > I hear you loud and clear. There will be no more "objects" in the > next iteration of > this argument. It's just too confusing to people and makes them > miss the whole > point. > > Mind, as any process/activity, requires matter, among other things, > to exist. When > I say "mind object," it gives the audience wrong impression that > mind is *just* > static matter. It's not fair to "other things that allow activity > to exist" to > leave them out of the term. > I did not have this impression. The problem is your tenuous link between brain and mind. The definition you use is a set up for the entire hypothesis you attempt to claim. It is part of a rationalization rather than an attempt to get at truth. > Heartland: >>> Trajectory of an object - Space-time path of matter making up that >>> object. It is a >>> list of all present space-time locations of all matter that >>> currently makes up the >>> object. > > Samantha: >> What is this useful for? There is only one space-time location for >> an object at any moment. Are you speaking of across the entire >> existence of said object? > > Objective observer uses trajectories to distinguish between > instances of matter or > activities of matter in time and space, including instances of the > same type, > across the entire existence of an instance. > Would you like to rephrase? That is still very murky. > Heartland: >>> Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and >>> space. > > Samantha: >> Nope. You can't have identity be the same as the trajectory because >> then you leave the question "trajectory of what" unanswered. > > But that answer is always automatically assumed before the process of > distinguishing between instances can begin. Hence, "identity of an > object," instead > of "identity." We can't distinguish between things if we don't > already know what > these things are in the first place. > Look. You just wrote that identity of an object *is* the trajectory of an object where *an object* already implies/requires *identity of an object*. This be messed up. > Heartland: >>> Type - A category of things that share some characteristic. For >>> example, apples and >>> oranges are types of fruit. In this case "fruit" is the type. > > Samantha: >> All three are types. Apple and Orange are more specific types of >> Fruit. > > They are, but their instances would require matter to exist. Types are > dimensionless and matterless so they can't store matter. In other > words, types > (information) do not have physical presence in this universe. Only > instances > actually exist. Not so. Concepts and categories are not non-existent, merely not physical. > > Samantha: >> With the above broken definitions you have no basis for an argument. > > I'll just need to slightly adjust few descriptions, not meanings, > that's all. This is a mug's game. Your meanings are confused and twisted to get to a conclusion you are all to invested in. - samantha From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 11:36:28 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:36:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer> <006c01c67328$97f66030$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >> Which points in the argument are illogical and why? Which are not >> connected to reality? Show, don't tell. > > Just yesterday at his request I posted eleven very specific points in his > theory that were illogical or not connected to reality. Oh, come on. You call them "specific points?" Okay, let me tackle those points. > 1) Mr. Heartland says having someone tomorrow who remembers being you today > is not sufficient to conclude you have survived into tomorrow, he says more > is required but he never explains what or why. I explain everything here: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-May/026758.html > This leads to rather odd > conclusions, like anesthesia is equivalent to death and like you may have > died yesterday and not even know it. Mr. Hartland thinks your subjectivity > is an "illusion" created by a copy of you, Mr. Hartland says he hates this > and thinks it is a great tragedy, but even if true he never explains why > this is supposed to be upsetting. How is that an evidence of me being wrong? Because I hate something or think it is a tragedy? > 2) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but he ignores the > fact that our atoms get recycled every few weeks. The same zombie straw man for the nth time. I never said that or think that. It's someone else's opinion, not mine. You'll have to ask someone else who told you that. > 3) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, No. Same as above. Atoms alone are not what makes us unique. John: > Mr. Heartland points out, quite > correctly, that subjectivity and consciousness are what we should be > concerned about, but then he says particular atoms are what makes our > consciousness unique. Same as above, atoms alone are not what makes our consciousness unique. John: > 4) Mr. Heartland says the history (or if you want to sound scientific brainy > and cool "the space time trajectory") of atoms are what makes atoms unique; > but many atoms have no history and even for those that do it is not > permanent, the entire record of an atom's past exploits can be erased from > the universe and it's not difficult to do. This is not theory, this has been > proven in the lab and any theory that just ignores that fact can not be > called scientific. If I throw a ball from point A at time t1 to point B at time t2 and write down in the notebook "(A,t1) to (B,t2)" and then destroy the ball, will the entry in the notebook erase itself too? Was *that* proven in the lab? > 5) Mr. Heartland insists his theory is consistent and logically rigorous but > he is unwilling or unable to answer the simplest questions about it, like is > A the original or B. Instead Mr. Heartland thinks informing us that A=A and > B=B is sufficient. Don't blame me for not understanding the answer. Do you even know what A means in your question? Let me know what that is and I'll be happy to answer. > 6) Several times Mr. Heartland informed us that location is vital in > determining which mind is which, but he never explained why because mind by > itself can never determine it's location. Again, this should explain why: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-May/026758.html > Also Mr. Heartland never explains > the position relative to what as we've known for over a century that > absolute position is meaningless. Easy, a location relative to the other instance under consideration, for example. > 7) Mr. Heartland, wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense > that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists or > not" and then he wrote "My copy" is not me". This would seem to belie Mr. > Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. "My copy" meant "a different instance of subjective experience of the same type." > 8) Mr. Heartland wrote "Mind is not a brain" and he was absolutely correct > about that, but then he said mind "is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D > object". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical > consistency. "More like a brick" means that mind requires matter to exist in addition to time and space. I'm not inventing anything when I say this. It's a fact. > 9) As noted above Mr. Heartland thinks mind is a "4-D mind object", but he > is unable on unwilling to give the 4-D coordinates of the vital things the > constitute mind, like fun or red or fast or logic or love or fear > or the number eleven or my memory of yesterday. Abstract concepts are not made of matter. They are not things that "constitute mind." That's just silly. You're confusing abstract concepts with a real processes. > 10) Mr. Heartland wrote "creation of two identical brains, like writing > identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of > the same brain type" but if so he never explained why two calculators the > add 2 +2 would not produce answers that were profoundly different; No, you are missing the whole point of my example. A process that leads to an output on the calculator (whatever it is, "2", "9", "4567") happens at a different location than another process on a different calculator. If I write "1+1" then I have 2 instances of "1", the first to the left side of "+" and the other to the right of "+". Different locations, different instances. Is that really so hard to understand? > 11) Mr. Heartland insists that if two CD's are synchronized and playing the > same symphony then two symphonies are playing, but a CD is just a number > thus there are always profound differences even between the same number, and > 9 is not equal to 9. If true Mr. Heartland is unable to explain how it is > nevertheless possible to do science. Again, you are confusing matterless and dimensionless concepts with the ones that require matter and dimensions. So there you go. I covered it all. S. From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 9 12:01:44 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 08:01:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060509073302.0bd00ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:07 PM 5/8/2006 -0400, Anna wrote: >I'm trying to understand cryonics a bit better and I had a few questions. >(These questions are on a broad sense.) > >Is mind solely information and is the brain just >matter? Think of the distinction between a computer operating system and the hardware. An OS runs in the hardware in a way fundamentally the same as a mind runs in a brain. As for a brain being "just" matter, it is exquisitely organized matter. It may take 3 to 4 decades for computers to catchup to it and they are now at 40 million active elements. >Will reversal cryonics only be made available when >mind experiences will be able to be transfered >and/or when the matter can be transfered? It may help you to think of computer disk information. A human in cryonic suspension is very much like a disk with damaged power supply. The information is still there, you just can't access it. There are services today that recover information even from badly damaged disks. We can't do that with humans yet because we lack tools fine enough repair damage at that scale. Repairing a cryonic suspension patient's brain is mostly putting the slightly deranged matter back into the proper organization and warming them up. From what we know of cold water drownings, they should just wake up, missing the last 12 hours or so of memory. If you have tools fine enough to repair brains, you could read out all the information and build an atom for atom copy. But why bother? >If I'm not understanding clearly please let me know, it would be appreciated. This is explained to far more depth at www.alcor.org, but I think the computer analogy is a quicker way to understand. Keith Henson >Thanks >Anna > > >All >new Yahoo! Mail > >Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue May 9 12:09:45 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:09:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <00b901c67331$0798bd40$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> <00b901c67331$0798bd40$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 5/9/06, John K Clark wrote: > And Anna, Eugen is right, Heartland is very very confused. "Confusion" might not be the best term. It ranges from either the best presidential press secretarial "spin" to a Humpty Dumpty [1] approach to reality, i.e. `When *I* use a word ... it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Robert 1. http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 12:37:45 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:37:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> <00b901c67331$0798bd40$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John: > And Anna, Eugen is right, Heartland is very very confused. Based on my own experience, the belief in resurrection after being frozen and dead is very comforting, but has nothing to do with logic. It's just a modern version of the belief in soul and afterlife and doesn't deserve respect. Everyday experience conditions us into believing in the illusion of continuity that effectively blinds us to the truth. It literally takes months or even years to develop necessary capacity to trust logic over intuition in this case. And when you do, you are no longer confused. Then, and only then, it becomes obvious why there's no such thing as resurrections after death. After Santa Clause, then God, cryonics will be the next thing you lose faith in. S. From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 9 14:07:45 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:07:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605091441.k49Ef8Iw002125@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Heartland > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 5:38 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... > > John: > > And Anna, Eugen is right, Heartland is very very confused. > > Based on my own experience, the belief in resurrection after being frozen > and dead is very comforting, but has nothing to do with logic... > > S. Heart, it isn't so much resurrection after being frozen as it is being read and simulated. I have no illusions about this particular piece of meat being thawed, but I could imagine nanobots mapping it layer by layer, possibly destructively, then making a holodeck simulation so that I would at least feel like me, even if I really existed only as software. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 9 16:12:25 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:12:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> <00b901c67331$0798bd40$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <22360fa10605090912t7b5e368dg69e819884e9033a@mail.gmail.com> On 5/9/06, Heartland wrote: > > John: > > And Anna, Eugen is right, Heartland is very very confused. > > Based on my own experience, the belief in resurrection after being frozen > and dead > is very comforting, but has nothing to do with logic. It's just a modern > version of > the belief in soul and afterlife and doesn't deserve respect. Everyday > experience > conditions us into believing in the illusion of continuity that > effectively blinds > us to the truth. It literally takes months or even years to develop > necessary > capacity to trust logic over intuition in this case. And when you do, you > are no > longer confused. Then, and only then, it becomes obvious why there's no > such thing > as resurrections after death. After Santa Clause, then God, cryonics will > be the > next thing you lose faith in. It seems to me that at the root of this discussion there is confusion between objective and subjective descriptions of reality/experience-of-reality. This same type of confusion seems to be at the root of most of philosophy, as humans try to make meaning from an ever-increasing context of interaction with physical reality of which they are a part. It is inherently paradoxical for a subsystem to try to model the larger system which contains it, and worse yet when a subsystem adopts a model that assumes privileged observer status. For describing reality, the best we can do is strive for consistency and coherence and recognize that our models are always subject to revision. What is most fascinating to me about these debates is not "proving" right or wrong, but understanding what it takes to update individual models of reality to more closely match shared observations (distinguished from shared interpretations.) My interest is not idle; I think it is vitally important to humanity's continued progress. Slawomir has been arguing for years that there is something unique--and crucially important--about the trajectory of a mind through space and time. It appears that he began with the intuitive certainty that there is something objectively special about any individual's subjective thread of experience, and then he had an "aha moment" when he saw a correspondence between the specialness of the subjective thread of experience and the "indisputable fact" that the physical correlates of that subjective experience can be uniquely specified. He had found a physical explanation for unique physical identity, and no need to invoke the heavily myth-laden concept of "soul"! Then, still harboring the intuitive certainty that there is something objectively special about any individual's subjective thread of experience, in an interesting twist, a further distancing from the usual "soul" concept, he began emphasizing that if that "mind process" ever stops, then something crucial is lost, even if a subjectively equivalent mind process continues with a subjectively equivalent thread later. Very recently, he appears to have seen that objectively, the mind process is in fact stopped and restarted (or a copy of the process restarted) during the course of everyday events. But still harboring the belief that there is something objectively special about the now hypothetical unbroken thread of subjective experience, he laments its demise. I don't know who said it first, but it's important to note that "a difference that makes no difference, is no difference at all." An increasingly accurate map of the territory leads to increasing accurate decision-making for the course ahead. Every belief contributes to the accuracy of the map, either positively or negatively, to some extent. I sure would like to have some better tools for collaborative map-making. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 9 16:51:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <9275E8CE-21B9-43A7-A9B1-0348D4E40D93@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060509165137.28454.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Samantha, Samantha wrote: "...adds nothing of value to our knowledge and does not add to the ability to make sense of our world..." With all due respect, this is *your* opinion, not mine, and probably not the opinion of several other people on this list - judging from the level of activity that this thread has produced. I've already listed some direct implications that this conclusion would carry (if true), in a much earlier post, but I've thought of a couple more since then: - It would carry mutual (bi-directional) implications with the Many Worlds QM theory. - It would suggest that people who die in this era (without cryopreservation) will not be "resurrected" by SIs of the future: because it lies outside their abilities or desires, or because we fall to an existential risk before the Singularity occurs. - If proven true, it might encourage some people of the strictly "Thread" view of life to arrange for Cryonics, where otherwise they might not. Samantha: "...has nothing at all compelling to recommend it..." Your opinion again. I respectfully disagree. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 8, 2006, at 11:51 AM, A B wrote: Hi Samantha, It is equally inappropriate to claim that the idea is "nonsense", unless you have relevant evidence or a counter-argument. However, I agree that there are more pressing matters at this time. What do I mean by nonsense? That which is counter to what we already regard as true within the context of our knowledge and which adds nothing of value to our knowledge and does not add to the ability to make sense of our world and which has nothing at all compelling to recommend it is nonsense. Especially when it proclaims at length that it is the most accurate position to hold on the matters under consideration. - samantha Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 8, 2006, at 6:59 AM, A B wrote: > Hi John, > > John wrote: > "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as > old as the > hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves > this can > not possibly be true."... > > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) > conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I > doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and > claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, > I actually died yesterday." > > John, > "...the idea that the you of > yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been > crazy." > > I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that > alone is not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. In absence of a convincing argument, which certainly has not been provided, we have quite sufficient grounds for dismissing these assertions as nonsense. Can we move on to something productive now? - samantha _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 17:34:59 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 13:34:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer><006c01c67328$97f66030$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002201c6738f$170b6c60$0c094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > Oh, come on. You call them "specific points?" I do indeed call them specific points, or at least as specific as it is possible to get with a theory full of fuzzy logic gaping holes and tautologies, like the copy is the copy, and A=A and B=B and G=G and F=F. > I explain everything here: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-May/026758.html You can't imagine the excitement I felt when I read these words, at last I'm going to learn the secrets of the universe. Instead I find you pointed to a tired old post I already read where you inform us with great fanfare that matter exists in *time* and *space* as if nobody had ever thought that before. It is also where you define mind as something that produces mind, and where you insist mind is a 4D object but dodge for the ninetieth time my request to supply the 4D coordinates of various parts of it, and where you say "A new instance of that subjective experience is verifiably different from the old one" but forget to say how it is verified or by who. > Atoms alone are not what makes us unique. That makes perfect sense, provided of course you don't require that theories be consistent. You said "Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and space" but the trouble is objects are made of atoms and atoms are what makes your beloved trajectories. > If I throw a ball from point A at time t1 to point B at time t2 and write > down in the notebook "(A,t1) to (B,t2)" and then destroy the ball, will > the entry in the notebook erase itself too? Was *that* proven in the lab? As I've explained before if I throw that ball into a pile of 6.02 * 10^23 identical balls and it is imposable even in theory to tell which ball is which your written record is absolutely positively 100% useless. > Do you even know what A means in your question? It doesn't matter what A means because I concede you are right. Whatever their faults tautologies do have the virtue of being correct, A is indeed equal to A. Me: > >Mr. Heartland never explains the position relative to what You: > Easy, a location relative to the other instance under consideration Then you could never say an exact copy is or is not you because the truth is a continuum that depends on the observer. You are standing one foot from your exact copy, to a microbe 6 inches away the two of you are a huge distance apart so you must be very different people, to an observer in the Comma Cluster 8 billion light years away the two of you are in virtually identical positions so you must be virtually identical people. And you still haven't explained if position is so damn important to mind why mind by itself can't even figure out where it is. > Abstract concepts are not made of matter. Certainly true, abstract concepts like mind are not made of matter although some of them describe what matter does. > They are not things that "constitute mind." Don't be ridiculous, memory and the emotion of love and logic and the sensation of the color orange are all parts of mind, if mind is a 4D object like you say it's not too much to ask for their coordinates, but you can't supply them. > You're confusing abstract concepts with a real processes. Many abstract concepts, like large and small and few and many are just as real as atoms, and some abstract concepts, like pain and consciousness, seem a lot more real than atoms to us; and the important thing, at least in this discussion, is not what is but what seems to be, because subjectivity always has priority over objectivity. > Different locations, different instances. Is that really so hard to > understand? It's not difficult to understand, it's IMPOSABLE to understand unless the word "instances" means nothing. When two calculators add 2 and 2 the result is the exact same 4, not a different instance, not a different type, not a different anything, it's just 4. > you are confusing matterless and dimensionless concepts Like numbers, symphonies, many adjectives verbs and adverbs, and the human mind. > with the ones that require matter and dimensions. Like bricks and the human brain, and I don't see anything confusing about it. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 17:56:37 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 13:56:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer><006c01c67328$97f66030$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <006501c67391$f1064550$0c094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > How is that an evidence of me being wrong? Because I hate something or > think it is a tragedy? You remember your childhood, you remember going to the dentist yesterday and having a anesthetic, you remember waking up, you feel fine today but you fear having a anesthetic tomorrow because you're afraid that the terrible and tragic thing that happened to you yesterday will happen again tomorrow. That fear is illogical. > After Santa Clause, then God, cryonics will be the > next thing you lose faith in. And after that anesthesia. And what will we lose after that, flying machines, horseless carriages, Victrolas, vaccinations? John K Clark From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue May 9 22:16:48 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 18:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading Message-ID: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> So the brain has mind instances (information, remembering feelings, experiences, remembered sensations..... in a moment in space and time...) And the brain is the matter that directs all these mind instances. Am I understanding this properly? Cryonic reanimation may occur in the futur by "Waking up the mind" from a frozen state. Does cryonics also consider the posibility of removing the brain matter and transfering to a new body? (Brain transplant). >I understand that technology is no where near this posibility just curious to know >if it's still as feasible as the idea of "waking up the mind". Uploading is taking mind instances and transfering them to a computer. I'm assuming this is what i'm doing right now. Typing and transfering into a computer. I would assume, in the futur, this would be done very differently. What is the general opinion on how this process will occur? Won't this only just create a super-computer? Again, just want to be sure i'm grasping the basics. Thanks for the replies Anna --------------------------------- Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 9 23:29:23 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:29:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <20060509165137.28454.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060509165137.28454.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <52E9EF2A-CDD3-4389-82E6-59D576F4352F@mac.com> On May 9, 2006, at 9:51 AM, A B wrote: > Hi Samantha, > > Samantha wrote: > "...adds nothing of value to our knowledge and does not add to the > ability to make sense of our world..." > > With all due respect, this is *your* opinion, not mine, and > probably not the opinion of several other people on this list - > judging from the level of activity that this thread has produced. The hypothesis explains nothing of known phenomenon better. If you believe it does then please make your case. The level of activity says nothing at all about this question. > > I've already listed some direct implications that this conclusion > would carry (if true), in a much earlier post, but I've thought of > a couple more since then: > That something has implications does not mean it explains existing data better or makes valid and useful predictions or better integrates our relevant knowledge. I can make up notions all day that have tons of interesting implications. But none would be more believable or valid for that. > - It would carry mutual (bi-directional) implications with the > Many Worlds QM theory. > How so and under which of many versions or imagined implications of MWI? > - It would suggest that people who die in this era (without > cryopreservation) will not > be "resurrected" by SIs of the future: because it lies outside > their abilities or > desires, or because we fall to an existential risk before the > Singularity occurs. > I don't see how this follows at all. If it does follow it still says nothing about the hypothesis being of value. > > - If proven true, it might encourage some people of the strictly > "Thread" view of life > to arrange for Cryonics, where otherwise they might not. Does this perhaps laudable possible outcome of believing the hypothesis validate it? No. > > Samantha: > "...has nothing at all compelling to recommend it..." > > Your opinion again. I respectfully disagree. Then show that it does. Your disagreement was already known. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 9 23:35:35 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:35:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading In-Reply-To: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 9, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > . > > Uploading is taking mind instances and transfering > them to a computer. > I'm assuming this is what i'm doing right now. Typing > and transfering into a computer. I would assume, in the > futur, this would be done very differently. > What is the general opinion on how this process > will occur? Does your email message think or feel or learn or do anything else the mind does? No. It is not an example of mind uploading. - samantha From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed May 10 01:36:48 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:36:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060510013648.20496.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 9, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > . > > Uploading is taking mind instances and transfering > them to a computer. > I'm assuming this is what i'm doing right now. Typing > and transfering into a computer. I would assume, in the > futur, this would be done very differently. > What is the general opinion on how this process > will occur? Does your email message think or feel or learn or do anything else the mind does? No. It is not an example of mind uploading. - samantha I didn't ask about e-mail. I asked about computer transfering. E-mail, list posting, web pages and irc are all forms of communication. They don't think, humans do. I don't see how that refers to my question about mind uploading or maybe i'm still not understanding. Anna _______________________________________________ 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 10 03:34:09 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 22:34:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading In-Reply-To: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/9/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > So the brain has mind instances (information, remembering feelings, > experiences, remembered sensations..... in a moment in space and time...) > And the brain is the matter that directs all these mind instances. > Am I understanding this properly? > We are getting into fine semantic differences, but I would prefer to think of the "brain" as the foundation upon which the minds (houses) are built. (Obviously one can build many different styles of houses on top of the same foundation). Cryonic reanimation may occur in the futur by "Waking up the mind" from a > frozen state. Does cryonics also consider the posibility of removing the > brain matter and transfering to a new body? (Brain transplant). > Most people of the cryonics persuasion would allow that both possible paths can exist. One evolved largely out of consideration of what biology and perhaps computer technology may be able to accomplish. The other evolved out of determining the impact that microelectronics and computer science may have. Its only been over the last 5-10 years, primarily on this list and perhaps the sci.cryonics list that an understanding of the probable convergence of the two paths has developed. The "brain transplant" approach largely developed out of the realization that one could produce a body "clone" and transplant the brain (mind). Alternatively one could transplant the brain into a completely different body). The only significant barrier to performing brain transplants *today* from say an 80 year old body into a 20 year old body is the current inability to reconnecting neurons from the lower brain to the spinal cord. The recognition that brain transplants into younger or cloned bodies is or will be feasible is a key reason why there has been some shift from freezing entire bodies to freezing only heads when suspending an individual. [This is because the cost of suspending and maintaining a head is ~25% of the whole body cost.] > Uploading is taking mind instances and transfering them to a computer. > I'm assuming this is what i'm doing right now. Typing and transfering into > a computer. I would assume, in the futur, this would be done very > differently. What is the general opinion on how this process will occur? > As it is little discussed there are only a few suggested approaches. One involves micro-scanning of your brain using NMR or similar technology. Another involves disassembling and reading out the information content of the brain using methods similar to those found in electron microscopy or atomic force microscopy. A third involves using nanorobots to map the complete structure of the brain and provide information taps or complete information status. There are at least 3 general paths, and perhaps more, which would satisfy the information readout for most people. Won't this only just create a super-computer? > Your brain is *already* a supercomputer. It is roughly the equivalent of perhaps a few thousand Playstation 3s (which havent even been produced in large numbers yet). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 10 03:07:42 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 20:07:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <200605091441.k49Ef8Iw002125@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200605100344.k4A3i8TQ009034@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > ... it isn't so much resurrection after being frozen as it is being > read and simulated... imagine nanobots mapping it layer by layer, > possibly destructively, then making a holodeck simulation ... spike Another possibility my custom version of Kurzweil's notion of inloading. A brain is about a couple of kilograms and 12 grams of carbon is 6E23 atoms and a brain is mostly carbon, so 2000 grams of that is about 6E23/12*2000 = 1e26 atoms. Wikipedia says that a human brain has about 100 billion neurons, and each of those has a bunch of synapses. So 1E11 neurons in 1e26 atoms makes 1e15 atoms per neuron, a million billion atoms per neuron if you prefer. The fact that a bunch of these neurons do stuff that I would no longer need if I had no body gives us conservative BOTECs. I have a notion that at some future time, nanobots of perhaps a million atoms each could enter a frozen brain, not at liquid nitrogen temperatures but perhaps a few tens of degrees below zero celcius so that they have a solid medium in which to work. These might tunnel in thru the blood vessels all the way down to the capillaries, perhaps removing the now unnecessary blood cells. They would enter the brain cells and join together to form nanocomputers, perhaps a million nanobots per cell. The million nanobots in the cell would perform a calculation that simulates the workings of that cell. The nanobots would build conductors, perhaps out of nanotubes, to carry signals between the neurons. The nanobot constructed nanocomputers within the brain would stay in place, simulating that brain. If the nanobots were made of carbon and each nanobot has a million atoms and each of the hundred billion neurons had a million nanonbots, that is 1e6(carbon atoms per nanobot)*1E11(neurons)*1E6(nanobots/neuron) = 1E23 carbon atoms, which is about 2 grams of carbon. If each neuron has a thousand synapses and the nanotubes for each synapse requires a billion carbon atoms to make a conductor that does what synapses do, then 1E11(neurons)*1E3(synapses/neuron)*1E9(atoms/synapse)=1e23 carbon atoms, which is another 2 grams of carbon. In this scenario, 4 grams of nanobots could infiltrate a frozen brain and simulate it in place as an inload. Interestingly, this would allow signals to go down the neck to a robot body, as it did back when that head guided and rode about atop a meat body. The head would need to remain frozen below water ice temperatures, but this would allow that head to go places that we cannot go, such as Mars. Granted this describes remarkable technology, but is not our current technology remarkable compared to that which Thomas Jefferson had at his disposal? spike From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 10 04:21:02 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 00:21:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> Message-ID: Heartland: >> The point of "you would experience nothingness" is to help the >> audience imagine >> that experience. I'm just using poetic license here to make that >> particular point >> across. Samantha: > When you are supposedly attempting to be more rigorous is a poor time > to wax poetic. You've got a point there. Samantha: > The cessation of consciousness does not allow you to > experience anything including that cessation. All cessations of > consciousness are not death. Absence of subjective experience is still an absence regardless of whether your organs still work or when you don't exist at all. Heartland: >> It's absolutely the case that, "subjective experience of >> nothingness <=> subjective >> experience doesn't exist." Or just "subjective experience doesn't >> exist." Samantha: > No, it isn't. I disagree. Heartland: >>>> Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. It is >>>> the presence of >>>> that part of mind process/activity which is responsible for >>>> producing subjective >>>> experience. Samantha: >>> Huh? This is the total of your definition of "life"? Heartland: >> Remember that this argument deals exclusively, as it should, with >> the physical >> substance of life, not its *content* or meanings of that content. >> So, physically, >> that's precisely what life is. Samantha: > No, it isn't. Your definition is subjective, not physical, not > objective and is woefully incomplete. The presence of an objectively verifiable, physical process is not objective and physical? It's precisely that. What is your objective and physical definition of life, if you don't mind me asking? Heartland: >> You misinterpreted the definition. Mind isn't a "subset of all >> matter." It's a >> subset of all "activity of matter in time and space," that produces >> the mind. >> There's a huge difference. I will adjust this definition to better >> reflect the true >> meaning. Samantha: > Same objection. You are defining "mind" using "mind" as part of the > definition. Not really, but I see how you would think so. It's an admittedly sloppy definition. Here's a better one. Mind is an activity of matter in time and space. I know this is very general definition (so you can't use it to build artificial minds, for example), but yet necessary and sufficient to make the conclusion valid in the context of this argument. Heartland: >> Mind, as any process/activity, requires matter, among other things, >> to exist. When >> I say "mind object," it gives the audience wrong impression that >> mind is *just* >> static matter. It's not fair to "other things that allow activity >> to exist" to >> leave them out of the term. Samantha: > I did not have this impression. The problem is your tenuous link > between brain and mind. This was done on purpose. There should be no link between the two because mind is not a brain. You are allowed to treat matter of the mind as a subset of all matter of the brain but a distinction between mind and brain must be made. Why? To separate between what is static and not relevant from what is dynamic and relevant. If brain were considered a part of the mind, then an extrapolation of this logic would force us to conclude that the universe must also be a part of the mind, except my car - a part of the universe - wouldn't be mind, proving the assumption wrong. Samantha: > The definition you use is a set up for the > entire hypothesis you attempt to claim. It is part of a > rationalization rather than an attempt to get at truth. It's just seems that way from the layout of "terms and definitions" before "the argument" section. Note, that I'm not even using "mind" in the steps of the argument. My strategic error in the original post was that the list of definitions included ones like "mind" and "brain." I either shouldn't have listed them at all, or should, at least, list them after the argument section. Even if I hadn't included them before the actual argument, that argument would still have worked. Why? Because the argument I made was not really about minds, but about any kind of physical process. And since mind is definitely a physical process, the argument applies to minds and all their subprocesses. Heartland: >> Objective observer uses trajectories to distinguish between >> instances of matter or >> activities of matter in time and space, including instances of the >> same type, >> across the entire existence of an instance. Samantha: > Would you like to rephrase? That is still very murky. Let me give you an example of what I mean instead. Two tennis balls roll slowly toward each other on the surface of the court, and you are not sure if they will collide or not. Pick an arbitrary point x,y,z,t as your origin. 4-D coordinates of each location of each ball during their motion are recorded in the log. You look away as soon as you see the balls rolling toward each other while 4-D coordinates continue to fill the log. When you look back 20 seconds later, two balls are now still. Now, how do you know which ball is which when you have no idea if the balls collided and recoiled from the impact, missed each other, or didn't hit each other at all, while you were not looking? As an objective observer, you go to the log of coordinates and reconstruct logical progression of a trajectory of each motion and find out which is which. The point of trajectories is that it is theoretically possible for an objective observer to distinguish between instances which proves the assertion that even instances of the same type are always different. >> Heartland: >>>> Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and >>>> space. >> >> Samantha: >>> Nope. You can't have identity be the same as the trajectory because >>> then you leave the question "trajectory of what" unanswered. Heartland: >> But that answer is always automatically assumed before the process of >> distinguishing between instances can begin. Hence, "identity of an >> object," instead >> of "identity." We can't distinguish between things if we don't >> already know what >> these things are in the first place. Samantha: > Look. You just wrote that identity of an object *is* the trajectory > of an object where *an object* already implies/requires *identity of > an object*. This be messed up. Identity should have nothing to do with what the object is. You can't assume information-based definition of identity (information is matterless) and apply it to the process of distinguishing things that are made of matter. It just doesn't work that way. Any *object* is always made of matter, otherwise it wouldn't be an object. Two identical tennis balls couldn't be distinguished if we assumed the identity of each object to be "tennis ball." It's not cheating when I know what the objects are before I try to distinguish between them. >> Heartland: >>>> Type - A category of things that share some characteristic. For >>>> example, apples and >>>> oranges are types of fruit. In this case "fruit" is the type. >> >> Samantha: >>> All three are types. Apple and Orange are more specific types of >>> Fruit. Heartland: >> They are, but their instances would require matter to exist. Types are >> dimensionless and matterless so they can't store matter. In other >> words, types >> (information) do not have physical presence in this universe. Only >> instances >> actually exist. Samantha: > Not so. Concepts and categories are not non-existent, merely not > physical. Which is exactly my point. Concepts (information) are not physical so they can't store matter, let alone activity of matter. ----- My argument is valid if I can show that two things and only these two things are true: 1. Instances of objects made of matter are distinguishable. (Trajectories show that). 2. Physical activity necessarily requires matter, and that activity *itself* cannot be stored in static information. (Shown in step (2) of the argument). >From here on, the remaining steps are automatic. A combination of the above 2 assertions gives: 3. An instance of physical activity must be distinguishable from all other instances of physical activity, including instances of the same type of activity. (This combination of (1) and (2) is justified by required presence of matter in both (1) and (2)) This, in turn, leads to: 4. Since a mind is a physical activity, all its subprocesses, including subjective experience, must also be instances of physical activity. Therefore, all instances of subjective experience are distinguishable AND impossible to encode in the static information (3),(2). And if so, then an absence of an instance is irreversible and no amount of static information that remains about that instance can bring that instance back from nonexistence. In practice, this means that anytime subjective experience ends, it ends forever. And since subjective experience is the only means by which, we, as sentient beings, can experience reality, any absence of subjective experience means permanent inability to access reality, or, simply death/nonexistence. ---- Good comments, Samantha. Thanks. S. From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed May 10 06:14:57 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 23:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060510061457.26150.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Heartland wrote: > My argument is valid if I can show that two things > and only these two things are true: Keep in mind that argument validity is a matter of syntactic form irrespective of the semantic truth values of its statements. As such this argument is valid: 1. All cats have five legs. 2. Patches is a cat. 3. Therefore, Patches has five legs. But since cats do not have five legs, the argument, while valid, is not sound. So what you want to show is that your argument is also *sound*. However, the problem I see there is that it's based on how one's chooses to define facts... If I choose to define x as 'death', then... > In practice, this means that anytime subjective > experience ends, it ends forever. And since > subjective experience is the only means by which, > we, as sentient beings, can experience reality, any > absence of subjective experience means permanent > inability to access reality, or, simply > death/nonexistence. But all you seem to show is *your* definition of 'death.' Someone else can have another definition. When I had surgery, sodium pentathol turned me off like a light bulb. Apart from a brief instant of blackness, there was 100% of nothing. Then I awoke. By your definition, I died then. Fine. That seems to support the view John advances about reanimation such that if my mind is uploaded into a computer, 'death' will be nothing more terminal than the surgery I had. Hay, I'll take it, where do I sign up! ~Ian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 10 08:54:56 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:54:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading In-Reply-To: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060510085456.GB26713@leitl.org> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:16:48PM -0400, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > So the brain has mind instances (information, remembering > feelings, experiences, remembered sensations..... in a > moment in space and time...) Object instances in computer lingo typically do not include state, and state change over time. If you instantiate two objects of the same class in two or more location without synchronizing their state, they're different objects. An object could make a decision based on its internal state (which can be changed by an input), and it would be a different decision than an object elsewhere, with a different state did. If you impose the constraint that two or more spatially separated object have to be syncronized this is no longer possible. Notice that this condition does not allow differing inputs to change the inner state. Whether you you disallow different input (including nondeterministic noise in the object itself) or force the state to be the same (either by replicating the state of a master object, or constraining the evolution trajectory of each individual object so that it may not bifurcate) is not relevant. OpenCroquet prevents divergence by two mechanisms: by evolving the state using a deterministic process, which is the same on all remote computers, and by synchronizing differences in input. It can also use a master approach to replicate state elsewhere (e.g. if you use a noisy system or a system which is speedier than any other, so everybody saves work and you don't have to wait until the slowest member catches up before allowing all worlds to move on). In any case two or more objects are incapable of making a different decision. They are all the same object, existing in two or more places. > And the brain is the matter that directs all these > mind instances. The brain makes no sharp distinction between state and structure implementing it. You could run all kinds of objects on an all-purpose computer. You can only run one person on a specific brain. With uploading you use one all-purpose substrate for the computation, so the hardware is the same for all systems. What is different is the state of emulated animal objects. Notice that the hardware has almost no complexity, it is entirely in the object state and the transformation function of the object state over time. > Am I understanding this properly? > > Cryonic reanimation may occur in the futur by > "Waking up the mind" from a frozen state. Theoretically, you could repair the damage (you were dead, after all) and the suspension artifacts in the one object, remove the cryoprotectants and rewarm it so that the CNS activity constituting a person would resume spontaneously. If you make copies of frozen bodies, they start to diverge by the moment they resume activity. They have become two distinct, albeit very similiar persona. This is very similiar to identical twins: they start pretty close (though not as close as an exact copy), and diverge further during life. > Does cryonics also consider the posibility of > removing the brain matter and transfering to a new > body? (Brain transplant). It is one theoretical possibility. > >I understand that technology is no where near this posibility just curious to know > >if it's still as feasible as the idea of "waking up the mind". > > Uploading is taking mind instances and transfering > them to a computer. Uploading is making numerical models of animals, including body and environment. You can think of it as a video game (with game AI controlling non-player characters) on steroids. > I'm assuming this is what i'm doing right now. Typing > and transfering into a computer. I would assume, in the You're not transferring your state into your machine. Well, yes, a little, by serializing some of your inner state, which is being interpreted by a human elsewhere because the coding is sufficiently accurate for it to build a very primitive, abstract model of your inner state. You're using the computer as a communication channel. > futur, this would be done very differently. > What is the general opinion on how this process > will occur? > Won't this only just create a super-computer? It would require a very large (humongous, by current standards) supercomputer. But that supercomputer would contain a person, which subjectively sees something very different (it sees whatever the world and body model are faking). > Again, just want to be sure i'm grasping the basics. It is really not very complicated. > Thanks for the replies -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From scerir at libero.it Wed May 10 09:29:37 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:29:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] test References: <20060427155532.73286.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> <20060428000208.5261.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <000301c67414$42560760$3db91f97@administxl09yj> it is a test, since I did not receive posts in the last weeks But, give a look to this outstanding paper by Ellis http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602280 Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology -George F. R. Ellis To appear in the Handbook in Philosophy of Physics, Ed J Butterfield and J Earman (Elsevier, 2006). After a survey of the present state of cosmological theory and observations, this article discusses a series of major themes underlying the relation of philosophy to cosmology. These are: A: The uniqueness of the universe; B: The large scale of the universe in space and time; C: The unbound energies in the early universe; D: Explaining the universe -- the question of origins; E: The universe as the background for existence; F: The explicit philosophical basis; G: The Anthropic question: fine tuning for life; H: The possible existence of multiverses; I: The natures of existence. Each of these themes is explored and related to a series of Theses that set out the major issues confronting cosmology in relation to philosophy. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 10 12:12:08 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:12:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <200605100344.k4A3i8TQ009034@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605091441.k49Ef8Iw002125@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200605100344.k4A3i8TQ009034@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 5/9/06, spike wrote: > > Another possibility my custom version of Kurzweil's notion of inloading. Spike, to be fair I think you should credit the people who first created and explored these ideas. E.g. 1) Drexler, in Chapter 9 in EoC [1] (1986); 2) Drexler, Peterson & Pergamit in Chapter 10 of UtF (1991) [2] 2) Merkle, in various papers about Cryonics [3,4] (~1994-present); 3) Freitas, in Nanomedicine Vol. 1. [5] (1999) for providing clearer pictures of how this might work; 4) Numerous discussions on the Extropian list, the sci.cryonics list and other lists for 1-2 decades as people worked out various aspects of the processes; 5) Many other examples of those who work within the cryonics community as well as a large community of neuroscientists who are figuring out how the brain works as well as the computer scientists developing hardware & software showing that parts of it can emulated relatively easily. While Ray is a great integrator and distiller of concepts there is relatively little that he brings to the table to expand on ideas that are 10-20 years old which I would consider to be "novel". In particular Ralph's Cryonics page [4] points to a long list of prior work. Ray simply contributes an update on the progress which anyone following the areas is well aware of. If you are going to wax creative with the ideas (Kurzweil's spin on "inloading" -- perhaps better would be "crossloading") it would be useful if you would cite *precisely* where they are outlined, in this case I suspect TSIN, so that people could clearly identify them and compare and contrast what you are citing and what you are "improving" on [6]. Robert 1. http://www.foresight.org/EOC/EOC_Chapter_9.html 2. http://www.foresight.org/UTF/Unbound_LBW/chapt_10.html 3. http://www.merkle.com/cryo/techFeas.html 3. http://www.merkle.com/cryo/ 5. http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI.htm 6. I'll note as an unrelated aside, one reason for including citations of authoritative sources is so that the ExI archives can be searched by the various robots and the sources will receive higher rankings in page searches by novices (Anna, being perhaps a case in point) and the people who try to distill the "world of information" into reviews or summaries that end up in pages like those in Wikipedia will have an easier time of it (and hopefully get it right). I would predict that over the next couple of decades much of the knowledge and "world view" in these areas will be derived from dicussions by ourselves and many people who are within 1-2 levels of relatedness. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Wed May 10 13:13:59 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:13:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Re: [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI Message-ID: > Bill Hibbard is another obvious choice. Also Gary Marchant: http://www.law.asu.edu/Apps/Faculty/Faculty.aspx?Individual_ID=6 http://www.foresight.org/Conference/AdvNano2004/Abstracts/Marchant/index .html He's a member of CRN's Task Force, and has written about the (in)efficacy of global regulations on genetics and nanotechnology. He also organized the "Forbidding Science" conference at ASU. http://www.law.asu.edu/forbiddingscience And yes, I strongly agree that the regulatory approach has been given too little attention in discussion of emergent super-intelligence. One of the ways to ensure that we are allowed to proceed with technological progress, and can reap its benefits, is to anticipate the calls for complete prohibition and propose moderate regulations that reduce the risks of hostile uses of AI, or runaway AI. ------------------------ 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 mark at permanentend.org Wed May 10 12:30:07 2006 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 08:30:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI References: Message-ID: <00b301c6742d$79d48900$9a00a8c0@old> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Hibbard" Subject: [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI >I am concerned that the Singularity Summit will not include > any speaker advocating government regulation of intelligent > machines. The purpose of this message is not to convince you > of the need for such regulation, but just to say that the > Summit should include someone speaking in favor of it. Note > that, to be effective, regulation should be linked to a > widespread public movement like the environmental and > consumer safety movements. Intelligent weapons could be > regulated by treaties similar to those for nuclear, chemical > and biological weapons. > > The obvious choice to advocate this position would be James > Hughes, and it is puzzling that he is not included among the > speakers. > > Bill Hibbard is another obvious choice. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 10 14:27:25 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:27:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] nanotech bones In-Reply-To: <20060510061457.26150.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200605101429.k4AETcSA025467@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194857,00.html Nanotechnology May Help Grow Replacement Bone Wednesday, May 10, 2006 By Scott Fields Scientists have developed a technique that someday may let doctors create customized bones. Such bones could come in handy in circumstances where chunks of bone in the human body go missing. Bones can be lost, for example, in brutal accidents, from in-depth dentistry, or during surgery, especially when certain kinds of tumors are removed. Bone grafts can help span a gap, but current sources of fill-in bone are less than perfect. Bone can be swiped from someplace else on the patient - and home-grown bone is the stuff that the body is least likely to reject - but that means an extra incision, extra pain and an extra risk of complications. Bone from cadavers is sometimes used, but imported bone doesn't grow as well as the domestic model. And artificial bones made from materials such as ceramics aren't good for much more than extending natural bone grafts. Perhaps the ideal solution, says Laura Zanello, an assistant biochemistry professor at the University of California in Riverside, would be a substitute bone fragment that matched the gap and the patient perfectly. Her group has developed a system in which bone cells grow onto scaffolds built of carbon nanotubes, which are extraordinarily strong and stiff structures usually no more than a few nanometers in diameter. Currently the group is using bone cells from lab rats. The idea is that when the technique is refined, the nanotubes could be formed so that when layered with the patient's bone cells, they would fit perfectly into a gap in a damaged bone. Over time, the bone cells would merge with the surrounding bone, just as would a conventional graft. The body would be unlikely to reject such a contraption, she says, because carbon is bio-friendly and the bone would be grown from the patient's own cells. Many other researchers have attempted to combine carbon nanotubes with various types of living cells, Zanello says, but until recently the cells have died quickly, poisoned by the tubes themselves. "What happens," she said, "is during the fabrication of carbon nanotubes, there is deposition of heavy metals into the nanotubes." These metals are toxic to most living cells. But a member of Zanello's group - Bin Zhao, then a graduate student in the university's chemistry department and now a researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory - produced nanotubes that are purer than previous models. "Apparently that is the reason our bone cells can grow on these carbon nanotubes," Zanello said. "The most fascinating part was that they will not only grow and proliferate, but they secrete a bone matrix." Such a matrix would allow the cells to fuse with existing bone. The research was detailed in a recent issue of the journal Nano Letters. Although these results are promising, they are just the first step in a long journey toward treating damaged human bones, Zanello cautions. Especially important will be to test how well the body tolerates the nanotube structures, which, although buried in bone, would be permanent. Wednesday, May 10, 2006 By Scott Fields From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 10 14:35:02 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:35:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605101437.k4AEbIQs009588@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Cool, thanks Robert, I didn?t realize this idea was so well documented. spike ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:12 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... On 5/9/06, spike wrote: Another possibility my custom version of Kurzweil's notion of inloading. Spike, to be fair I think you should credit the people who first created and explored these ideas.? E.g. 1) Drexler, in Chapter 9 in EoC [1] (1986); 2) Drexler, Peterson & Pergamit in Chapter 10 of UtF (1991) [2] 2) Merkle, in various papers about Cryonics [3,4] (~1994-present); 3) Freitas, in Nanomedicine Vol. 1. [5] (1999) for providing clearer pictures of how this might work; 4) Numerous discussions on the Extropian list, the sci.cryonics list and other lists for 1-2 decades as people worked out various aspects of the processes; 5) Many other ... From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Wed May 10 15:04:54 2006 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:04:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605100631s4aa19352g46a1148cfb4b24ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605100631s4aa19352g46a1148cfb4b24ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0605100804p6c209c12ubb22a15c22c9eae6@mail.gmail.com> Ben is pretty spot on here. There are many possible approaches and views that will not be covered; there simply isn't enough time. I can't speak for the speakers, nor for the extent to which any one of them will focus his or her time on regulation. But please note that the Summit has an open invitation for questions from the public (sss.stanford.edu, lower left-hand column): What's Your Question? "Would you like to participate as more than an audience member? A selection of questions submitted will be answered at the summit. You can address your question generally or to a specific participant. Let us know what you want answered and whether we may use your name." I encourage anyone with concerns about regulation who would like to increase the chance of this topic being mentioned to submit them in question form to sss-inquiries at lists.stanford.edu. (Questions on other topics are of course also welcome.) Some questions will be answered at the summit, and others may be answered afterwards on the site. And regardless of what side of the various issues you come down on, I thank you for your interest in and concern for the safety and prosperity of our shared future. Best, -- Jeff Medina http://www.painfullyclear.com/ Associate Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ Relationships & Community Fellow Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies http://www.ieet.org/ School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 10 15:12:44 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:12:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <200605100344.k4A3i8TQ009034@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605091441.k49Ef8Iw002125@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200605100344.k4A3i8TQ009034@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060510151244.GV26713@leitl.org> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 08:07:42PM -0700, spike wrote: > Another possibility my custom version of Kurzweil's notion of inloading. Kurzweil has nothing to do with it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_transfer for some of the references. The idea itself is straightforward, similiar to cryonics. Many people have came up with it independently. > A brain is about a couple of kilograms and 12 grams of carbon is 6E23 atoms > and a brain is mostly carbon, so 2000 grams of that is about 6E23/12*2000 = The brain is mostly water, not carbon. But, it's good enough for a back of the envelope estimate. > 1e26 atoms. Wikipedia says that a human brain has about 100 billion > neurons, and each of those has a bunch of synapses. So 1E11 neurons in 1e26 > atoms makes 1e15 atoms per neuron, a million billion atoms per neuron if you > prefer. The fact that a bunch of these neurons do stuff that I would no > longer need if I had no body gives us conservative BOTECs. But you don't know which processes are relevant, and which are not. For instance, you might think that you don't need a gentic model, nor to simulate the mechanical properties. Unfortunately, both are essential for long-term changes. If you're only tracking ~s range processes you'll wind up with an extreme Korsakoff patient (or 50 first dates). > I have a notion that at some future time, nanobots of perhaps a million > atoms each could enter a frozen brain, not at liquid nitrogen temperatures I 10^9 atoms is a truly primitive machine. You need about a cubic micron to build something interesting. > but perhaps a few tens of degrees below zero celcius so that they have a No, you have to stay below -130..-150 C. I would actually work at -196 or below. > solid medium in which to work. These might tunnel in thru the blood vessels > all the way down to the capillaries, perhaps removing the now unnecessary Why would you want to tunnel? You could just cut up everything in nice manageable slices, and process them. > blood cells. They would enter the brain cells and join together to form > nanocomputers, perhaps a million nanobots per cell. The million nanobots in > the cell would perform a calculation that simulates the workings of that > cell. Wouldn't work. I also don't understand why you're doing an incremental in-situ substitution -- that's something you would do with a live critter. But if a live critter croaks *now*, you're only option is to freeze her. > The nanobots would build conductors, perhaps out of nanotubes, to carry > signals between the neurons. The nanobot constructed nanocomputers within > the brain would stay in place, simulating that brain. If the nanobots were > made of carbon and each nanobot has a million atoms and each of the hundred > billion neurons had a million nanonbots, that is 1e6(carbon atoms per > nanobot)*1E11(neurons)*1E6(nanobots/neuron) = 1E23 carbon atoms, which is > about 2 grams of carbon. If you want to build a hybrid system, you just inflate the volume (straightforward coordinate transformation) and fill in rest with nanoware. You can do the same when invading your brain in vivo with several liters of nanoware. You'd bloat like a superhydrocephalus, but if you do it slowly the cells would adapt. > If each neuron has a thousand synapses and the nanotubes for each synapse > requires a billion carbon atoms to make a conductor that does what synapses > do, then 1E11(neurons)*1E3(synapses/neuron)*1E9(atoms/synapse)=1e23 carbon > atoms, which is another 2 grams of carbon. > > In this scenario, 4 grams of nanobots could infiltrate a frozen brain and > simulate it in place as an inload. Interestingly, this would allow signals No can do, chief. Try with several kg, and none of the volume needs navigation, propulsion, power. Volume wasted -- all you need is computation. > to go down the neck to a robot body, as it did back when that head guided > and rode about atop a meat body. The head would need to remain frozen below > water ice temperatures, but this would allow that head to go places that we > cannot go, such as Mars. Why do you need the head if you've got an isofunctional substitute? > Granted this describes remarkable technology, but is not our current > technology remarkable compared to that which Thomas Jefferson had at his > disposal? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 10 15:15:40 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:15:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060510085456.GB26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen: "If you make copies of frozen bodies, they start to diverge by the moment they resume activity. They have become two distinct, albeit very similiar persona." They are distinct not because their states have diverged, but because they don't occupy the same space and time. Eugen: "It is really not very complicated." Sure, especially when you're oblivious to the real depth of the problem. Frankly, that was disarmingly naive and simplistic treatment of the issue, typical of one I would expect from someone who has just recently learned about the problem. S. From exi at syzygy.com Wed May 10 15:47:04 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 10 May 2006 15:47:04 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060510154704.20867.qmail@syzygy.com> Heartland: >The point of trajectories is that it is theoretically possible for an objective >observer to distinguish between instances which proves the assertion that even >instances of the same type are always different. One of the main tenants of Quantum Mechanics is that this is impossible for microscopic particles. It's been quite well established experimentally. Taking as an axiom something that has been proven wrong under significant circumstances is not valid. You have to choose other axioms and prove this if you want any credibility. Heartland: >Identity should have nothing to do with what the object is. You can't assume >information-based definition of identity (information is matterless) and apply it >to the process of distinguishing things that are made of matter. But your trajectory log, which you use to establish identity, is nothing but information. Mind is a computational process. Saying that information is irrelevant to identifying mind is a complete non-starter. Heartland: [stating an axiom] >2. Physical activity necessarily requires matter, and that activity *itself* cannot >be stored in static information. (Shown in step (2) of the argument). >[...] >This, in turn, leads to: >[...] >And if so, then an absence of an instance is irreversible and no amount of static >information that remains about that instance can bring that instance back from >nonexistence. But you basically assumed this above! This is a circular argument. -eric From jonkc at att.net Wed May 10 16:04:20 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:04:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> Message-ID: <047701c6744b$74bab480$a90a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > There should be no link between the two [mind and brain] No link? Of course there is a link between mind and brain, mind is what a brain does. > mind is not a brain. Correct, but then why do you keep treating the two as if they were identical, why do you keep babbling about physical objects and pontificating about "trajectories in space time"? > My strategic error in the original post was that the list of definitions > included ones like "mind" and "brain." Your logical error was defining mind as something that produces mind. I'm not saying it's wrong but it's not really very enlightening. >Physical activity necessarily requires matter Wow, what a brilliant revelation, physical activity requires something physical! > that activity *itself* cannot be stored in static information. Information can and does control activity, for example, one day the information in a DNA molecule supervised the activity of some very simple amino acids and produced you. Those original amino acids have left your body long ago as has the original DNA molecule, but you remain. > a mind is a physical activity Everyone who is not a Jesus freak agrees on that. > An instance of physical activity must be distinguishable from all other > instances of physical activity Why? Can you find one tiny shred of experimental to support such a claim? I can't. > Therefore, all instances of subjective experience are distinguishable Distinguishable by who? > Instances of objects made of matter are distinguishable. (Trajectories > show that). Trajectories that are ephemeral and can be easily erased from the universe. > Identity should have nothing to do with what the object is. In a long list of stupid statements you have made that is the stupidest, in fact it may be the stupidest statement ever made on this list, it's certainly in the top ten. John K Clark From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 10 16:46:07 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:46:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <446218CF.8000605@pobox.com> Bill Hibbard wrote: > I am concerned that the Singularity Summit will not include > any speaker advocating government regulation of intelligent > machines. The purpose of this message is not to convince you > of the need for such regulation, but just to say that the > Summit should include someone speaking in favor of it. Note > that, to be effective, regulation should be linked to a > widespread public movement like the environmental and > consumer safety movements. Intelligent weapons could be > regulated by treaties similar to those for nuclear, chemical > and biological weapons. We (meaning Ray Kurzweil) tried very hard to get Bill Joy, but he simply wasn't available for May 13. > The obvious choice to advocate this position would be James > Hughes, and it is puzzling that he is not included among the > speakers. Can anyone explain why he is not included? Stanford demanded a known, prominent Singularity skeptic - for their definitions of "prominent" and "Singularity skeptic". When we couldn't get Bill Joy, they gave us a list that included Bill McKibben, and McKibben was the first person we asked who was available. I confess that I didn't think of replacing Bill Joy with James Hughes to speak for the regulatory viewpoint, but the speaker schedule was already full at this point, and we only had one slot (the one that would have gone to Bill Joy) to fill with a Stanford-approved skeptic. It is a fair suggestion, if we could do it all over from scratch. > The Singularity Summit should include all points of > view, including advocates for regulation of intelligent > machines. It will weaken the Summit to exclude this > point of view. The organizers seem extremely Summit-fatigued at this point, but maybe we'll do another one someday... as it is, the speaker schedule is full up and it's too late for any changes. The Summit represents a huge diversity of views. *All points of view* is impossible. But, yes, there were viewpoints we wanted from speakers we couldn't get. Vinge wasn't available on May 13 either. Ben Goertzel wrote: > > As an aside, I certainly would have liked to be invited to speak > regarding the implication of AGI for the Singularity, but I understand > that they simply had a very small number of speaking slots: it's a > one-day conference..... Indeed. Also, bear in mind that SIAI is only one organizer of the Summit; and that the goal was to fit in all the viewpoints, rather than all the people. Ben Goertzel and Eliezer Yudkowsky may seem different if your accustomed environment is the SL4 mailing list, but from the Summit's perspective, we represent viewpoints that are clustered very close together in opinionspace. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 10 17:07:12 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:07:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? Message-ID: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> Is this a bad joke? My laptop is an extension of my mind. I have practiced active listening and exploring with it for many years. Why would this of all conferences ask me to leave part of my mind at home? This really concerns me. - samantha From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 10 18:25:45 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:25:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> References: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> Message-ID: <44623029.2040105@pobox.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Is this a bad joke? My laptop is an extension of my mind. I have > practiced active listening and exploring with it for many years. > Why would this of all conferences ask me to leave part of my mind at > home? This really concerns me. Seems a bit odd to me too. Why no laptops? This will greatly reduce note-taking. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed May 10 17:20:14 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:20:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading In-Reply-To: References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060510085456.GB26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: On May 10, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Heartland wrote: > Eugen: > "It is really not very complicated." > > Sure, especially when you're oblivious to the real depth of the > problem. Frankly, > that was disarmingly naive and simplistic treatment of the issue, > typical of one I > would expect from someone who has just recently learned about the > problem. You have yet to demonstrate that *you* understand the real depth of the problem, nor have you provided a compelling and novel argument. This topic has been discussed and argued ad nauseum for over a decade on this list, from many different perspectives and with far more theoretical rigor than you are bringing to the table. Ignorance of history does not make it any less real for the people that lived it. As far as I can tell, your argument is just a badly worded rehashing of discussions that have already happened here numerous times, and you have been unable to demonstrate otherwise despite the saintly patience of many people. I know for a fact that many of the people you are disagreeing with most certainly did *not* "just recently learn about the problem". Stop trying to explain away your poor reasoning by accusing everyone else of being ignorant n00bs. You may not be aware of it, but to a lot of people on this list you dug a dusty old turd out of the attic that we recognize (because we put it in the attic) and are trying to pass it off as something fresh, new, and wonderful. Do not tell us it is not a dusty old turd, show us; that Jedi mind trick crap won't work here. J. Andrew Rogers From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 10 20:02:00 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:02:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060510085456.GB26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: J. Andrew Rogers: > I know for a fact that many of the people > you are disagreeing with most certainly did *not* "just recently > learn about the problem". Quantity of thought doesn't imply quality. You can't store activity itself (and no, that doesn't mean algorithm) in static data. If I were you I wouldn't lecture anyone about what information is again. S. From hal at finney.org Wed May 10 19:52:11 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? Message-ID: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> I hadn't heard about this restriction - where did you hear it? Anyway, I actually see it as a good thing. I gave a talk last year at a semi "hackers" conference and it was pretty shocking to see the inattention of audience members to all the speakers. The whole time someone was talking, most of the audience had their heads down in their laptops, IM'ing away or otherwise passing the time. In my case, I lucked out because the projector lightbulb blew out just before my speech. I had the slides online so I told everyone the URL at the beginning, and asked those with laptops to hold them so their neighbors could see them and follow along with my presentation. This way people were kind of forced to pay attention to what I was saying, otherwise they looked rude by preventing those around them from being able to see my slides. So I got more attention than any of the other speakers that day. But here, we've got people like Hofstadter, like Drexler, Kurzweill, etc, I'd hate to see them being rudely ignored like so many of the speakers were at my conference last year. These guys have travelled a long way, some of them, and it's a real privilege that we'll get to hear what they say. Paying undivided attention is not too much to ask of an audience. This reminds me of a scene in Vinge's new novel Rainbows End. The teachers at the junior high fight a constant battle with the kids trying to keep them focused. All the kids wear HUDs so it's hard to tell who is paying attention and who's off playing a game somewhere. If and when we get to the point where our IMing and net browsing is this unobtrusive, then fine, I don't see a problem with people doing that during talks (although they're largely wasting their own time). But at present there is no way for it to happen without the speaker noticing that he's being ignored. Hal From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 10 21:00:18 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:00:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> <20060510154704.20867.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: > Heartland: [stating an axiom] >>2. Physical activity necessarily requires matter, and that activity *itself* >>cannot >>be stored in static information. (Shown in step (2) of the argument). >>[...] >>This, in turn, leads to: >>[...] >>And if so, then an absence of an instance is irreversible and no amount of static >>information that remains about that instance can bring that instance back from >>nonexistence. Eric: > But you basically assumed this above! This is a circular argument. The conclusion is that death is irreversible. Do I assume that in (2)? S. From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 10 21:30:55 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:30:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> On May 10, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > I hadn't heard about this restriction - where did you hear it? The receipt/directions/request to release unused seat reservations I received this morning. > > Anyway, I actually see it as a good thing. I gave a talk last year > at a semi "hackers" conference and it was pretty shocking to see the > inattention of audience members to all the speakers. The whole time > someone was talking, most of the audience had their heads down in > their > laptops, IM'ing away or otherwise passing the time. > I am often typing in notes, surfing related material and keeping part of my attention on any IM about the presentation and subject at hand. This makes the experience and the amount of learning richer. This is the primary reason I objected. Many people here are very familiar with much of the work and position of many of the speakers. The speakers will be addressing what they believe is the average background knowledge level of the audience generally. That means that a lot of the presentation is old hat to many people present. Why should they sit attentively and do nothing but feign rapt attention? I do not owe anyone the "respect" of such pretense. Many of us multi-task quite well and are adept at catching the new and paying attention to the new in a presentation while doing other things at other points. Most presentations (with occasional wonderful exceptions) are too low in informational bandwidth to reasonably fully occupy the mind. > > But here, we've got people like Hofstadter, like Drexler, > Kurzweill, etc, > I'd hate to see them being rudely ignored like so many of the speakers > were at my conference last year. These guys have travelled a long > way, > some of them, and it's a real privilege that we'll get to hear what > they > say. Paying undivided attention is not too much to ask of an > audience. Just because I am typing or looking at my screen doesn't mean I am rude at all. I am intimately familiar with the works of most of these folks. Much of the audience may not be as familiar with it. It is too much to ask for undivided attention for anything that does not remotely require undivided attention. > > If and when we get to the point where our IMing and net browsing is > this unobtrusive, then fine, I don't see a problem with people doing > that during talks (although they're largely wasting their own time). > But at present there is no way for it to happen without the speaker > noticing that he's being ignored. > We do the best we can with current technology to listen and think and explore as actively as we can and to maximally use our time. Undivided attention as in not using available tools or simply sitting passively while hearing and seeing what one already knows is no sign of respect. It is a sign of the mere form being held more important than substance. I suggest you rethink your position. - samantha From exi at syzygy.com Wed May 10 22:01:37 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 10 May 2006 22:01:37 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> <20060510154704.20867.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <20060510220137.25003.qmail@syzygy.com> >> Heartland: [stating an axiom] >>>2. Physical activity necessarily requires matter, and that activity *itself* >>>cannot >>>be stored in static information. (Shown in step (2) of the argument). >>>[...] >>>This, in turn, leads to: >>>[...] >>>And if so, then an absence of an instance is irreversible and no amount of static >>>information that remains about that instance can bring that instance back from >>>nonexistence. > >Eric: >> But you basically assumed this above! This is a circular argument. > >The conclusion is that death is irreversible. Do I assume that in (2)? You concluded: "no amount of static information [...] can bring that instance [activity] back" based partly on: "activity *itself* cannot be stored in static information." -eric From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 10 22:16:56 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 23:16:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> On 5/10/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Many of us multi-task quite well and are adept at catching the new > and paying attention to the new in a presentation while doing other > things at other points. I run roleplaying games over IRC, and I remember some years ago being disconcerted when I became aware that some of the players, particularly among the younger American crowd, were doing things like watching television or chatting on a few message channels simultaneously while playing the game. I quickly realized, though, that I was being irrational. My expectations had been learned in earlier times when we were all sitting face to face around a table and nobody had laptops, but the reality was that these people were capable of fully participating in the game and doing other things simultaneously; and if my expectations didn't match current reality, then it was my expectations that needed to change. Perhaps a similar change is needed in this context? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed May 10 21:41:48 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:41:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 Message-ID: <380-220065310214148140@M2W015.mail2web.com> From: Heartland velvet977 at hotmail.com Eric: >>But you basically assumed this above! This is a circular argument. >The conclusion is that death is irreversible. Do I assume that in (2)? S. ("Heartland") you have posted over 40 messages since May 1 on the topic of death, and another 30 for part of the month of April on the topic of death. In all due respect, your input is not providing the quality of information to warrant so many posts on this topic on this list. If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know. Thank you, Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed May 10 21:49:46 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:49:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? Message-ID: <380-220065310214946687@M2W003.mail2web.com> From: hal at finney.org ("Hal Finney") >I hadn't heard about this restriction - where did you hear it? >Anyway, I actually see it as a good thing. Hal, I agree with you. I noticed at a meeting at the University of Arizona last month that many were fidgeting with their computers during the presentations. I started checking my email too and, frankly, I did not like myself for doing so. It was distracting to attendees and speakers. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Wed May 10 22:03:18 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 15:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity summit Message-ID: <20060510220318.42638.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> I was expecting to be in the Bay Area on May 13th, and was looking forward to attending the Singularity Summit at Stanford. Unfortunately, that won't be possible. However, I have been upgaraded from the waiting list to a reserved spot at the Summit. So I have a "ticket" that I won't be able to use. If there is someone from the extro list who can use this "ticket" for self or friend, it's yours. Email me. 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 velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 10 23:30:31 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 19:30:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 References: <380-220065310214148140@M2W015.mail2web.com> Message-ID: > S. ("Heartland") you have posted over 40 messages since May 1 on the topic > of death, and another 30 for part of the month of April on the topic of > death. Yeah, frankly, over the last few days I was getting too tired to even respond to people's questions with more than 2 sentences per point. This posting would have stopped tomorrow anyway. I've really said everything that I wanted to say about this issue. It's the death of this instance of this type of discussion, for sure. S. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed May 10 22:37:08 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 18:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? Message-ID: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Richard Loosemore from the sl4 list posted: >For example: suppose we could build minds that simply worked at a >million times the speed of our own (not necessary smarter, just faster). >That would mean that one of these minds could achieve everything that >Einstein did in his entire career in about 10 minutes. A billion times faster machine >could do all of that in half a minute. Even if a super computer mind could remember every last detail, equation, word or scenerio at a million times the speed of our own, how would it be able to come up with Einstein theories? I imagine it would be educated but could it be creative, if the only thing it could do is think faster? If it is not necessary for it to be smarter then wouldn't it be like putting wikipedia in someones mind? Sorry I just don't understand the "not necessary smarter, just faster". Either I don't understand or i'm missing something. Any clarification would be helpful. Thanks Anna --------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail --------------------------------- Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Wed May 10 23:24:46 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 18:24:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <44623029.2040105@pobox.com> References: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> <44623029.2040105@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4462763E.20109@posthuman.com> You should ask Tyler or Carolyn to clarify this, because I thought I read somewhere that there will be free wifi service during the event. Perhaps that only applies to folks outside the building(s) or only for reporters/bloggers? -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 11 00:14:44 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:14:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <4462763E.20109@posthuman.com> References: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> <44623029.2040105@pobox.com> <4462763E.20109@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <3808145A-36D8-434E-8783-12261D5B9FE2@mac.com> I did. Tyler says they wanted to cut down on the number of laptops because they consider it distracting. Also there appears to be no power in the meeting room. There is wifi access in the room. - samantha On May 10, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Brian Atkins wrote: > You should ask Tyler or Carolyn to clarify this, because I thought > I read > somewhere that there will be free wifi service during the event. > Perhaps that > only applies to folks outside the building(s) or only for reporters/ > bloggers? > -- > Brian Atkins > Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > http://www.singinst.org/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 11 03:15:02 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 20:15:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605110317.k4B3HB4B027710@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... OK guys, Heart and others, this thread became tiresome about a week ago, and I wasn't even following it all that closely. Do let it die a merciful but irreversible death, forthwith, thanks. spike > > Eric: > > But you basically assumed this above! This is a circular argument. > > The conclusion is that death is irreversible. Do I assume that in (2)? > > S. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From brian at posthuman.com Thu May 11 04:17:01 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 23:17:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Odd confluence of Lost & Kurzweil Message-ID: <4462BABD.6000803@posthuman.com> The tv show Lost has begun what looks like a pretty extensive web-based game to tide us over during the summer reruns I guess. The site below is part of it apparently, and you can notice it has a link to Life Extension that links to Kurzweil's Fantastic Voyage book: http://www.valenzettifoundation.org/ I guess the game designers or Lost folks have noticed Kurzweil. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 11 05:14:14 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 01:14:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Emotion connected memes and EP Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060511004356.0bcccd10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> [Originally posted to the memetics group] [This is a related to the threads about rational people.] In correspondence with Eugene V Kooin, the author of the comment here: >http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/4/comment/1005 > > My main point, however, is a tribute to meme selection: the fittest will > survive! He commented: snip >. . . it is hard for me to understand how many people, including >biologists, can have such a negative attitude (sometimes, almost >violently expressed) to this entire conceptual development. I suppose >this in itself is a peculiar phenomenon to be understood from the point >of view of evolutionary psychology . . . Let's try. Examples first. I remember with near horror a time when a very senior scientist (not in geology) went off on a disjointed emotional rant that was scary to behold. (He was shaking with rage.) I was reading *his* copy of _Scientific American_ at his house and made some innocent comment about an article on plate tectonics. A story illustrating this effect to a T was posted here [memetics list] by Aaron Lynch back in 2004 and expanded on the Extropian mailing list. (That was where the Libertarians freaked out for over a decade about the whole meme concept seemingly because of an article I wrote for _Reason_.) The K/T extinction event meme is another one that inspired high emotion against it for over a decade. Even 25 years after the 200-mile wide crater was found there are "partisans" who still reject the meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater Drew Westen imaged the effects in brains for political "partisans" but I would bet long odds that the same brain regions were/are active in challenged K/T rejecters. Usually the memes that get tied up with so much emotion are religious or political. Whatever the source, it is clear that a wide variety of memes can obtain this kind of binding to emotional areas of the brain. Are there features of plate tectonics, the "memes about memes" and the K/T event that group them with political or religious memes? What other memes classes have this binding? In some cases, and memetics is one of them, the reaction is almost allergic. People often don't have an expressible meme in competition to the challenge meme; they just emotionally and sometimes violently reject the meme. (That does not mean they don't have a meme or set of memes in competition, just that they can't express them.) This business of emotional freak-outs over memes is so widespread among humans that it must be a species typical psychological trait--though people vary in how much they have it. Evolutionary psychology makes the claim that--without exception--every human psychological trait either evolved (example capture-bonding) or is a side effect (drug addiction) of some trait that *did* contribute to reproductive success back in the EEA (Stone Age.) I have been baffled over this for two decades, I still am, but perhaps the above framing of the problem might give someone an idea about how to solve it. The "rules" of the EP game is that you need to show how the "feature" would have directly improved reproductive success in the EEA for those who had it, *or* how the psychological trait is a side effect of some trait that did improve reproductive success. (Extra points if you can suggest ways to test it.) Dawkins makes the case that being gullible may be a feature of children. You can see why believing adults would contribute to reproductive success (those eaten by bears didn't leave descendents). The possibility exists that some memes get trapped in the partial freezing of the brain's ability to learn language that happens around puberty. (That might have something to do with the 13 year-old boys who read Rand.) Or perhaps there is a later freezing in of memes. In that case, we should be able to detect an age cutoff in those who opposed plate tectonics or the K/T extinction. Perhaps it is some side effect of the drive for status to have strong emotional attachments to memes? (None of these feel right in EP terms.) (Added the next day) Or perhaps these emotional bindings to scientific memes (plus religious and political memes) are a side effect of emotional bindings to xenophobic memes. I recently made the case that the trait to pass around xenophobic memes and go non-rational is an evolved species typical behavior of humans facing bad times. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 It may be active in some people at some level even under low stress conditions. Low level activation of the psychological traits behind capture-bonding (Stockholm Syndrome) seems to account for the rewards people get from BDSM sex practices. Wars and captures were *major* selection factors in the EEA. It should not be a surprise if many of our deepest psychological traits were shaped by such selection. Comments? Keith Henson PS. The theory leads to the prediction that *this* theory will be met with violent rejection by some. :-) From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 11 05:20:08 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 22:20:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] new moderators In-Reply-To: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: <200605110601.k4B61Y0B017317@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ExIers, I am pleased to announce that J. Andrew Rogers and Eugene Leitl have volunteered to be the next ExI list temporary benevolent dictators for however long they are willing. I am on the hook until 1 June in accordance with my previous agreement, but I have two business trips coming in the next three weeks, so these gentlemen have graciously agreed to step up early. Since I confer infinite authority upon Eugene and J. Andrew, they must divide this power. Since half of infinity is still infinity, it would be cool to find something upon which they disagree and see what happens. It would be one of those infinity over infinity things, which in differential calculus is given the delightful term "singularity". One of the powers I gave up is taking people out of the penalty box, so if you are in there, talk to Gene or Andrew, tell them how you got there and why it won't happen again. Both are reasonable chaps. Power corrupts. As I relinquish all this power, I feel the corruption flowing out from me with a sense of blessed relief that sharpens the mind, uplifts the spirit and ennobles the soul, like the ethereal serenity that settles over the sincere penitent sinner from seeking atonement in humble supplication before an omnipotent but merciful deity, or from making a really long turd. spike From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 11 08:30:33 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:30:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 06:37:08PM -0400, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Richard Loosemore from the sl4 list posted: > >For example: suppose we could build minds that simply worked at a > >million times the speed of our own (not necessary smarter, just faster). > >That would mean that one of these minds could achieve everything that > >Einstein did in his entire career in about 10 minutes. A billion times faster machine > >could do all of that in half a minute. So if you run a dog on fast-forward long enough you'd get general relativity out if it? Sorry, doesn't work that way. > Even if a super computer mind could remember every last detail, equation, word or > scenerio at a million times the speed of our own, how would it be able to come up > with Einstein theories? Just the same way Einstein did. > I imagine it would be educated but could it be creative, if the only thing it could do is > think faster? What do you think being creative is? Is a computer beating a grandmaster in chess being creative? How can you tell it isn't? Is the tissue in your brain being creative right now? Glia, pieces of dendritic tree? Ion channels? Protein domains? Water vibration modes? Quarks? > If it is not necessary for it to be smarter then wouldn't it be like putting > wikipedia in someones mind? You can compensate a lot by hard work. Up to a point. Vide supra: the eternal canine on fast-forward won't produce much than lots of happy barking, virtually gnawn bones, and tail-chasing. > Sorry I just don't understand the "not > necessary smarter, just faster". > > Either I don't understand or i'm missing something. > Any clarification would be helpful. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu May 11 08:39:29 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 01:39:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity summit In-Reply-To: <20060510220318.42638.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060510220318.42638.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605110139p1c694ad0l856bbcb4a73ebce7@mail.gmail.com> if you still have the ticket i would be interested. thanks, ilsa ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com 510 847-928 On 5/10/06, Jeff Davis wrote: > I was expecting to be in the Bay Area on May 13th, and > was looking forward to attending the Singularity > Summit at Stanford. Unfortunately, that won't be > possible. > > However, I have been upgaraded from the waiting list > to a reserved spot at the Summit. So I have a > "ticket" that I won't be able to use. > > If there is someone from the extro list who can use > this "ticket" for self or friend, it's yours. > > Email me. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person. john coletrane www.mikyo.com/ilsa http://rewiring.blogspot.com www.hotlux.com/angel.htm From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu May 11 10:54:16 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 05:54:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 5/11/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > You can compensate a lot by hard work. Up to a point. Vide supra: the > eternal canine on fast-forward won't produce much than lots of happy > barking, virtually gnawn bones, and tail-chasing. The problem with the "fast" canine example may be that the canine brain may not have either the (a) the capacity; or (b) the proper internal neural sub-nets to ever perform the function Einstein's brain did (recognition of some rather unusual laws of physics). They might however have the internal subnets to extract information from smell data which humans completely lack. (Say for example the "claimed" ability to be able to identify people who have cancer (or some types of cancer) based on smell.) Running a neural network faster doesn't make it "better" at least for some things... A human brain on fast forward may still have a problem doing what some precisely adapted neural nets (an octopus or squid with highly precise sensory system processing and precision control of multiple arms) are capable of. At the same time I don't believe those neural networks aren't particularly good at algebraic (symbolic) manipulation no matter how fast you run them. Einstein's brain may have had a unique neural structure so that it was able to make connections or recognize patterns that other brains simply could not (at least very easily). Having (a) more memory capacity (human vs. a dog for example) or (b) better spatial manipulation capabilities (e.g. those brains which can solve a Rubik's Cube [1] very quickly) or (c) better language sequencing capabilities (William Falkner comes to mind) may be things where faster does not equal more creative. Though my general take on much "intelligence" right now is that similar brains (with ~ equal capacity and structure) can deal with almost anything given enough information, training and time. Raw "speed" may help in getting from point A to point Z faster. It is interesting to consider whether raw capacity (as compared to raw speed) is essential for solving the Professor's Cube [2]. This brings to mind space vs. speed trade offs in computer systems. It raises the interesting question as to whether Einstein would have been able to deduce a "Theory of Everything" had his brain not been aging (over time brains do lose neurons) and/or had he been given another hundred or two hundred years to work on the problem? Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubik%27s_Cube 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor%27s_Cube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu May 11 13:14:57 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:14:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Trends and technology interest Message-ID: It is interesting (at least to me) to note where Google Trends is indicating most of the queries for nanotechnology [1], artificial intelligence [2], molecular biology [3], human genome [4], aging [5], singularity [6] and neural network [7] are coming from. It is also interesting to note when significant variations in the query requests (aging for example) do not seem to correlate well with news items. As an aside I'll also note they are trend tracking the "conversion" requests -- strange to consider that "miles in meters" gives quite different results from "miles in km". Is this "artificial intelligence" or something entirely different? What other trends of extropic interest can be found? Robert 1. http://www.google.com/trends?q=nanotechnology 2. http://www.google.com/trends?q=artificial+intelligence 3. http://www.google.com/trends?q=molecular+biology 4. http://www.google.com/trends?q=human+genome 5. http://www.google.com/trends?q=aging 6. http://www.google.com/trends?q=singularity 7. http://www.google.com/trends?q=neural+network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 11 14:21:19 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 07:21:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200605111423.k4BENV5m026148@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > What do you think being creative is? Is a computer beating a grandmaster > in chess being creative? How can you tell it isn't? ... Eugen* Leitl I would hafta argue that the computer is being creative. If you look over the grandmaster vs machine games, the computer came up with some terrific ideas, plans that would meet all our definitions of the term creative. If you look at the game scores, you cannot tell which side is human play and which is computer, especially with former world champion Kramnik. I see this as a limited version of the Turing test. spike From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 11 16:19:03 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 17:19:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Memetic data point Message-ID: <8d71341e0605110919t5de41ba4pe9b4296e0e607348@mail.gmail.com> Had this conversation on AIM today, posting it with permission as a data point since I think the concerns the other person raised are likely to be quite representative of the general population. (I'm rw271828 - was a latecomer to AIM, so all possible user names that didn't have strings of digits in them were already taken :P) [16:10] Phadin0: Speaking of AI, a question. [16:10] Phadin0: Do you think it could be concievably possible to copy a person's memories and personality... brain data, in other words, into computer data... basicly download a persons brain into a computer? [16:11] rw271828: "Upload" is the term normally used, and yes indeed, it's one of the main hoped-for applications of advanced nanotechnology when we invent it. [16:12] Phadin0: You think that person would then be able to act and think and BE the computer, or the nanotech, or whatever? [16:12] Phadin0: It seems kinda scary to me, as it seems akin to immortality for whoever is lucky or rich enough to have such a proceedure, and thats the last thing we need. [16:13] rw271828: Yes. And yes, it would be a form of immortality. - What, you want to die? [16:14] Phadin0: I think that such a concept could easily go to people's heads. [16:14] rw271828: Lots of things go to people's heads, not sure how that's an argument for death over continued life? [16:16] Phadin0: Well, I doubt that when it comes out it would be easily accessable to general public, so who gets it first? the rich? the leaders of the nations? Why? And what would they do while they live on and others die around them? Would they let everyone get such immortality, or would they want it for themselves only? [16:17] rw271828: Remember that truly effective medical treatment is cheap. Consider for example the astronomical cost of keeping a polio victim not-dead for a year in an iron lung, with the pocket change cost of polio vaccine. [16:18] rw271828: The cost of uploading would likely quickly come down to considerably _less_ than the cost of spending a couple of years slowly dying in a nursing home, which is the alternative that people use nowadays. [16:21] Phadin0: Perhaps, but again, are they worthy enough to be preserved forever? Who makes such a determination, or can anyone, even those with criminal records, gain this immortality? What about someone who is homeless, and has had no beneficial contribution to society? Whats the cutoff for who's allowed to have this procedure? [16:22] rw271828: Are they worthy enough to get penicillin to save their lives when they have pneumonia? Who makes such a determination, or can anyone, even those with criminal records, gain this life? What about someone who is homeless, and has had no beneficial contribution to society? Whats the cutoff for who's allowed to have this procedure? [16:24] Phadin0: Thats the thing Russ, there are people who would argue no to those questions, adn thats just to presreve life, not give eternal life. You know, the doctor who treated John Wilks Booth after he assassinated President Lincoln, was later brought up on charges of Treason. [16:25] rw271828: Would you conclude from that that it was wrong to invent penicillin? Or would you conclude instead that it's good that we have penicillin, and we need to separately address the question of how to get it to people who need it, even if they don't have a lot of money? [16:26] Phadin0: I don't recall if he was convicted, don't think he was, but the fact is the argument was there, that the man should not have gotten medical treatment. [16:27] Phadin0: I just think the impact of eternal life as a medical proceedure could be far more reaching then pennicilian. [16:27] Phadin0: There is a saying that there are only two sure things in life, death and taxes. [16:28] Phadin0: The fact that you could conquor death would have enormous consequences. [16:29] rw271828: Yes, like not dying! :) Would you not agree that's a good consequence? [16:30] Phadin0: Hmm... how about this scenario... Fidel Castro. One of the things US forieng policy regarding Cuba is depending on is that he WILL die.... eventually... though he's been lasting a really really long time, it will happen. [16:31] Phadin0: It's something the last... 8 presidents or so.... have been depending on, hoping would happen some time. [16:31] Phadin0: It hasn't yet... but what if never could... what if he gained your immortality? [16:31] Phadin0: He could rule Cuba indeffinately. [16:32] rw271828: Right now, more than fifty million people are dying per year. That's a Holocaust every couple of months. _Every_ couple of months. Are you suggesting we should want that to continue just for the sake of getting rid of some guy in Cuba? [16:33] Phadin0: Do you think he gives a damn about the 50 million dying every few months? He wouldn't care.. heck, he'd probably want his people not maintain their mortality so no one could gather up enough support over the years to challenge him. [16:33] Phadin0: And being in charge, he'd make sure they didn't have access to this proceedure. [16:34] rw271828: That's a good argument against dictatorship as a form of government, yes! [16:34] Phadin0: Yes... and an immortal dictator would be even worse. [16:34] rw271828: Look, are you saying you think uploading should be banned? [16:36] Phadin0: I think the world is not in a state where it's ready for it at this time. Sure, in countries like America, and much of Europe, we are... but many other countries are still in a state of morality where the power of immortality would be corrupted by those in charge. I think that it would be nice, one day, to be able to release such an ability... but I don't forsee it as being possible within my lifetime wihtout seeing it also corrupted by those in power in some areas of the world. [16:37] rw271828: So you'd ideally like it to be available, but only in democracies, so the likes of Castro and wotsisname in North Korea don't get to use it to hold onto power indefinitely? [16:39] Phadin0: Even in democracies and other more advanced forms of government, there might still be complications... and there are those outside the government. I shudder to think what would happen if Osama Bin Laden became immortal... on the other hand, that might be a good thing. Hard to martyr yourself when you can't die. [16:39] rw271828: Yep. - Well, it won't be available for a long time yet; one can hope the trend of replacing dictatorship with democracy of recent decades will have spread further by then... [16:40] Phadin0: Indeed, and hopefully the hatred of peoples will also subside. When it does come, there will likely be quite a storm of debate around it, but in the end, reality shifts. It can happen. [16:40] rw271828: One very important thing to bear in mind, though: Nanotechnology, the prerequisite for uploading, is also the prerequisite for space colonization. The real problem with oppressive governments is when there's nowhere to go. It doesn't matter so much if a tyrant wants to continue ruling one little corner of one little planet indefinitely, if people can just leave him to it and go somewhere else. [16:41] Phadin0: Thats part of the problem though, countries like Cuba forbid their citizens from leaving. Cubans are always trying to make illegal crossings over to America to escape from that country, and not all of them make it. [16:42] Phadin0: They have a place to go, America would take them if they make it over to our land... but that doesn't mean they can. [16:43] Phadin0: It's actually by law that if they get found by the coast guard while still on the water, they must be returned to cuba, but if they make it onto american soil, they can stay in our country. [16:43] Phadin0: Anyway, lunch time.... that was a fun little debate, but I want food, so I'll be back in a while. [16:43] rw271828: wait... [16:44] rw271828: One question before you go... [16:44] rw271828: I'm on a couple of mailing lists where technophiles discuss this sort of topic, I think this'd be a useful example of the concerns people have about the use of such technology... would it be okay if I CC this exchange to the mailing list as a data point? [17:05] Phadin0: Sure, go ahead. [17:15] rw271828: Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 11 16:42:48 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:42:48 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Memetic data point In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605110919t5de41ba4pe9b4296e0e607348@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605110919t5de41ba4pe9b4296e0e607348@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060511164248.GI26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:19:03PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Had this conversation on AIM today, posting it with permission as a data > point since I think the concerns the other person raised are likely to be > quite representative of the general population. (I'm rw271828 - was a They *are* representative. This is what drives me up the wall: the first thing they all do is to look for a fly in the ointment. Look hard. Keep looking. Never thinking about how many more options would be there to explore. To keep people dying because of Cuba? Fidelsticks! Completely insane. People have been dying for a long time, so it must be good. Any change to this outrageously intolerable condition must be bad. All the fairy-tales are full of it: let go of the good thing, because it is actually evil. You're a human, you have to stay a human. Human good, magic bad. This is what really made me mad as a kid: they all voluntarily relinquished the toys, having hardly tasted them. We will have to make early adopters demonstrate it's safe and worthwhile, so the alpha humans will make it fashionable, so the rest of them will follow. > latecomer to AIM, so all possible user names that didn't have strings of IRC is similiar or worse to IM. > digits in them were already taken :P) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Thu May 11 17:17:58 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:17:58 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Trends and technology interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> I can't make sense of it. Iran as the first nation where searches for "neural network" are originating, and second for "nanotechnology"? Pakistan at the top spot for "artificial intelligence"? Just how many people have Internet access in those countries? Either I am interpreting the graphs wrong, or their IP-location algorithms need some tuning. Alfio On 5/11/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > It is interesting (at least to me) to note where Google Trends is indicating > most of the queries for nanotechnology [1], artificial intelligence [2], > molecular biology [3], human genome [4], aging [5], singularity [6] and > neural network [7] are coming from. It is also interesting to note when > significant variations in the query requests (aging for example) do not seem > to correlate well with news items. > > As an aside I'll also note they are trend tracking the "conversion" requests > -- strange to consider that "miles in meters" gives quite different results > from "miles in km". > > Is this "artificial intelligence" or something entirely different? > What other trends of extropic interest can be found? > > Robert > > 1. http://www.google.com/trends?q=nanotechnology > 2. http://www.google.com/trends?q=artificial+intelligence > 3. http://www.google.com/trends?q=molecular+biology > 4. http://www.google.com/trends?q=human+genome > 5. http://www.google.com/trends?q=aging > 6. http://www.google.com/trends?q=singularity > 7. http://www.google.com/trends?q=neural+network > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From sentience at pobox.com Thu May 11 17:44:36 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:44:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Trends and technology interest In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> References: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44637804.20109@pobox.com> >>As an aside I'll also note they are trend tracking the "conversion" requests >>-- strange to consider that "miles in meters" gives quite different results >>from "miles in km". And "Bayes" gives wholly different results from "Bayesian". I suspect the data. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 11 17:55:20 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:55:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Trends and technology interest In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> References: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060511175520.GM26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > I can't make sense of it. Iran as the first nation where searches for > "neural network" are originating, and second for "nanotechnology"? > Pakistan at the top spot for "artificial intelligence"? Just how many > people have Internet access in those countries? Either I am Actually, the data makes perfect sense. It's the newcomers that are looking into new technologies. It's their only chance to succeed. Demographics also plays a role: e.g. Iran has lots of idle, frustrated young people, some of them have Internet access. > interpreting the graphs wrong, or their IP-location algorithms need > some tuning. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu May 11 18:03:37 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:03:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Trends and technology interest In-Reply-To: <44637804.20109@pobox.com> References: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> <44637804.20109@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 5/11/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > And "Bayes" gives wholly different results from "Bayesian". I suspect > the data. > There is discussion about this on the google forum. The reason is that there are a really small volume of searches for these tech terms. Much smaller and the system would refuse to draw a graph. As Google doesn't provide a scale or volume numbers, one user suggested doing a comparison to get an idea of the volume. Quote: The following search terms range from the most popular to quite low. They are also terms that are relatively constant over time. Use any of these along with yoru own term to get a relative idea of the scale. 5 Sex 4 Madonna 3 Hastings 2 Tarzan 1 Pentecostal End quote. If you compare nanotechnology with sex, the nano graph disappears! :) But nanotechnology is slightly more popular than pentecostal. :) BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 11 18:11:49 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:11:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <71D20B1D-4C38-4376-8FC7-48E5FF0E3D3D@mac.com> These points seem to be missing something. A human level brain running at, say, 140 IQ but a million times faster can accomplish 1 million man years of work per year and do so without the tremendous management hassles and interpersonal friction of running a million person team. That is huge. Many problems are quite tractable to a large scale effort of that kind. It also seems very likely that the neocortex would optimize many problems faster and more fully when run at vastly higher speeds with equivalently speeded up inputs. Such a brain would be smarter over time and in much shorter time than otherwise. There were no unique neural structures found in Einstein's brain AFAIK. - samantha On May 11, 2006, at 3:54 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 5/11/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > You can compensate a lot by hard work. Up to a point. Vide supra: > the eternal canine on fast-forward won't produce much than lots of > happy barking, virtually gnawn bones, and tail-chasing. > > The problem with the "fast" canine example may be that the canine > brain may not have either the (a) the capacity; or (b) the proper > internal neural sub-nets to ever perform the function Einstein's > brain did (recognition of some rather unusual laws of physics). > They might however have the internal subnets to extract information > from smell data which humans completely lack. (Say for example the > "claimed" ability to be able to identify people who have cancer (or > some types of cancer) based on smell.) > > Running a neural network faster doesn't make it "better" at least > for some things... A human brain on fast forward may still have a > problem doing what some precisely adapted neural nets (an octopus > or squid with highly precise sensory system processing and > precision control of multiple arms) are capable of. At the same > time I don't believe those neural networks aren't particularly good > at algebraic (symbolic) manipulation no matter how fast you run them. > > Einstein's brain may have had a unique neural structure so that it > was able to make connections or recognize patterns that other > brains simply could not (at least very easily). Having (a) more > memory capacity (human vs. a dog for example) or (b) better spatial > manipulation capabilities ( e.g. those brains which can solve a > Rubik's Cube [1] very quickly) or (c) better language sequencing > capabilities (William Falkner comes to mind) may be things where > faster does not equal more creative. Though my general take on > much "intelligence" right now is that similar brains (with ~ equal > capacity and structure) can deal with almost anything given enough > information, training and time. Raw "speed" may help in getting > from point A to point Z faster. It is interesting to consider > whether raw capacity (as compared to raw speed) is essential for > solving the Professor's Cube [2]. This brings to mind space vs. > speed trade offs in computer systems. > > It raises the interesting question as to whether Einstein would > have been able to deduce a "Theory of Everything" had his brain not > been aging (over time brains do lose neurons) and/or had he been > given another hundred or two hundred years to work on the problem? > > Robert > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubik%27s_Cube > 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor%27s_Cube > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 sentience at pobox.com Thu May 11 18:42:31 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:42:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <71D20B1D-4C38-4376-8FC7-48E5FF0E3D3D@mac.com> References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> <71D20B1D-4C38-4376-8FC7-48E5FF0E3D3D@mac.com> Message-ID: <44638597.10100@pobox.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > It also seems very likely that the neocortex would optimize many > problems faster and more fully when run at vastly higher speeds with > equivalently speeded up inputs. Such a brain would be smarter over time > and in much shorter time than otherwise. 1) Didn't you mean to say vastly higher speeds *without* equivalently speeded up inputs? Otherwise you have a simple isomorphism that wouldn't optimize any faster or more fully. 2) If you try any hack that *isn't* a simple isomorphism, the neocortex will probably break down unless you use an extremely tricky engineering hack to keep it running sanely. The human brain is not end-user-modifiable and its parts are not individually overclockable. If the neocortex has any inputs that depend on spiking frequency or spike timing (d'you think?) then speeding up the inputs breaks the API. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 11 19:54:48 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 12:54:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <44638597.10100@pobox.com> References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> <71D20B1D-4C38-4376-8FC7-48E5FF0E3D3D@mac.com> <44638597.10100@pobox.com> Message-ID: <2076E122-C690-4A0D-8F1C-C28A183B3645@mac.com> On May 11, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> It also seems very likely that the neocortex would optimize many >> problems faster and more fully when run at vastly higher speeds with >> equivalently speeded up inputs. Such a brain would be smarter >> over time >> and in much shorter time than otherwise. > > 1) Didn't you mean to say vastly higher speeds *without* equivalently > speeded up inputs? Otherwise you have a simple isomorphism that > wouldn't optimize any faster or more fully. How would you optimize such a network faster with no more inputs than before? I see that the internal chewing over the inputs would happen much faster and potentially be more extensive. But that internal processing may terminate with not much better results unless more relevant external input is available. > > 2) If you try any hack that *isn't* a simple isomorphism, the > neocortex > will probably break down unless you use an extremely tricky > engineering > hack to keep it running sanely. The human brain is not > end-user-modifiable and its parts are not individually overclockable. > If the neocortex has any inputs that depend on spiking frequency or > spike timing (d'you think?) then speeding up the inputs breaks the > API. > Since we are positing a human brain equivalent that runs a million times faster it seems to me this question is challenging what was posited to start with. Somehow we have a brain running one million times faster. Now what can it likely do and not do? - samantha From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu May 11 18:58:36 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:58:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> <71D20B1D-4C38-4376-8FC7-48E5FF0E3D3D@mac.com> Message-ID: <02c401c6752c$e9273730$640fa8c0@kevin> One problem. You would have to have an equally large 1 million fold increase in the speed of the person's actions. Working the brain a million times faster does not help if the eyes can't move and refocus fast enough to keep up, if they can;t communicate faster, and can;t get the actual physical part of the "work" done a million times faster. Wouldn't you just have a brain endlessly cycling while waiting for work to be completed. ----- Original Message ----- From: Samantha Atkins To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? These points seem to be missing something. A human level brain running at, say, 140 IQ but a million times faster can accomplish 1 million man years of work per year and do so without the tremendous management hassles and interpersonal friction of running a million person team. That is huge. Many problems are quite tractable to a large scale effort of that kind. It also seems very likely that the neocortex would optimize many problems faster and more fully when run at vastly higher speeds with equivalently speeded up inputs. Such a brain would be smarter over time and in much shorter time than otherwise. There were no unique neural structures found in Einstein's brain AFAIK. - samantha On May 11, 2006, at 3:54 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: On 5/11/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: You can compensate a lot by hard work. Up to a point. Vide supra: the eternal canine on fast-forward won't produce much than lots of happy barking, virtually gnawn bones, and tail-chasing. The problem with the "fast" canine example may be that the canine brain may not have either the (a) the capacity; or (b) the proper internal neural sub-nets to ever perform the function Einstein's brain did (recognition of some rather unusual laws of physics). They might however have the internal subnets to extract information from smell data which humans completely lack. (Say for example the "claimed" ability to be able to identify people who have cancer (or some types of cancer) based on smell.) Running a neural network faster doesn't make it "better" at least for some things... A human brain on fast forward may still have a problem doing what some precisely adapted neural nets (an octopus or squid with highly precise sensory system processing and precision control of multiple arms) are capable of. At the same time I don't believe those neural networks aren't particularly good at algebraic (symbolic) manipulation no matter how fast you run them. Einstein's brain may have had a unique neural structure so that it was able to make connections or recognize patterns that other brains simply could not (at least very easily). Having (a) more memory capacity (human vs. a dog for example) or (b) better spatial manipulation capabilities ( e.g. those brains which can solve a Rubik's Cube [1] very quickly) or (c) better language sequencing capabilities (William Falkner comes to mind) may be things where faster does not equal more creative. Though my general take on much "intelligence" right now is that similar brains (with ~ equal capacity and structure) can deal with almost anything given enough information, training and time. Raw "speed" may help in getting from point A to point Z faster. It is interesting to consider whether raw capacity (as compared to raw speed) is essential for solving the Professor's Cube [2]. This brings to mind space vs. speed trade offs in computer systems. It raises the interesting question as to whether Einstein would have been able to deduce a "Theory of Everything" had his brain not been aging (over time brains do lose neurons) and/or had he been given another hundred or two hundred years to work on the problem? Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubik%27s_Cube 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor%27s_Cube _______________________________________________ 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 hal at finney.org Thu May 11 21:33:03 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? Message-ID: <20060511213303.BB3B157FD1@finney.org> Here's an article from USA Today about the issue of people laptopping during lectures: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-05-03-unwired-grad-school_x.htm > Professors want their classes 'unwired' > By Maia Ridberg, The Christian Science Monitor > NEW YORK - When Don Herzog, a law professor at the University of Michigan, > asked his students questions last year, he was greeted with five seconds > of silence and blank stares. > > He knew something was wrong and suspected he knew why. So he went to > observe his colleagues' classes - and was shocked at what he found. > > "At any given moment in a law school class, literally 85 to 90% of the > students were online," Professor Herzog says. "And what were they doing > online? They were reading The New York Times; they were shopping for > clothes at Eddie Bauer; they were looking for an apartment to rent in > San Francisco when their new job started.... And I was just stunned." > > Wireless Internet access at universities was once thought to be > a clear-cut asset to education. But now a growing number of graduate > schools - after investing a fortune in the technology - are blocking > Web access to students in class because of complaints from professors. > > Herzog first went on the offensive in his own law classes, banning > laptops for a day as an experiment. The result, he says, was a "dream" > discussion with students that led him to advocate more sweeping changes. > > This school year, the University of Michigan Law School became the latest > graduate school to block wireless Internet access to students in class, > joining law schools at UCLA and the University of Virginia. > > The problem professors face is "continuous partial attention," an > expression coined by Linda Stone, a former Microsoft executive, to > describe how people check e-mail and try to listen to someone at the > same time. > > "As a teacher, you can tell when someone is there, but it's just their > body that is there," says Douglas Haneline, a professor of English > literature at Ferris State University in Grand Rapids, Mich. "Their face > is on 'screensaver,' so to speak, because what they are really doing is > checking their e-mail." > ... I understand that to people accustomed to multitasking, sitting and listening to a single information source may seem excruciatingly boring. I can suggest as an alternative, critical thinking about what is being presented. Instead of distracting yourself, use the ideas from the speaker to trigger your own associations and extrapolations. This will often lead to an overwhelming desire to ask questions. A good idea is to write those down and then perhaps ask the best one or two at the end of the talk. Or, if you're so sure that you know everything the speaker has to say that you won't get anything new out of the talk, maybe you shouldn't be there taking up room, especially at a conference with 1700 full seats and 250 in the overflow lounge. Hal From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu May 11 22:38:42 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:38:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] MEDIA: Ronald Baily on Extropy Institute Message-ID: <380-220065411223842790@M2W010.mail2web.com> May 09, 2006 "Extropy Institute Closes" http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/05/extropy_institu.shtml Good crisp article by Ron Bailey. (Some poster's comments lack character though.) Natasha Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu May 11 22:21:51 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? Message-ID: <20060511222151.43124.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anna wrote: Even if a super computer mind could remember every last detail, equation, word or scenerio at a million times the speed of our own, how would it be able to come up with Einstein theories? Eugen Leitl replied: >Just the same way Einstein did. >>I still don't understand? Does this mean Einstein could remember every last detail, equation, >>word or scenerio at a million times the speed of our own and that's why he could come up >>with his theories? >>Or am I missing something? Eugen Leitl wrote: What do you think being creative is? >>I think being creative is having the ability or power to create. Is a computer beating a grandmaster in chess being creative? >>No, I don't think so. How can you tell it isn't? >>I thought the game of chess was stratigec? >>I thought there was only so many moves you can make based on the games rules and >>stratigec plan? >>Wouldn't a computer beating a grandmaster only mean that the programmer had >>as much knowledge as the grandmaster? >>That's why I don't understand. >>If all I could do is retain memories and not be able to associate them (like Einstein). >> "not necessary smarter, just faster" >>doesn't make any sense to me. >>I'm just not understanding but thanks for the replies. Is the tissue in your brain being creative right now? Glia, pieces of dendritic tree? Ion channels? Protein domains? Water vibration modes? Quarks? >>I'm an average proll, this is way over my head. 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 sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 11 23:27:12 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 16:27:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <20060511213303.BB3B157FD1@finney.org> References: <20060511213303.BB3B157FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <30CD893E-3A97-4A53-9E07-58B9B19A776A@mac.com> On May 11, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > > I understand that to people accustomed to multitasking, sitting and > listening to a single information source may seem excruciatingly > boring. > I can suggest as an alternative, critical thinking about what is being > presented. Instead of distracting yourself, use the ideas from the > speaker to trigger your own associations and extrapolations. This > will > often lead to an overwhelming desire to ask questions. A good idea is > to write those down and then perhaps ask the best one or two at the > end > of the talk. > Do not confuse critical thinking with the absence of apparent other activity. I am not "distracting myself" by actively listening with a computer. I note my ideas and associations and follow them nearly immediately by using a computer. Is this so difficult for you to understand or accept? > Or, if you're so sure that you know everything the speaker has to say > that you won't get anything new out of the talk, maybe you > shouldn't be > there taking up room, especially at a conference with 1700 full seats > and 250 in the overflow lounge. Why not attempt to understand what I am really saying instead of acting like I said something else? - samantha From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu May 11 23:47:30 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:47:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <20060511222151.43124.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060511222151.43124.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/11/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: Anna, Eugen, I think is just trying to make the point that the physical processes in your brain aren't particularly "creative" -- what they are doing is dictated by the laws of physics. Spike was pointing out that a chess playing computer (which is following preprogrammed strategies) can exhibit "behaviors" that seem to be "creative". The problem tends to revolve around what people do or do not consider to be creative.. Think of it in terms of Art or Literature -- were impressionism or cubism or any of the other "-isms" creative? Was Falkner who could craft really complex sentences or Hemingway who could write really simple (but meaningful) ones more creative? In many cases creativity involves something which is novel -- a new way of looking at the same things or a new way of seeing something. I.e. it is "outside" of the classical box (patterns) that people are used to thinking with. Einstein's work tends to be so amazing because much of it was so far ahead of where everyone else was that it stretched from the outside of the left side of the box to the outside of the right side (it literally redefined the box). So creativity involves a couple of things -- being willing to think along unconventional lines and being able to recognize some of those lines as being particularly interesting or useful. (Think of all of the art which people have created which is very unusual and interesting to them but nobody else happens to see it the way they see it -- then one is viewed as creative leaning towards "wierd" rather than creative leaning towards brilliance.) If one can entertain outside of the box thoughts faster and discard the uninteresting and/or non-useful thoughts faster then one would probably be perceived as being more creative. I suspect most people who are labeled creative are those who first manage to see or understand something and tend to leave the audience wondering "Why didn't I think of that?" Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 12 01:07:31 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:07:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] DESIGN: Cooper-Hewitt National Design Awards Message-ID: <380-2200655121731859@M2W012.mail2web.com> This site isn't as effective as it could be but if you are interested, take a look at candidates in the categories of architecture design, communications design, fashion design, interior design, landscape design, and product design. http://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=2030700 8&message_id=179627&user_id=Cooper This is a very tasty topic for anyone who loves design like I do and can imagine how it fits into possibilities for our future. Also, there is a discussion going on right now on the CTF list on design. Philippe Van Nedervelde came up with some fun ideas. Perfect timely, as at the very same time I am working on a paper on design and transhumanism. Create! Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri May 12 01:42:54 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:42:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060512014254.86408.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Robert Bradbury wrote: I suspect most people who are labeled creative are those who first manage to see or understand something and tend to leave the audience wondering "Why didn't I think of that?" >Thank you, this is a really good definition of creative. >Anna --------------------------------- Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 12 04:46:00 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:46:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] trouble in serendip In-Reply-To: <200605110601.k4B61Y0B017317@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200605120526.k4C5QaHn028981@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Damien or anyone else, is AC Clarke is OK? What if anything can be done? spike http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/11/srilanka.violence.ap/index.html From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 12 04:55:24 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:55:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] backwards light In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605120526.k4C5QaHo028981@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I don't know what to think of this. spike http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/lights-most-exotic-trick-yet-so-fast-it-goes- backwards-10590.html In the past few years, scientists have found ways to make light go both faster and slower than its usual speed limit, but now researchers at the University of Rochester have published a paper today in Science on how they've gone one step further: pushing light into reverse. As if to defy common sense, the backward-moving pulse of light travels faster than light. Confused? You're not alone. "I've had some of the world's experts scratching their heads over this one," says Robert Boyd, the M. Parker Givens Professor of Optics at the University of Rochester. "Theory predicted that we could send light backwards, but nobody knew if the theory would hold up or even if it could be observed in laboratory conditions." Boyd recently showed how he can slow down a pulse of light to slower than an airplane, or speed it up faster than its breakneck pace, using exotic techniques and materials. But he's now taken what was once just a mathematical oddity-negative speed-and shown it working in the real world. "It's weird stuff," says Boyd. "We sent a pulse through an optical fiber, and before its peak even entered the fiber, it was exiting the other end. Through experiments we were able to see that the pulse inside the fiber was actually moving backward, linking the input and output pulses." So, wouldn't Einstein shake a finger at all these strange goings-on? After all, this seems to violate Einstein's sacred tenet that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. "Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," says Boyd. "The pulse of light is shaped like a hump with a peak and long leading and trailing edges. The leading edge carries with it all the information about the pulse and enters the fiber first. By the time the peak enters the fiber, the leading edge is already well ahead, exiting. >From the information in that leading edge, the fiber essentially 'reconstructs' the pulse at the far end, sending one version out the fiber, and another backward toward the beginning of the fiber." Boyd is already working on ways to see what will happen if he can design a pulse without a leading edge. Einstein says the entire faster-than-light and reverse-light phenomena will disappear. Boyd is eager to put Einstein to the test. So How Does Light Go Backwards? Boyd, along with Rochester graduate students George M. Gehring and Aaron Schweinsberg, and undergraduates Christopher Barsi of Manhattan College and Natalie Kostinski of the University of Michigan, sent a burst of laser light through an optical fiber that had been laced with the element erbium. As the pulse exited the laser, it was split into two. One pulse went into the erbium fiber and the second traveled along undisturbed as a reference. The peak of the pulse emerged from the other end of the fiber before the peak entered the front of the fiber, and well ahead of the peak of the reference pulse. But to find out if the pulse was truly traveling backward within the fiber, Boyd and his students had to cut back the fiber every few inches and re-measure the pulse peaks when they exited each pared-back section of the fiber. By arranging that data and playing it back in a time sequence, Boyd was able to depict, for the first time, that the pulse of light was moving backward within the fiber. To understand how light's speed can be manipulated, think of a funhouse mirror that makes you look fatter. As you first walk by the mirror, you look normal, but as you pass the curved portion in the center, your reflection stretches, with the far edge seeming to leap ahead of you (the reference walker) for a moment. In the same way, a pulse of light fired through special materials moves at normal speed until it hits the substance, where it is stretched out to reach and exit the material's other side [See "fast light" animation]. Conversely, if the funhouse mirror were the kind that made you look skinny, your reflection would appear to suddenly squish together, with the leading edge of your reflection slowing as you passed the curved section. Similarly, a light pulse can be made to contract and slow inside a material, exiting the other side much later than it naturally would [See "slow light" animation]. To visualize Boyd's reverse-traveling light pulse, replace the mirror with a big-screen TV and video camera. As you may have noticed when passing such a display in an electronics store window, as you walk past the camera, your on-screen image appears on the far side of the TV. It walks toward you, passes you in the middle, and continues moving in the opposite direction until it exits the other side of the screen. A negative-speed pulse of light acts much the same way. As the pulse enters the material, a second pulse appears on the far end of the fiber and flows backward. The reversed pulse not only propagates backward, but it releases a forward pulse out the far end of the fiber. In this way, the pulse that enters the front of the fiber appears out the end almost instantly, apparently traveling faster than the regular speed of light. To use the TV analogy again-it's as if you walked by the shop window, saw your image stepping toward you from the opposite edge of the TV screen, and that TV image of you created a clone at that far edge, walking in the same direction as you, several paces ahead [See "backward light" animation]. "I know this all sounds weird, but this is the way the world works," says Boyd. About the University of Rochester The University of Rochester (www.rochester.edu) is one of the nation's leading private universities. Located in Rochester, N.Y., the University's environment gives students exceptional opportunities for interdisciplinary study and close collaboration with faculty. Its College of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering is complemented by the Eastman School of Music, Simon School of Business, Warner School of Education, Laboratory for Laser Energetics, and Schools of Medicine and Nursing. >From University of Rochester From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 12 12:27:24 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:27:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <20060511222151.43124.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060511222151.43124.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060512122724.GW26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 06:21:51PM -0400, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Anna wrote: Anna, your quoting style is highly unusual. Maybe you should read http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html If you're using Outlook or Outlook Express there are tools to help you with that, e.g. http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/ > Even if a super computer mind could remember every last detail, equation, word or > scenerio at a million times the speed of our own, how would it be able to come up > with Einstein theories? You're looking at the hardware. Instead, you should be looking at a person implemented in the hardware. If you would upload Einstein, he would not be able remember every laste detail, equation, etc. He would be just as limited as Einstein, albeit running a million times faster. E.g. mathematicians (some notable exceptions excluded) are only highly productive in an early part of their career. Einstein also had his annum mirabilis. I think a million of such miracle years would be truly impressive to behold. And, of course, unlike dogs, we can actually build systems which think better than we do, or optimize the processes making us tick, so there would be no such built-in limits as a dog on his virtual porch. > Eugen Leitl replied: > >Just the same way Einstein did. > > >>I still don't understand? Does this mean Einstein could remember every last detail, equation, > >>word or scenerio at a million times the speed of our own and that's why he could come up > >>with his theories? > >>Or am I missing something? Einstein was a highly exceptional person. Some people are dramatically more productive than others. With molecular-scale diffs you can figure out where six-sigma outliers differ from us, or where chimps differ from us, for that matter. That should give you a pointer to where we should go. > Eugen Leitl wrote: > What do you think being creative is? > > >>I think being creative is having the ability or power to create. Ok. > Is a computer beating a grandmaster in chess being creative? > > >>No, I don't think so. I would think that within its domains a modern chess system is being highly creative. The differences between human play and machine play are increasingly going away. > How can you tell it isn't? > > >>I thought the game of chess was stratigec? Strategy, as in building and executing a plan? > >>I thought there was only so many moves you can make based on the games rules and > >>stratigec plan? Of course the canvass is limited. But the number of all possible moves is large enough to be untreatable by brute-force. > >>Wouldn't a computer beating a grandmaster only mean that the programmer had > >>as much knowledge as the grandmaster? Absolutely not. I could easily write a program which would beat me in chess. You don't have to be a chess grandmaster to build a system which blows away anyone on two legs. > >>That's why I don't understand. > >>If all I could do is retain memories and not be able to associate them (like Einstein). > >> "not necessary smarter, just faster" > >>doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense to me, either. It's probably because you're erecting a straw man. Something which only memorizes but can't access is a video recorder. > >>I'm just not understanding but thanks for the replies. > > Is the tissue in your brain being creative right now? Glia, pieces of dendritic tree? > Ion channels? Protein domains? Water vibration modes? Quarks? > > >>I'm an average proll, this is way over my head. I was trying to illustrate that intelligence and creativity is an emergent (a high-level property emerging from interaction of low-level parts) of a particular physical system between our ears. If you pull it apart/look at low-level processes you don't see anything particularly magical. The individual cells in an information-processing tissue are not doing something particularly interesting. The farther down you look, the less special it gets. Whether a smart being is built from animal cells, transistors or spin valves, it doesn't matter as they're organized by the same principles at a higher level. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri May 12 16:10:03 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:10:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MEDIA: R.U. Sirius on NANO Showing - Transhumanist Art Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060512110337.05056308@pop-server.austin.rr.com> NeoFiles Show #38: Transhumanist Art http://mondoglobo.net/ The second part of our conversation with Natasha-Vita More, President of the Extropy Institute and Founder and Director of Transhumanist Arts & Culture. Sponsor: Life Enhancement Products | Producer: Jeff Diehl | Host: RU Sirius | Co-hosts: Sherry Miller and Steve Robles | Intro & Outro: Scrappi DuChamp From zero.powers at gmail.com Fri May 12 18:37:20 2006 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:37:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> Message-ID: <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> Hello all It's been a while since I've posted to the list, although I have continually monitored it for several years now. I'm surprised and disheartened to hear that ExI is no more, but I know that the Board must know what's best for the institute and that gives me some comfort. In terms of memorable discussions, a few years back there were a number of very thought provoking discussions/debates concerning the inevitability and benefits of societal transparency. Although the discussions eventually tended toward ad hominem attacks, I believe that there was much of value in the ideas expressed in them. I also believe that with the continual evolution, use and acceptance of surveillance technology (think cell phone cameras, traffic light cameras, explosion of CCTV On 5/5/06, Max More wrote: > > Thank you for your words, Hal. > > As Natasha and Mitch have said, plans are afoot to preserve all the > public material -- in fact to make it more available than ever before. > As we work on this project, it would be very helpful to hear from List > subscribers (especially you long-timers): which do you think are the > best and most memorable discussions that have appeared on the List? > Which discussions or individual posts should be included in any selection? > > Once the bulk of the existing material is online and searchable, we > would like to go further, using more advanced tools and perhaps making > the Extropy Library a repository that continues to build. > > Onward! > > Max > > > Hal Finney wrote: > > I want to congratulate Natasha, Max, and the rest of the Extropy > > Institute board for taking this difficult but proactive step rather than > > letting ExI and its related concepts just fade away as happens with > > so many institutions. When the time has come to move on, recognizing > > and accepting that fact is always difficult. But the world has changed > > enormously since the 1980s when Max and Tom invented the idea of > Extropy, > > and even since the early 1990s when this mailing list was born in its > > earlier incarnation. Ideas which at that time were considered too > > outlandish even for science fiction are now debated regularly in the > > corridors of power and on the front pages of major newspapers and other > > opinion leaders. > > > > My main concern during this time of transition is that the history > > of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme > > unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to > remember > > today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of > quasi-secrecy > > with regard to list archives. As a result, much of that free-wheeling > > discussion has been lost, an information exchange which many of us > > remember as among the most dynamic and engaging we have ever > encountered. > > > > It may never be possible to reconstruct and restore those lost archives, > > but eventually the list policy changed, and we should make sure that > > what remains is not lost. Not only list archives, but the working > > papers and other documents produced by ExI over the years, should all > > be preserved for future study and reference. It's possible that someday > > this material will be seen as representing the birth of ideas which turn > > out to be key to the further development of humanity. > > > > Making data available for an indefinite period into the future will > > not happen automatically. It will take time and effort to make the > > preparations, and funds will be needed as well. If there are things I > > could do to help, I hope Natasha will feel free to ask, and I am sure > > that most of the rest of us in the community feel the same way. > > > > Hal Finney > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 zero.powers at gmail.com Fri May 12 18:46:42 2006 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:46:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a3217050605121146l6302804bva23cc75cd4ce5eda@mail.gmail.com> It's been a while since I've posted to the list, although I have continually monitored it for several years now. I'm surprised and disheartened to hear that ExI is no more, but I'm sure the Board must know what's best for the institute and that gives me comfort. In terms of memorable discussions, a few years back Mike Lorrey, I and others engaged in a number of very thought provoking discussions/debates concerning the inevitability and benefits of societal transparency. Although the discussions eventually devolved to ad hominem attacks, I believe that there was much of value in the ideas expressed in them. I also believe that with the continual evolution, use and acceptance of surveillance technology (think cell phone cameras, traffic light cameras, explosion of CCTV cameras, www.zabasearch.com, Google and its various information gathering and sharing technologies, etc.) it is an issue which will come to a head very soon. So I'd like to see those threads which, together with early books on the subject like David Brin's, largely framed the issues and trade-offs that society will soon be forced to address, one way or another. I'm very happy to hear that this list will remain in tact. Health and prosperity to you all. Zero (P.S. Sorry about the imcompete message sent earlier. Typing too fast and accidently hit the "send" button mid-stream.) On 5/5/06, Max More wrote: > > > > Thank you for your words, Hal. > > > > As Natasha and Mitch have said, plans are afoot to preserve all the > > public material -- in fact to make it more available than ever before. > > As we work on this project, it would be very helpful to hear from List > > subscribers (especially you long-timers): which do you think are the > > best and most memorable discussions that have appeared on the List? > > Which discussions or individual posts should be included in any > > selection? > > > > Once the bulk of the existing material is online and searchable, we > > would like to go further, using more advanced tools and perhaps making > > the Extropy Library a repository that continues to build. > > > > Onward! > > > > Max > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 12 18:51:41 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 20:51:41 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060512185141.GJ26713@leitl.org> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 11:37:20AM -0700, Zero Powers wrote: Hi Zero, welcome back. > In terms of memorable discussions, a few years back there were a number of > very thought provoking discussions/debates concerning the inevitability and > benefits of societal transparency. Although the discussions eventually Funny you should bring Brinworld to our attention right now, given the recent spook snoopery hullaballoo: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=NSA&btnG=Search+News > tended toward ad hominem attacks, I believe that there was much of value in > the ideas expressed in them. I also believe that with the continual I'm all for sousveillance and reversing the panopticon. However, what we are getting so far is the exact opposite. And for straightforward reasons: intelligence favors centralism, and protects the governors against the governed. Because of this I'm for the legislation protecting privacy and outlawing surveillance -- with the exception of private individuals gathering data on corporate and government functionaries. This should be actively encouraged and protected. For some reason, I do not expect such legislation to become quite popular, nevermind to be passed at all. > evolution, use and acceptance of surveillance technology (think cell phone > cameras, traffic light cameras, explosion of CCTV I hope the Heimatland Geheimpolizei hasn't cut you off right now. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From scerir at libero.it Fri May 12 19:24:38 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 21:24:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] backwards light References: <20060427155532.73286.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> <20060428000208.5261.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <000c01c675f9$b99ae340$81901f97@administxl09yj> I don't know what to think of this. [...] spike [Not sure this post will arrive there, for reasons still obscure - to me, and the postmaster - I do not receive extropic posts anymore] The 'ratio' should be that quantish effects love a very strange kind of causality, which is 'timeless'. In philosophy there is, at least, another kind of timeless causality, the 'statistical causality'. Note that strange effects, such as backwards 'influences', could solve the ontological problem of quantum entanglement (and of quantum teleportation) [1]. The other way to solve it, at present time, is a complete renunciation: 'correlations without correlata'. Here below interesting papers (from authorities) Chiao http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9811019 http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/qo02/chiao/ Pegg http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506141 Greenberger, Svozil http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027 Suarez http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0311004 Susskind http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503097 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504039 [1] Ontology, EPR-Bohm-Bell apparatus. When the entangled particle-1 goes through the analyzer-1, informations (or Fourier transforms, or whatever) are sent, from there, to the source of the entangled pairs, backward in time, about the parameter of the analyzer-1 (if not also about the outcome of measurement). So the source would 'know' these informations (at t=0), and the source could also 'attach' these information to particle-2, going the other side. When the entangled particle-2 goes through the analyzer-2, informations (or Fourier transforms, or whatever) are sent, from there, to the source of the entangled pairs, backward in time, about the parameter of the analyzer-2 (if not also about the outcome of measurement). So the source would 'know' these informations (at t=0), and the source could also 'attach' these information to particle-1, going the other side. This way each particle, while traveling, knows everything about the story of its entangled partner. So, both particles might be correlated. From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 12 23:30:00 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 16:30:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <7a3217050605121146l6302804bva23cc75cd4ce5eda@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> <7a3217050605121146l6302804bva23cc75cd4ce5eda@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6913D258-0BD1-49B8-834B-F4D5CA86F644@mac.com> On May 12, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Zero Powers wrote: > > I'm very happy to hear that this list will remain in tact. Health > and prosperity to you all. > "In tact"?? Oh man, are you sure you are thinking of this list? We aren't exactly known for tact. :-) From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 13 02:19:08 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 19:19:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <7a3217050605121146l6302804bva23cc75cd4ce5eda@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605130258.k4D2w0L2020426@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Zero Powers Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future ...It's been a while since I've posted to the list, although I have continually monitored it for several years now... Zero Powers! Cool man, welcome back! We missed you bud. It's great to see old friends drop in again. {8-] Hey I still owe you a sushi dinner. Don't remember why, but it doesn't matter, so long as there are raw squiggly beasts to be devoured in absurdly self-indulgent quantities. ? I'm surprised and disheartened to hear that ExI is no more, but I'm sure the Board must know what's best for the institute and that gives me comfort. ... I and others engaged in a number of very thought provoking discussions/debates concerning the inevitability and benefits of societal transparency...Zero Do restart this thread if you wish, Zero. Someone will hafta sign up to take Mike's place on the privacy rights extreme, and I will be the openness advocate again, altho I am far less extreme on that issue than I once was. Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on openness. spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat May 13 03:07:59 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 20:07:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights References: <200605130258.k4D2w0L2020426@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "spike" ... Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on openness. How, Spike? Olga From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 13 05:38:03 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 22:38:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 8:08 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] privacy rights > > From: "spike" > ... Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on openness. > > How, Spike? > > Olga I am an openness advocate because I am in some ways a special case: I have nothing in my past I want to hide. (Except perhaps my ExI posts. {8^D) Likewise my wife has nothing that requires privacy, but while an openness advocate, I do not wish to peer into other people's privacy. I can think of a zillion perfectly legitimate reasons for not being open. While I may sign up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness compromises his privacy. I don't yet know if he will be a privacy fanatic; he isn't born yet. This next generation thing has me thinking bigtime: I have pondered abandoning the nickname spike, which I have carried for over 20 years now, and carried through my entire professional career. Reasoning: I could leave behind all traces of everything I have ever posted on the internet. For instance, I cannot be certain I never blammisphied online any religion that could have adherents who may akbar a knife between my ribs at any future date. I think all my blammisphy has been restricted to the common domestic varieties of religion, but I honestly cannot recall. The internet never forgets. Unthinkable scenario: if Iran and Israel go at it with nukes in the next few years, we could end up with a million Tarheel jehadists like Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. I could see the wisdom in becoming invisible, or having no memetic past. Everyone should have that option. spike From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Sat May 13 06:15:08 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 23:15:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605122315s6268662fh237150709894a32@mail.gmail.com> hey spike, join the Unitarian jihad! that act will was your worries away. googled it and got my jihad Unitarian style name. smile, ilsa > > > > From: "spike" > > ... Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on openness. > > > > How, Spike? > > > > Olga > > I am an openness advocate because I am in some ways a special case: I have > nothing in my past I want to hide. (Except perhaps my ExI posts. {8^D) > Likewise my wife has nothing that requires privacy, but while an openness > advocate, I do not wish to peer into other people's privacy. I can think > of > a zillion perfectly legitimate reasons for not being open. While I may > sign > up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness compromises his > privacy. > I don't yet know if he will be a privacy fanatic; he isn't born yet. > > This next generation thing has me thinking bigtime: I have pondered > abandoning the nickname spike, which I have carried for over 20 years now, > and carried through my entire professional career. Reasoning: I could > leave > behind all traces of everything I have ever posted on the internet. > > For instance, I cannot be certain I never blammisphied online any religion > that could have adherents who may akbar a knife between my ribs at any > future date. I think all my blammisphy has been restricted to the common > domestic varieties of religion, but I honestly cannot recall. The > internet > never forgets. Unthinkable scenario: if Iran and Israel go at it with > nukes > in the next few years, we could end up with a million Tarheel jehadists > like > Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. I could see the wisdom in becoming invisible, > or > having no memetic past. Everyone should have that option. > > spike > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Sat May 13 06:15:36 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 23:15:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80605122315s6268662fh237150709894a32@mail.gmail.com> References: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <9b9887c80605122315s6268662fh237150709894a32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605122315j25f53387m823a85304fead37e@mail.gmail.com> will wash. On 5/12/06, ilsa wrote: > > hey spike, join the Unitarian jihad! that act will was your worries > away. googled it and got my jihad Unitarian style name. smile, ilsa > > > > > > From: "spike" > > > ... Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on > > openness. > > > > > > How, Spike? > > > > > > Olga > > > > I am an openness advocate because I am in some ways a special case: I > > have > > nothing in my past I want to hide. (Except perhaps my ExI posts. {8^D) > > > > Likewise my wife has nothing that requires privacy, but while an > > openness > > advocate, I do not wish to peer into other people's privacy. I can > > think of > > a zillion perfectly legitimate reasons for not being open. While I may > > sign > > up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness compromises his > > privacy. > > I don't yet know if he will be a privacy fanatic; he isn't born yet. > > > > This next generation thing has me thinking bigtime: I have pondered > > abandoning the nickname spike, which I have carried for over 20 years > > now, > > and carried through my entire professional career. Reasoning: I could > > leave > > behind all traces of everything I have ever posted on the internet. > > > > For instance, I cannot be certain I never blammisphied online any > > religion > > that could have adherents who may akbar a knife between my ribs at any > > future date. I think all my blammisphy has been restricted to the > > common > > domestic varieties of religion, but I honestly cannot recall. The > > internet > > never forgets. Unthinkable scenario: if Iran and Israel go at it with > > nukes > > in the next few years, we could end up with a million Tarheel jehadists > > like > > Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. I could see the wisdom in becoming > > invisible, or > > having no memetic past. Everyone should have that option. > > > > spike > > > > -- don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person. john coletrane www.mikyo.com/ilsa http://rewiring.blogspot.com www.hotlux.com/angel.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat May 13 08:51:03 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 09:51:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 5/13/06, spike wrote: > > I am an openness advocate because I am in some ways a special case: I have > nothing in my past I want to hide. (Except perhaps my ExI posts. {8^D) > Likewise my wife has nothing that requires privacy, but while an openness > advocate, I do not wish to peer into other people's privacy. I can think of > a zillion perfectly legitimate reasons for not being open. While I may sign > up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness compromises his privacy. > I don't yet know if he will be a privacy fanatic; he isn't born yet. > (Sorry to hear you've got nothing to hide, spike. You'll have to try harder). :) Technology is obviously making privacy more and more difficult. The problem is getting the balance right to stop government victimisation and subjugation of the population. Are you ok with the NSA trolling through every phone call in the USA? Their computers will be scanning for keywords initially. But what if everyone who comes to the attention of officials for a minor incident has all their calls examined just in case there is any else to investigate? In the UK any minor charge means you have a DNA sample taken to see if you can be linked to any other past or future crime. The UK is the cctv world leader. What is happening now is that 'hoodies' have become standard wear for teenagers / troublemakers to hide their faces from cameras. Wearing hoods have now been banned in many shops and effectively if adults see youngsters wearing hoods they assume they are looking for trouble. Crime has also tended to move away from the cctv in city centres, so that formerly quiet country villages are being forced to install cctv to protect from increasing crime levels and to video every car that comes into the village. There are some hopeful signs. The ?12m Digital Bridge television service, launched in one of London's most deprived boroughs on Monday, pledges to "put every member of the community in the front row of the fight against crime". The system is being rolled out to 22,000 residents across Shoreditch this summer who will be able to monitor 11 CCTV cameras from the comfort of their living rooms. In autumn, it will be extended to 70,000 households across the borough of Hackney before extending across London and some local authorities in the Midlands and the North West next year. -------------------- BillK From amara at amara.com Sat May 13 07:59:59 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 09:59:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Another anti-evolutionist in the White House Message-ID: Bush's new spokesperson: press secretary Tony Snow, about evolution: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/05/11/who-speaks-for-bush/ -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "Stupidity got us into this mess, so why can't it get us out?" -- Will Rogers From benboc at lineone.net Sat May 13 08:23:09 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 09:23:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4465976D.7070900@lineone.net> OK, it's been almost a month now, and no-one's bitten. I'm curious to know the answer to this. Obviously it involves calculus, and that's beyond my current capability to get my head around, but here's my naive take on the problem. Spike riddled: > For a plane to fly around the world without landing, its tank would > need to hold sufficient fuel to go all the way around. But what if > you had two identical planes, with fuel transfer capability. They > could take off together, fly some distance, one transfers a quantity > of fuel into the other plane and immediately turns back, returning to > the point of origin. The other plane, which received the fuel, flies > on around. > > 1. What is the necessary minimum range of the two planes such that > the two could fly a ways, do a transfer, one plane turn around and go > back to the start and the other go around? Ben squeezed hard on his tiny brain, and came up with: W = dist round the world r = range of 1 tank of fuel Maximum amount of fuel that can be transferred = r/3 (If it was any other amount, then either the plane won't make it back, or will be back with fuel to spare, so fuel transferred must be r/3 for max. effect). So if plane 2 can make it round the world with 1 and 1/3 tanks of fuel, W = r + r/3 Er, my algebra is still a bit dodgy, but i think that's 0.75W. So the planes have a range of 3/4 the distance round the world. > 2. What is the necessary minimum range capability if one had three > such planes? The same logic applies to each individual plane, i.e., maximum fuel donation will be r/3, so with 2 donor planes, we have 2r/3 fuel available at point r/3. But the single plane that continues can't accept more fuel than it has used so far (r/3), so one of the planes has to donate 1/6 it's fuel to each of the two other planes, which would add 1/12r to their journey. But then one would later transfer 1/3 of it's extra fuel to the remaining plane, so that it had enough to get back, which would add another r/18. The final plane would use r + r/3 + r/18 to get round the world. r = 0.72W > 3. What is the necessary range capability if one has N planes? (This > one is cool). With two planes, r = 0.75W, with 3 planes, r = 0.72W, and every extra plane will remove a smaller distance from the total - transfer r/3 to N-1 planes, and each one in turn transfers 1/3 of that, etc. They all have to get back, from further and further away, which needs more and more fuel, so a smaller and smaller proportion of the original fuel is avaliable for the final plane. I don't know enough maths to cope with this, it's obviously calculus or something, but it's going to be an asymptote. I think. So N planes will each have a range of somewhere between 0.75W and 0. I have a feeling that an infinite number of planes would need a range of 0? Unless i've got myself horribly confused (not difficult). But i don't know how to tell the range with N planes. Do tell, uncle Spike, please? (It's odd that problems involving statistics have people feverishly pounding their keyboards, but this one hasn't drawn a single post. Unless it's because aeroplanes are boring, whereas zorfs and envelopes are fascinating). ben From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat May 13 16:34:52 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 17:34:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro In-Reply-To: <20060508210718.89077.qmail@web26406.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060508210718.89077.qmail@web26406.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605130934l7e7419f7tc1e7f18f81f7e71b@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/06, Pes Udoname wrote: > > I would like to do somthing that would help towards transhumanism/ > singulartarianism in the future. > > Options I have: > > Pure maths like group theory, Galois theory etc > > Pure maths like Riemann intergration etc, all of which seems too rigorous > to me > > Applied maths > > Physics- quantum mechanics, thermodynamics > > Computing - formal logic, computer algebra > > Computing - actually coding stuff (very annoying) > There's a glut of programmers at this stage, so there's no need to go into that area unless you particularly like it (which it seems you don't :)). The big areas where progress can be made over the next few decades, it seems to me, are biotech and nanotech. Nanotech is arguably primarily a branch of chemistry, but quantum mechanics and thermodynamics are certainly very relevant to it, so that would suggest physics as your best option from the above list; but you might want to talk with one of your professors, perhaps, to figure out a longer-term plan if you want to get into that area. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Sat May 13 16:03:43 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 09:03:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle In-Reply-To: <4465976D.7070900@lineone.net> References: <4465976D.7070900@lineone.net> Message-ID: <1147536265.3AC8658A@fc9.dngr.org> Ben - Typing on my wireless, so I'll be concise. I can improve yr 3 plane soln. Let the 1st plane transfer r/3 its fuel to the 2nd plane. Then the 2 planes fly an additional r/9. The 2nd plane transfers 4r/9 to the final plane. This fills the final plane & leaves the 2nd plane w/ 4r/9 in its tanks so it can fly home. This gives a range of 13r/9. But for a globe we can do better. Let the 2nd helper plane fly the opposite direction. The 1st helper transfers r/3 as usual. This gives the main plane a range of 4r/3. The 2nd plane flies r/3, meets the 1st as it is running out, xfers r/3, and both fly back. This gives a range of 5r/3, so r = 0.6 of the circumference. I was not sure how to generalize to N planes for the circular case, although for a straight line I think the increment goes down by a factor of 3 for each added plane. Hal On Sat, 13 May 2006 3:19, ben wrote: > OK, it's been almost a month now, and no-one's bitten. > > I'm curious to know the answer to this. Obviously it involves calculus, > and that's beyond my current capability to get my head around, but > here's my naive take on the problem. > > > Spike riddled: > >> For a plane to fly around the world without landing, its tank would >> need to hold sufficient fuel to go all the way around. But what if >> you had two identical planes, with fuel transfer capability. They >> could take off together, fly some distance, one transfers a quantity >> of fuel into the other plane and immediately turns back, returning to >> the point of origin. The other plane, which received the fuel, flies >> on around. >> >> 1. What is the necessary minimum range of the two planes such that >> the two could fly a ways, do a transfer, one plane turn around and go >> back to the start and the other go around? > > > Ben squeezed hard on his tiny brain, and came up with: > > W = dist round the world > r = range of 1 tank of fuel > Maximum amount of fuel that can be transferred = r/3 > (If it was any other amount, then either the plane won't make it back, > or will be back with fuel to spare, so fuel transferred must be r/3 for > max. effect). > > So if plane 2 can make it round the world with 1 and 1/3 tanks of fuel, > W = r + r/3 > Er, my algebra is still a bit dodgy, but i think that's 0.75W. So the > planes have a range of 3/4 the distance round the world. > >> 2. What is the necessary minimum range capability if one had three >> such planes? > > The same logic applies to each individual plane, i.e., maximum fuel > donation will be r/3, so with 2 donor planes, we have 2r/3 fuel > available at point r/3. > But the single plane that continues can't accept more fuel than it has > used so far (r/3), so one of the planes has to donate 1/6 it's fuel to > each of the two other planes, which would add 1/12r to their journey. > But then one would later transfer 1/3 of it's extra fuel to the > remaining plane, so that it had enough to get back, which would add > another r/18. The final plane would use r + r/3 + r/18 to get round the > world. r = 0.72W > > > >> 3. What is the necessary range capability if one has N planes? (This >> one is cool). > > > With two planes, r = 0.75W, with 3 planes, r = 0.72W, and every extra > plane will remove a smaller distance from the total - transfer r/3 to > N-1 planes, and each one in turn transfers 1/3 of that, etc. They all > have to get back, from further and further away, which needs more and > more fuel, so a smaller and smaller proportion of the original fuel is > avaliable for the final plane. > > I don't know enough maths to cope with this, it's obviously calculus or > something, but it's going to be an asymptote. I think. > > So N planes will each have a range of somewhere between 0.75W and 0. I > have a feeling that an infinite number of planes would need a range of > 0? > > Unless i've got myself horribly confused (not difficult). > > But i don't know how to tell the range with N planes. > > Do tell, uncle Spike, please? > > (It's odd that problems involving statistics have people feverishly > pounding their keyboards, but this one hasn't drawn a single post. > Unless it's because aeroplanes are boring, whereas zorfs and envelopes > are fascinating). > > ben > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 13 19:20:27 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 12:20:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605130258.k4D2w0L2020426@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605130258.k4D2w0L2020426@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5952081B-891A-45DB-A00F-2B573E0D77B6@mac.com> On May 12, 2006, at 7:19 PM, spike wrote: > > Do restart this thread if you wish, Zero. Someone will hafta sign > up to > take Mike's place on the privacy rights extreme, and I will be the > openness > advocate again, altho I am far less extreme on that issue than I > once was. > Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on openness. > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Fourth Amendment to US Constitution How can people be secure against intrusions on their persons, papers and effects at any arbitrary whim of the government if the government presumes authority to spy upon the people in any matter it chooses? Bush has declared that the "War on Terror" justifies his ordering the NSA to spy on Americans if they make calls overseas. This is in clear defiance to not only the above but in defiance of the much weaker FISA restrictions and all relevant checks and balances. Last week it came to light that the NSA has requested and obtained data on who calls whom among most American citizens since 9/11. Again with no procedure against misuse or abuse by government or others and against the intent of our Constitution and with no public debate the government presumes that it can gather any data it wants any way it wants outside the law on the grounds that maybe it can be used to prevent a horrendous crime. On Thursday the government denied the program. On Friday it claimed there was nothing wrong with the program it had just denied the day before. The Patriot Act includes provisions allowing government agents to come into our homes with little or no judicial oversight or approval process whatsoever and without even informing us and search our premises and property. The government has passed legislation allowing it to send a so-called "National Security Letter" to most any business or organization demanding any and all information about any of their clients. If anyone in the organization even admits to being served with such a letter on an individual they are guilty of a felony. The list is MUCH longer than this short sample. "Privacy rights extreme"? The extremes are largely on the other side it seems to me. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 13 19:31:12 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 12:31:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> On May 12, 2006, at 10:38 PM, spike wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin >> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 8:08 PM >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] privacy rights >> >> From: "spike" >> ... Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on >> openness. >> >> How, Spike? >> >> Olga > > I am an openness advocate because I am in some ways a special case: > I have > nothing in my past I want to hide. (Except perhaps my ExI posts. > {8^D) > Likewise my wife has nothing that requires privacy, but while an > openness > advocate, I do not wish to peer into other people's privacy. I can > think of > a zillion perfectly legitimate reasons for not being open. While I > may sign > up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness compromises his > privacy. > I don't yet know if he will be a privacy fanatic; he isn't born yet. Nothing to hide? Are you sure you have never violated any of the many tens of thousands of laws on the books? Are you sure you have never called or associated with anyone that may be now or ever under federal suspicion? No? Then you had best think much more deeply if your basis for being for being watched and surveilled increasingly continuously is that you "have nothing to hide". If our government goes ever more draconian, paranoid and power mad than it arguably already is then I would suspect that all of us would have more and more things we would not like to have it aware of. Things like our thoughts, our opinions, our associations, our business dealings, our banking records. Yes, many of these things we lost control of already but it can certainly get worse and will if enough of the people say "well, I have nothing to hide". That isn't the point and never was the point. > For instance, I cannot be certain I never blammisphied online any > religion > that could have adherents who may akbar a knife between my ribs at any > future date. I think all my blammisphy has been restricted to the > common > domestic varieties of religion, but I honestly cannot recall. You would do better to fear your government. It is far more likely to do you serious harm. However, one of things privacy is important for is precisely to keep any busybodies from taking objection to and seriously threatening your life and security. So the underlying point is well taken. - samantha From transcend at extropica.com Sat May 13 20:31:07 2006 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:31:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Iron Man Kurzweil Reference Message-ID: <200605132103.k4DL3XUp020658@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I was reading issue #86 of The Invincible Iron Man in which Tony Stark (the Iron Man) is reading a copy of the "Age of Spiritual Machines." As a billionaire industrialist and weapons developer leading research into AI and nanotech, Tony is deeply disturbed by implications of the book and the Singularity. He contemplates putting down the armor once and for all, but ultimately decides that would do nothing to stop a singularity. Instead, he works to develop a new technology that would allow him to push a kill-switch on anything he invents (therefore aborting any out of control.something. Obviously his plan is flawed, but.) This was an issue from some time in '04 I believe, just after the breakup of the Avengers. I thought it was interesting to see a Kurzweil reference in the comic and to see Tony Stark refer to Kurzweil by name. Just shows a broadening of transhumanist influence. Also, over 2005-2006, it has become common for Tony Stark to refer to technologically enhanced Marvel superheros as "posthumans" -- another demonstration of the broadening influence of the terminology of transhumanism. Brandon Reinhart transcend at extropica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Sat May 13 23:02:27 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 01:02:27 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> References: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> Message-ID: <40362.81.152.102.238.1147561347.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> [Hi, by the way!] I'm going to do a lecture on RFID tags in Sweden May 23, debating with the Swedish privacy right debater P?r Str?m (http://www.atomerochbitar.se/english/), so this discussion is gefundenes fressen. P?r is pretty much against electronic traces and allowing big brother all his powers. I think unfortunately he has a bit simplistic views on how technology and law work. His position is very much to promote laws protecting privacy and making it more or less mandatory for new tech to avoid leaving personal information traces for others to find and exploit. Even if such laws were enacted on the grand scale (witness the ambitious EU database protection acts) they can often be circumvented when convenient (US demands personal info on air passengers, the EU complies; the police want more information to Protect The Children, everybody scrambles to give them it). But more importantly, much of the best technology development is in the informal creative zone. This is where Web 2.0 stuff is made, and it often is based on peoples electronic traces. Regulations for software privacy are unlikely to stop me from making a new program ignoring them that I distribute to my friends, who in turn spread it further and allow it to become another Napster, Flickr or Wiki. Effective enforcement of privacy would stop this creativity. So, what can we do? First, giving lots of power to the police isn't a problem if we can trust the police to serve us. Hence each new power should be coupled with an increase in citizen control over the agency. Accountability and transparency in exchange for more power. This is not an impossible political goal, although at present it is rare and implementing it will always be uphill. To get the maximum creativity and innovativenes, we should encourage tinkering and playing with new technology. Low thresholds to entrance, no limitations on who gets to connect what to what. This is my main message to the RFID business, which is still caught in thinking about supply chains (because that is where the big money is right now) and considering consumer products to be smart kitchens, washing machines and other top-down designed systems *for* the consumer. Not that the consumer might want to use RFID tags on her own in her own ways - to mark up toys, enable objects to act as remote controls or just for fun. This kind of home experimentation is both likely to eventually lead to the true killer apps of RFID - whatever they are - and consumer acceptance. Most of the privacy abuses we worry about come from two directions. Concentrations of power like corporations and state, and people in our close social network. We can use laws and politics against the first, enforcing transparency, accountability and maybe paying back externalities of privacy loss. The second group is much trickier, because no law can protect you from the scorn of your sister or a disapproving mother. And I think most of the privacy debate has been so obsessed with one's favorite power concentration that we have missed the very real chilling effects of creating a transparent village. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 14 00:56:37 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:56:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <40362.81.152.102.238.1147561347.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.s e> References: <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060513203831.0b45b188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:02 AM 5/14/2006 +0200, Anders Sandberg, wrote: >[Hi, by the way!] Hi Anders, appreciate the work you have done. Say hi to Nick and Julian for me. >I'm going to do a lecture on RFID tags in Sweden May 23, debating with the >Swedish privacy right debater P?r Str?m >(http://www.atomerochbitar.se/english/), so this discussion is gefundenes >fressen. snip >Most of the privacy abuses we worry about come from two directions. >Concentrations of power like corporations and state, and people in our >close social network. We can use laws and politics against the first, >enforcing transparency, accountability and maybe paying back externalities >of privacy loss. The second group is much trickier, because no law can >protect you from the scorn of your sister or a disapproving mother. And I >think most of the privacy debate has been so obsessed with one's favorite >power concentration that we have missed the very real chilling effects of >creating a transparent village. I think it is worth considering the evolutionary reasons humans value privacy and why taking it away as in prisons is such a punishment. The usual EP rules discussed in my recent post "Emotion connected memes and EP" apply. Any thoughts? Keith Henson PS "My contention, simply put, is that the evolutionary approach is the only approach in the social and behavioral 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) From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 14 01:00:39 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:00:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] EP/memetics story in the Register In-Reply-To: <200605110601.k4B61Y0B017317@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060513205649.0b1fa718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/ Crusading veggies steamroll university into web censorship 'Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard' By Chris Williams Published Friday 12th May 2006 07:02 GMT A provocative essay has been pulled from servers by Newcastle University authorities following complaints from vegetarians. Nikolas Lloyd, who was granted IT services as a visiting fellow in evolutionary psychology, has had all his pages taken down and his email access rescinded. The guy is very funny. Keith Henson From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sun May 14 01:27:10 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:27:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights Message-ID: Anders Sandberg wrote: "Most of the privacy abuses we worry about come from two directions. Concentrations of power like corporations and state, and people in our close social network. We can use laws and politics against the first, enforcing transparency, accountability and maybe paying back externalities of privacy loss. The second group is much trickier, because no law can protect you from the scorn of your sister or a disapproving mother. " This is very true. Power, in all forms, corrupts. People are acutely aware of how power is being abused by groups of *other people* but always fail to realize their own abuses. Online debates are a good example of this. The very same people who are extremely sensitive to, say, government abuses that stem from a desire to control other people, see nothing wrong with crucifying others for their unpopular opinions, especially if they see others have been doing that as well. The group gives them license to abuse and they are more than happy to pull the trigger. Abuse of power is inversely proportional to the amount of accountability for the abuse. In other words, if you give people an opportunity to abuse they won't have to pay for, the abuse will happen. Human psychology doesn't seem to contain a mechanism that would be able to recognize and stop itself from inflicting abuse in the absence of consequences. I'm afraid that the only way to prevent abuse of power is to learn to recognize those situations that promote abuse. Generally, I think that learning social psychology seems essential in an effort to debug one's own psychology full of evil evolutionary baggage. S. From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 14 01:34:46 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 18:34:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <40362.81.152.102.238.1147561347.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> <40362.81.152.102.238.1147561347.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <882487F8-E485-4B8D-892D-1369AA88545C@mac.com> On May 13, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > [Hi, by the way!] > Hey! Long time no post. > So, what can we do? First, giving lots of power to the police isn't a > problem if we can trust the police to serve us. Hence each new power > should be coupled with an increase in citizen control over the agency. > Accountability and transparency in exchange for more power. This is > not an > impossible political goal, although at present it is rare and > implementing > it will always be uphill. > If the State has more or less complete awareness of everything everyone does then the State is also fully aware of any actions by anyone or any group of people that may thwart its desires. If citizens do no also have an equal level of view of everything the State does then the State will always be able to outmaneuver the citizens. Also, the State as maker of laws, can always find and use or even create new laws to punish or stop persons and groups that are too troublesome to its desires. Full surveillance makes this much easier. The police are the enforcement arm of the State. The police cannot be trusted to serve us because the serve the State and the State is not perfectly in our control and likely never can be. > > Most of the privacy abuses we worry about come from two directions. > Concentrations of power like corporations and state, and people in our > close social network. We can use laws and politics against the first, > enforcing transparency, accountability and maybe paying back > externalities > of privacy loss. The second group is much trickier, because no law can > protect you from the scorn of your sister or a disapproving mother. > And I > think most of the privacy debate has been so obsessed with one's > favorite > power concentration that we have missed the very real chilling > effects of > creating a transparent village. I am unsure what you are advocating on the first. Transparency of the state to the people? The state will never agree to this. Laws can much more easily protect us from actual harm from our fellow citizens. Their mere disapproval is another matter that I doubt we need laws against. But it is not everyone's business what I do. I see no reason to make it my neighbor or the state's business. I also don't believe the perhaps implicit assumption that privacy cannot be guarded by technology as well as taken away. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 14 01:40:28 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 18:40:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] EP/memetics story in the Register In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060513205649.0b1fa718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20060513205649.0b1fa718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: It is a ridiculously rude title. But that doesn't justify censorship. People can read or not read and heap scorn on the writer if they are offended. Why is more needed than that? But I don't find the guy funny really, mainly stupid on the purported subject. Typical tempest in a tea pot on all sides. - samantha On May 13, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/ > > Crusading veggies steamroll university into web censorship > 'Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard' > By Chris Williams > Published Friday 12th May 2006 07:02 GMT > > A provocative essay has been pulled from servers by Newcastle > University > authorities following complaints from vegetarians. > > Nikolas Lloyd, who was granted IT services as a visiting fellow in > evolutionary psychology, has had all his pages taken down and his > email > access rescinded. > > The guy is very funny. > > Keith Henson > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 14 02:48:07 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:48:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605140257.k4E2vjhU018052@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Heartland ... > > ...Power, in all forms, corrupts. People are acutely aware > of how power is being abused by groups of *other people* but always fail to realize their own abuses... Not me, I was acutely aware of my own abuses when I had power. I so deplored my own abusiveness, that I abused myself for being so abusive. This in turn required still further punishment for being abusive, which was further self abuse. This cycle soon spiraled to the point of being dangerous. > ... The very same > people who are > extremely sensitive to, say, government abuses that stem from a desire to > control other people... My non-distrust of government stems from a desire to control myself. {8^D Silliness aside, Heart, I can think of an ExI poster who isn't going to like your comment one bit. Stand by for a scorching. spike From kevin.t.armstrong at gmail.com Sun May 14 03:49:49 2006 From: kevin.t.armstrong at gmail.com (Kevin Armstrong) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 23:49:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle In-Reply-To: <1147536265.3AC8658A@fc9.dngr.org> References: <4465976D.7070900@lineone.net> <1147536265.3AC8658A@fc9.dngr.org> Message-ID: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> Hal, you have the right idea for the linear solution, though make sure you conclude by saying 13r/9 = W, so that r = 9/13 W. In general, for n planes, I believe we need r + 1/3 r + 1/9 r + ... + (1/3)^(n-1) * r = W. If memory of geometric series serves me, for n approaching infinity, we get the left hand side equal to 1/(1 - 1/3) r = 3/2 r, so infinitely many planes would require r = 2/3 W. Not exactly an overwhelming improvement over the two plane solution, or even over the one plane solution. -Kevin On 5/13/06, Hal Finney wrote: > > Ben - > > Typing on my wireless, so I'll be concise. > > I can improve yr 3 plane soln. Let the 1st plane transfer r/3 its fuel > to the 2nd plane. Then the 2 planes fly an additional r/9. The 2nd plane > transfers 4r/9 to the final plane. This fills the final plane & leaves > the 2nd plane w/ 4r/9 in its tanks so it can fly home. This gives a > range of 13r/9. > > But for a globe we can do better. Let the 2nd helper plane fly the > opposite direction. The 1st helper transfers r/3 as usual. This gives > the main plane a range of 4r/3. The 2nd plane flies r/3, meets the 1st > as it is running out, xfers r/3, and both fly back. This gives a range > of 5r/3, so r = 0.6 of the circumference. > > I was not sure how to generalize to N planes for the circular case, > although for a straight line I think the increment goes down by a factor > of 3 for each added plane. > > Hal > > On Sat, 13 May 2006 3:19, ben wrote: > > OK, it's been almost a month now, and no-one's bitten. > > > > I'm curious to know the answer to this. Obviously it involves calculus, > > and that's beyond my current capability to get my head around, but > > here's my naive take on the problem. > > > > > > Spike riddled: > > > >> For a plane to fly around the world without landing, its tank would > >> need to hold sufficient fuel to go all the way around. But what if > >> you had two identical planes, with fuel transfer capability. They > >> could take off together, fly some distance, one transfers a quantity > >> of fuel into the other plane and immediately turns back, returning to > >> the point of origin. The other plane, which received the fuel, flies > >> on around. > >> > >> 1. What is the necessary minimum range of the two planes such that > >> the two could fly a ways, do a transfer, one plane turn around and go > >> back to the start and the other go around? > > > > > > Ben squeezed hard on his tiny brain, and came up with: > > > > W = dist round the world > > r = range of 1 tank of fuel > > Maximum amount of fuel that can be transferred = r/3 > > (If it was any other amount, then either the plane won't make it back, > > or will be back with fuel to spare, so fuel transferred must be r/3 for > > max. effect). > > > > So if plane 2 can make it round the world with 1 and 1/3 tanks of fuel, > > W = r + r/3 > > Er, my algebra is still a bit dodgy, but i think that's 0.75W. So the > > planes have a range of 3/4 the distance round the world. > > > >> 2. What is the necessary minimum range capability if one had three > >> such planes? > > > > The same logic applies to each individual plane, i.e., maximum fuel > > donation will be r/3, so with 2 donor planes, we have 2r/3 fuel > > available at point r/3. > > But the single plane that continues can't accept more fuel than it has > > used so far (r/3), so one of the planes has to donate 1/6 it's fuel to > > each of the two other planes, which would add 1/12r to their journey. > > But then one would later transfer 1/3 of it's extra fuel to the > > remaining plane, so that it had enough to get back, which would add > > another r/18. The final plane would use r + r/3 + r/18 to get round the > > world. r = 0.72W > > > > > > > >> 3. What is the necessary range capability if one has N planes? (This > >> one is cool). > > > > > > With two planes, r = 0.75W, with 3 planes, r = 0.72W, and every extra > > plane will remove a smaller distance from the total - transfer r/3 to > > N-1 planes, and each one in turn transfers 1/3 of that, etc. They all > > have to get back, from further and further away, which needs more and > > more fuel, so a smaller and smaller proportion of the original fuel is > > avaliable for the final plane. > > > > I don't know enough maths to cope with this, it's obviously calculus or > > something, but it's going to be an asymptote. I think. > > > > So N planes will each have a range of somewhere between 0.75W and 0. I > > have a feeling that an infinite number of planes would need a range of > > 0? > > > > Unless i've got myself horribly confused (not difficult). > > > > But i don't know how to tell the range with N planes. > > > > Do tell, uncle Spike, please? > > > > (It's odd that problems involving statistics have people feverishly > > pounding their keyboards, but this one hasn't drawn a single post. > > Unless it's because aeroplanes are boring, whereas zorfs and envelopes > > are fascinating). > > > > ben > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Sun May 14 04:09:16 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:09:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <5952081B-891A-45DB-A00F-2B573E0D77B6@mac.com> Message-ID: <200605140411.k4E4BNKj023745@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 12:20 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] privacy rights > > > On May 12, 2006, at 7:19 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > Do restart this thread if you wish, Zero... > > > > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, > papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, > shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable > cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing > the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." > - Fourth Amendment to US Constitution > > How can people be secure against intrusions on their persons, papers > and effects at any arbitrary whim of the government if the government > presumes authority to spy upon the people in any matter it chooses?... > - samantha I do confess I am conflicted on this one. What if they use that NSA technique to find and stop a terrorist act? What if they already have? They wouldn't be able to report it without giving away their hand. So by opposing vocally the NSA actions, we would be putting lives in danger. But it does seem they could track only the calls that are going to known terrorist connections or certain countries. Or certain area codes known to harbor bad guys. I dunno. I'm withholding judgment on this one for now. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 14 04:24:24 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:24:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle In-Reply-To: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605140431.k4E4Vc97025942@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Guys, keep working. I don't see the right answer yet, or rather I found a general solution that works. Then I realized I did not account for planes going around the other direction. {8-] spike ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Armstrong Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 8:50 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle Hal, you have the right idea for the linear solution, though make sure you conclude by saying 13r/9 = W, so that r = 9/13 W.? ... I was not sure how to generalize to N planes for the circular case, although for a straight line I think the increment goes down by a factor of 3 for each added plane. Hal From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 14 05:43:58 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 22:43:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605140546.k4E5k5FJ020672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> That was a terrific conference at Stanford today, ja? I was cheered to see many old friends there. Mind-expanding as always, better this time than last; the 1 April 2000 conference at Stanford was dominated by Bill Joy's dark musings. Max had a terrific pitch, very thought provoking, something I have wondered about. We all know smart people who make appalling decisions, stunning examples of bad judgment based on emotion or human frailty. Perhaps we ourselves are poster children for this tragic human trait. As we approach the singularity, enhance human intelligence and the inherent power that comes with increased intelligence, will we become wiser? Max urged evidence-based futurism with the proactionary principle. Bill McKibben made a pitch that was sincere and well spoken, but I disagreed by about pi radians with nearly everything he said. To his question, is not this existence good enough? I answer with a sincere nooooooooooooooo! Sebastian Thrun gave a fun pitch on his winning entry to the DARPA challenge. Hofstadter gave a good singularity pitch, as did Nick Bostrom, Eliezer and the others. My sincere thanks to the Singularity Institute for putting this together. You guys have expanded my mind to the very limits of its bony protective structure. spike From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sun May 14 11:44:26 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 07:44:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights References: <200605140257.k4E2vjhU018052@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Heartland >> ...Power, in all forms, corrupts. People are acutely aware >> of how power is being abused by groups of *other people* but always fail > to realize their own abuses... > > > Not me, I was acutely aware of my own abuses when I had power. I so > deplored my own abusiveness, that I abused myself for being so abusive. > This in turn required still further punishment for being abusive, which was > further self abuse. This cycle soon spiraled to the point of being > dangerous. This cycle can easily be broken at any time by stopping further abuse. Obviously, the original comment did not apply to you as I'm well aware that you know what power can do to people. > Silliness aside, Heart, I can think of an ExI poster who isn't going to like > your comment one bit. Stand by for a scorching. I'm not sure who you have in mind but there's always some self-appointed thought police officer out there anxious to score another kill (plus extra village status points) as part of an ongoing campaign to ensure compatibility with current group beliefs. It's really true, and I wish I had known this 6 years ago, that it's a bad idea to blaspheme publicly without a nick name. It's not safe and probably never will be. Poor Nikolas Lloyd. Let's hope that was his nick name. :) H. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 14 14:17:10 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 10:17:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] EP/memetics story in the Register In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060513205649.0b1fa718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20060513205649.0b1fa718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060514100549.026419e0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:40 PM 5/13/2006 -0700, samantha wrote: >It is a ridiculously rude title. But that doesn't justify >censorship. People can read or not read and heap scorn on the writer >if they are offended. Why is more needed than that? > >But I don't find the guy funny really, mainly stupid on the purported >subject. Typical tempest in a tea pot on all sides. The difference between funny and stupid can be a fine line, but try this line from an essay on why guys find it scary to ask women out. "In short, the cost of putting a woman off with a clumsy approach would have been, in the environment of our ancestors, very high. This would lead to a selective pressure on men to take the task of propositioning very seriously indeed. Making a bad mistake would be almost as deleterious to the potential for reproduction as forgetting to bring a dagger to a knife fight." It is gone from the University's server of course, but you can still find it in the Google cache. Keith Henson PS EP would make the case that there is a difference between guy humor and gal humor. Humor, according to Dr. Minsky, is a way to break up thoughts leading in a "wrong" direction. From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 14 16:19:11 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 11:19:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <200605140546.k4E5k5FJ020672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> <200605140546.k4E5k5FJ020672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060514111452.04e17690@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 12:43 AM 5/14/2006, Spike wrote: >That was a terrific conference at Stanford today, ja? I was cheered to see >many old friends there. Glad to hear this and I wish I could have been there. Natasha From hal at finney.org Sun May 14 16:16:51 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 09:16:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle In-Reply-To: <200605140431.k4E4Vc97025942@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605140431.k4E4Vc97025942@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1147623413.303E6658@fb7.dngr.org> On Sat, 13 May 2006 21:42, spike wrote: > Guys, keep working. I don't see the right answer yet, or rather I > found a > general solution that works. Then I realized I did not account for > planes > going around the other direction. {8-] spike Okay, I tool another look @ this, for the 3 plane case. What I realized is that it's best to transfer fuel as early as possible. Ideally with 2 planes the 1st plane would xfer all its fuel immediately. We can't do that because the 2nd plane can't hold it, but if we could it would double the range. So what we should do with 3 planes is to transfer as soon as the other planes can hold it. This is after r/4. We can transfer 1/4 tank to each of the other 2 planes, filling them up, and still make it back. Then they fly another r/4 and the 2nd plane transfers 1/4 tank to the final one. The 3rd plane has had a net addition of 1/2 tank and can fly 3r/2, better than my 13r/9 solution (but not as good as my 5r/3 for going around the world). The N plane solution will use the same idea, each plane turns back as soon as the others can hold its transfered fuel. Just as with N=3 we were able to transfer 1/4 tank twice, for N it turns out we can transfer 1/(N+1) tank, (N-1) times. This gives a total range of r * (1 + (N-1)/(N+1)). I guess the real question is whether there is a proof of optimality! Hal From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun May 14 16:16:11 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 12:16:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060514115729.078943b0@unreasonable.com> Spike wrote: >For instance, I cannot be certain I never blammisphied online any religion >that could have adherents who may akbar a knife between my ribs at any >future date. I think all my blammisphy has been restricted to the common >domestic varieties of religion, but I honestly cannot recall. As some one raised Jewish, I wondered what the appropriate answer would be were I in Northern Ireland, stopped by armed men of unclear allegiance, and asked if I was Protestant or Catholic. The best answer I came up with was, "Religion wasn't really a part of my life growing up, but I'd like to get closer to God now. Do you have any suggestions for a church I could attend?" >This next generation thing has me thinking bigtime: I have pondered >abandoning the nickname spike, which I have carried for over 20 years now, >and carried through my entire professional career. Reasoning: I could leave >behind all traces of everything I have ever posted on the internet. After 27 years on the Internet, I've left a lot of spoor. Disappearing would be tough. I recently joined a new organization, and someone posted a welcoming email to their list which included a link to a bio I'd written years ago. Someone else responded with an echoic welcome that embedded a photo of me. >While I may sign up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness >compromises his privacy. I was in young Isaac's position. When considering whether to work at Livermore, I had to decide whether I wanted to undergo the scrutiny and dossier acquisition inherent in obtaining a "Q" clearance. But I realized that, with my father's much higher clearance, I was certainly in a file somewhere. Now I have about a dozen close relatives with clearance, so my daughter, nieces, and nephews have even less choice in the matter. -- David. From ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk Sun May 14 19:17:00 2006 From: ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk (Pes Udoname) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 20:17:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060514191700.67044.qmail@web26415.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> There's a glut of programmers at this stage, so there's no need to go into that area unless you particularly like it (which it seems you don't :)). The big areas where progress can be made over the next few decades, it seems to me, are biotech and nanotech. Nanotech is arguably primarily a branch of chemistry, but quantum mechanics and thermodynamics are certainly very relevant to it, so that would suggest physics as your best option from the above list; but you might want to talk with one of your professors, perhaps, to figure out a longer-term plan if you want to get into that area. I like programming, I hate debugging. Which is what takes most of the time. But thanks for the advice, and I assume applied maths to do with vectors helps too? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 14 22:15:35 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:15:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605140411.k4E4BNKj023745@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605140411.k4E4BNKj023745@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7C31A4AA-A8E2-4BC9-ABFD-225EA591B91B@mac.com> On May 13, 2006, at 9:09 PM, spike wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins >> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 12:20 PM >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] privacy rights >> >> >> On May 12, 2006, at 7:19 PM, spike wrote: >> >>> >>> Do restart this thread if you wish, Zero... >>> >> >> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >> shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable >> cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing >> the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." >> - Fourth Amendment to US Constitution >> >> How can people be secure against intrusions on their persons, papers >> and effects at any arbitrary whim of the government if the government >> presumes authority to spy upon the people in any matter it >> chooses?... >> - samantha > > > I do confess I am conflicted on this one. What if they use that NSA > technique to find and stop a terrorist act? Those who would assume power over everyone and everything always attempt to make it about stopping something everyone is against. Terrorism is the latest excuse. But I think we have seen about enough by now of stuff to "fight terrorism" to be a mite skeptical of this excuse. Stuff found out by these "anti-terrorism means" is then part of the knowledge of the government. The government has a LOT of other agendas besides fighting terrorism. Once the means are widely in place to monitor all of us it becomes near impossible to fight back ever again or escape the tightening noose. > What if they already have? So what? Stopping terrorism dead, which they certainly haven't and can't, is no good to me if I lose or stand to lose all freedom and security from governmental abuse in the process. Having some freedom and privacy left merely by government generosity is not good enough. > They wouldn't be able to report it without giving away their hand. > So by > opposing vocally the NSA actions, we would be putting lives in danger. What? Our lives are being put in danger by our government employing such means. We don't need to aid this oppression by not even bleating a protest on the way to full state control. > But > it does seem they could track only the calls that are going to known > terrorist connections or certain countries. Or certain area codes > known to > harbor bad guys. I dunno. I'm withholding judgment on this one > for now. > Withholding judgement may be the same in effect as approving. - samantha From metavalent at gmail.com Sun May 14 22:38:48 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:38:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060514111452.04e17690@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> <200605140546.k4E5k5FJ020672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060514111452.04e17690@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <4e674fa00605141538qfd234b3qc3adb16945e783c5@mail.gmail.com> What a great day. The singularity is much nearER the day after the summit than it was the day before. Or maybe, just maybe, IT HAPPENED, yesterday. Who can really tell and how would we really know, after all? Odds are that we won't ever "see" it anyway, but in hindsight. People from all over the country were there and in comparison to the 120 or so from the earliest Accelerating Change conference (according to my new buddy Dennis, in line before the event), the Singularity Summit was more than 2000 strong! The meme is spreading and the more it is scrutinized, deconstructed, and smelted under the blistering heat of the public spotlight, the more refined and effective it becomes. Eliezer Yudkowski: Many extra credit points for focusing on the Intelligence Explosion and refusing to be held hostage to our limited vocabulary. GREAT pace and tenor of delivery. "Singularity" is certainly a compelling term and idea, but as you rightly explained, it has nowhere near the organizing potential of "ecology." We need "the" word to vitally mobilize these efforts and actively embed them into the global cultural fabric. Thank for for defending the perimeter from fruitless and innane religious debate. That does not mean the topic itself is unimportant, it was just not the right venue for it. Assignment from Eliezer: Solve reflectivity, and you get a gold star on your paper! Max: Seemed like a bit of a ProP infomercial, but if I hadn't already been familiar with ProP, I probably would have felt otherwise. I have say that in order to somewhat restrain my otherwise dopey, starstruck admiration for your work. One should grow out of that, at some point. Of course, the burden of providing that ultimate meta-context for the tribe is heavy, heavy, heavy, man, and you bear it well. Cory Doctorow: How did I go this long without knowing this name? I must have had some seriously faulty circuits somewhere, selective ADD, or some out-of-phase, de-tuned info-filter in my brain, but I'm glad that the summit corrected for that gross oversight on my part. Brilliant orator and apologist for all things singularitarian and digitally millennial. Everyone: Support the DRCMA!!! John Smart: we KNOW you are a brilliant and illumined brother, but 90 slides in 20 minutes? Perhaps it was a sense of urgency to get all that information out when the opportunity presented itself, but we can get the information any time, thanks to your fantastic writing and web site. At a conference, we want to get to know YOU a little more. I convey only a deep respect when I suggest to try and relax and know that your station is assured, your seat at the table perpetually reserved. We all know that we can't keep up with you, but if you want us to FOLLOW, we need a trail guide that glances back over the shoulder to make sure the peloton is in tow. Study Ray's PACE of delivery ... he's hit a sweet spot for sheer volume of intellectual content throughput. And THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU to both Doug Hofstadter and (live by the most bitchin' gadget of the conference, Teleportec) Bill McKibben for their much needed cross-examination. If not for their ever loyal incisive contributions, the Singularity would rapidly implode under the weight of it's own self-centered gravity. Doug: It might be time for "A Coffeehouse Conversation" update on this 25th anniversary of the May 1981 Scientific American essay. :) Nick Bostrom: That which "seems 2% likely" to occur, ACTUALLY OCCURS 42.6% of the time. Everyone: adjust your Expectation Meters accordingly! WE NEED TO HELP DR. CARLOS FEDER! Finally, and perhaps most importantly: I sat next to Dr. Carlos Feder, of Stanford Medical Center. His focus is on AI in Medical Diagnosis. Dr. Feder's draft book may be a crucial foundation for this specific application of AI. There is no way that today's physicians can keep up with the amount of information published daily and we are missing out on many healing opportunities. Incorrect and under-informed diagnoses are escalating due to the Human Brain Bandwidth Constraint. There is a kind of AI that can solve this. We need to reach into "mind-space" and pull out an AI that will fill this vital need. It's a very palpable and attainable goal for short-to-mid term artificial intelligence. The problem is focused, increasingly well-defined, and an essetial step down the extropian road. When Max was pressed for predictions I interpreted his response as, "Predictions are for amatuers or astrologers. Let's set TIMELINES and GOALS and get to work. It will happen when we PLAN it and MAKE it happen." So what are we waiting for? Let's get to work helping Dr. Carlos Feder and make Medical Diagnostic AI a fully funded priority. Jurvetson, Thiel, get out the checkbook and let's "git 'er done!" On 5/14/06, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > At 12:43 AM 5/14/2006, Spike wrote: > > >That was a terrific conference at Stanford today, ja? I was cheered to see > >many old friends there. > > Glad to hear this and I wish I could have been there. > > Natasha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Digital Signature metavalent at gmail.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.50 Comment: Open Source Encryption for Everyone iD8DBQFEEiuWYAcVeu6D610RAoabAJwI3uZf8vtlJVwGg1m/Ty1AUtPbXwCeLlMY lm0+qZKzfIcIt5H63tqhsp0= =2Ad+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From metavalent at gmail.com Sun May 14 22:51:05 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:51:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> References: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> Message-ID: <4e674fa00605141551j3e0b0388l1c7ca4ee3ff7c6ec@mail.gmail.com> I too was surprised by that, but left my Tablet PC at home, anyway. Turns out, many people just ignored that instruction (or never even read it) and brought cameras, laptops, and I even heard a phone ring during the closing Q & A. I have two years worth of written notes in my old, beat-up, and very reliable acer c-111 tablet pc, so it seemed absurd to not bring it; but being a Good Do Bee, I took my notes on paper and expanded and transcribed them when I got home. That turned out to be somewhat of an advantage in this particular case, as it prompted me to review and expand upon my observations in the process. Perhaps there is a benefit to doing things "less" efficiently for a meat-computer (brain) that only operates as a serial processor at 100Hz. :) On 5/10/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Is this a bad joke? My laptop is an extension of my mind. I have > practiced active listening and exploring with it for many years. > Why would this of all conferences ask me to leave part of my mind at > home? This really concerns me. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Digital Signature metavalent at gmail.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.50 Comment: Open Source Encryption for Everyone iD8DBQFEEiuWYAcVeu6D610RAoabAJwI3uZf8vtlJVwGg1m/Ty1AUtPbXwCeLlMY lm0+qZKzfIcIt5H63tqhsp0= =2Ad+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From hal at finney.org Mon May 15 06:00:49 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 23:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford Message-ID: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> I enjoyed the conference as well, and it was great to have a chance to meet and chat with several list members afterwards. Here are some sites which liveblogged the conference and give a good summary of the various presentations: http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/activity_updates/index.html http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=3029 http://www.downtheavenue.com/conference_highlights/index.html I was especially impressed with Eliezer's talk. I'd never seen him speak before, and he did a great job. His writing tends to be dense and somewhat opaque to me, but as a speaker he was terrific. He also had an excellent balance between his slides and what he was saying; not merely reading the slides, but not ignoring them either - emphasizing the main points, stating things in slightly different language, so that both senses were bringing in complementary information. There were a lot of issues raised worth discussing, but I want to make a somewhat "meta" comment regarding our methodologies for predicting the future. Surpisingly but encouragingly, a topic that popped up a few times in the talks was our human tendency to be over-confident in our predictions. Nick Bostrom quoted a study which asked people to guess at factual answers by giving a range of possibilities; a range that was supposed to represent a 98% confidence interval. Their range should be wide enough that they'd expect the answer to be outside that range only 2% of the time. In fact, the answers were outside the range more like 40% of the time. We've discussed this general phenomenon of overconfidence on the list before. It's reasonable and appropriate to draw a lesson from this and to try to recalibrate our estimations, to recognize that we are probably being too narrow in our thinking and that we need to expand our estimates of what is possible and likely. Nick mentioned this, and then Max did as well, and I think Eliezer may have touched on it. That's fine, but then they asked a question of the panelists, when do you think human-level AI will be achieved? Kurzweil gave his answer, 2029, John Smart said 2070, and a few others answered as well, but Nick and Max demurred on the grounds of this result on overconfidence. There are two problems with this reasoning. The first is that it is technically incorrect: when you recalibrate because of human overconfidence, you should expand your range, the confidence interval, but not your mean, the center of the range. And the mean is what the panelists were being asked to provide. But more fundamentally, according to a book I've read recently, The Wisdom of Crowds (a phrase Kurzweil used quite a bit) by James Surowiecki, there is something of a paradox in human estimation ability. Individually we tend to be highly overconfident. But, collectively, our estimates are often extremely good. Surowiecki describes classic examples like guessing the weight of a pig, or the number of jelly beans in a jar. Collecting guesses from a crowd and averaging them, the result is usually right to within a few percent. Often the crowd's result is closer than any individual guess. Surowiecki sees this phenomenon as being behind the success of such institutions as futures markets, including idea futures. The reason these institutions work is because they are successful at aggregating information from a diverse set of participants. Surowiecki emphasizes the importance of diversity of viewpoints and describes a number of studies showing that, for example, ethnically diverse juries do a better job. He also describes several traps that can arise, such as a copycat effect where people are polled publicly and sequentially for their guesses, causing later participants to amend their mental estimates to fall into line with the emerging consensus. Markets are sometimes vulnerable to this but at least the financial incentive is always there to encourage honesty. The bottom line is that the wisdom of crowds is one of the best guides we have to the future, and so when people refuse to make guesses because they have recalibrated themselves into a mental fog, they are no longer contributing to the social welfare. It's much better, when being polled like this, for people to try to cut through the uncertainty and find that "50%" point where they feel they are as likely to be too low as too high. If they can do that, and avoid being influenced by the guesses of those who speak before them, and if the group is reasonably diverse, you can get about as good an estimate as you're going to get. I would have liked to have received that estimate, and would have found it one of the most valuable pieces of information I took away that day. Of course, the speakers were not exactly a model of diversity, and probably an even better estimate could have come from the audience. I wish they had been polled as well. You could have everybody stand up, then say to remain standing if you think human-level AI will occur before 2100, then before 2070, 2050, 2030, and so on. At some point it will be roughly clear when half the audience sits down, and that's your estimate. The larger community would provide far more diversity and a correspondingly improved estimate. I would love to see a student project ask 100 people walking into a supermarket, what year do you think computers will be as smart as people, so that you could have a conversation on the internet with a computer and you wouldn't be able to tell if it was a person or a machine? Averaging those results would produce some interesting data, especially if we were also able to compare with similar results from various communities with different levels of expertise. I think the crowd would be surprisingly accurate on a question like that. Everyone interacts with computers, to some degree, and people probably have some idea of how quickly they are changing. The lesson I take from reading a variety of sources about the strengths and weaknesses of human reasoning abilities is this. You somewhat have to be of two minds in dealing with uncertainty. Your private estimations should be as accurate as possible, taking into consideration known biases and attempting to compensate for them. That's what Nick and Max were doing. But, at the same time, your public communications should perhaps be more traditional and should not necessarily reflect all these internal mental adjustments and calibrations. A classic example is argumentation. We've debated at length the surprising economic result that rational people should not disagree. But it may be that, even though they don't disagree about the facts, they should still argue as if they did disagree. Argumentation brings out issues and directions of analysis that might not appear if they just exchanged the minimal amount of data necessary to reach agreement. It is a rich form of communication which can produce higher quality agreement than would occur otherwise. And the same thing applies to guesses. Even if you have recalibrated your mental confidence interval to the point where you expect almost anything to happen, it still may make sense to make a prediction based on the best guess that you can come up with. You don't necessarily want to say, oh, well, humans are so overconfident, our guesses are much less likely to be true than we think. It may be correct, but it's unhelpful. Even though humans are individually overconfident, collectively their guesses are, and will remain until we get AI, the best guide we have to the future. People should not be afraid to guess just because they fear being overconfident. Acting as if we don't know that we are overconfident may actually be a socially more responsible way to behave. Hal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 15 08:35:36 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:35:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605141538qfd234b3qc3adb16945e783c5@mail.gmail.com> References: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> <200605140546.k4E5k5FJ020672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060514111452.04e17690@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <4e674fa00605141538qfd234b3qc3adb16945e783c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605150135v2aa85746kcc7a92c5849d2356@mail.gmail.com> On 5/14/06, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: > > What a great day. The singularity is much nearER the day after the > summit than it was the day before. Or maybe, just maybe, IT HAPPENED, > yesterday. Who can really tell and how would we really know, after > all? Odds are that we won't ever "see" it anyway, but in hindsight. > > And THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU to both Doug Hofstadter and (live > by the most bitchin' gadget of the conference, Teleportec) Bill > McKibben for their much needed cross-examination. If not for their > ever loyal incisive contributions, the Singularity would rapidly > implode under the weight of it's own self-centered gravity. Doug: It > might be time for "A Coffeehouse Conversation" update on this 25th > anniversary of the May 1981 Scientific American essay. :) > I never thought I'd wish for the day when the "need a fantasy to latch onto" crowd just waited for the mothership to beam them up. Being a pessimist only means _most_ of your surprises are pleasant ones. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 15 08:52:05 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:52:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wisdom of Crowds Message-ID: On 5/15/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > But more fundamentally, according to a book I've read recently, The Wisdom > of Crowds (a phrase Kurzweil used quite a bit) by James Surowiecki, there > is something of a paradox in human estimation ability. Individually we > tend to be highly overconfident. But, collectively, our estimates > are often extremely good. Surowiecki describes classic examples like > guessing the weight of a pig, or the number of jelly beans in a jar. > Collecting guesses from a crowd and averaging them, the result is usually > right to within a few percent. Often the crowd's result is closer than > any individual guess. > > Surowiecki sees this phenomenon as being behind the success of such > institutions as futures markets, including idea futures. The reason > these institutions work is because they are successful at aggregating > information from a diverse set of participants. Surowiecki emphasizes the > importance of diversity of viewpoints and describes a number of studies > showing that, for example, ethnically diverse juries do a better job. > He also describes several traps that can arise, such as a copycat effect > where people are polled publicly and sequentially for their guesses, > causing later participants to amend their mental estimates to fall into > line with the emerging consensus. Markets are sometimes vulnerable to > this but at least the financial incentive is always there to encourage > honesty. > > The bottom line is that the wisdom of crowds is one of the best guides > we have to the future, and so when people refuse to make guesses because > they have recalibrated themselves into a mental fog, they are no longer > contributing to the social welfare. It's much better, when being polled > like this, for people to try to cut through the uncertainty and find that > "50%" point where they feel they are as likely to be too low as too high. > If they can do that, and avoid being influenced by the guesses of those > who speak before them, and if the group is reasonably diverse, you can > get about as good an estimate as you're going to get. I would have liked > to have received that estimate, and would have found it one of the most > valuable pieces of information I took away that day. > This very popular book may be exaggerating the benefits of popular opinion. It is correct to claim that the crowd *sometimes* can be a useful predictor. But to get a good result you have to be very careful about the selection of the crowd, the selection of the possible results, and control of the crowd behaviour. Michael Shermer reviewed this book in Dec 2004 Everybody can think of cases that disprove the wisdom of crowds. Surowiecki mentions some of them in his book. Earlier books have put the opposite case. Mackay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' include the well known tulipmania phenomenon. Canetti wrote 'Crowds and Power' with the shouts of Hitler's Nuremberg rally figuratively ringing in his ears. Also sociologists such as Gustave Le Bon, in his classic work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind: "In crowds it is stupidity and not mother wit that is accumulated." Lynch mobs are another example. Surowiecki makes a major point of the stock market's reaction on January 28, 1986, the day the space shuttle Challenger exploded. Of the four major shuttle contractors--Lockheed, Rockwell International, Martin Marietta and Morton Thiokol--the last (the builder of the defective solid-rocket booster) was hit hardest, with a 12 percent loss, compared with only 3 percent for the others. Given four possibilities, the masses voted correctly. But the next shuttle disaster supported the opposite conclusion. "Herding" can be a problem when the members of a group think uniformly in the wrong direction. The stock market erred after the space shuttle Columbia disaster on February 1, 2003, dumping stock in the booster's manufacturer even though the boosters were not involved. The crowd tossed a coin and came up right once and wrong once. As Shermer says: For a group to be smart, it should be autonomous, decentralized and cognitively diverse, which the committee that rejected the foam-impact theory of the space shuttle Columbia while it was still in flight was not. In comparison, Google is brilliant because it uses an algorithm that ranks Web pages by the number of links to them, with those links themselves valued by the number of links to their page of origin. This system works because the Internet is the largest autonomous, decentralized and diverse crowd in history, IMHO. ------------------ So, just ask Google, they know the answer to everything! :) (assuming they fix their recent search problems). BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon May 15 12:54:45 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 07:54:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro In-Reply-To: <20060514191700.67044.qmail@web26415.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060514191700.67044.qmail@web26415.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It is worth noting that one of the biggest blocks to manifesting a nano-santa world (other than the synthesis and assembly problems) is the simple lack of nanopart designs. Anything one could do on the math+programming side of the equation to speed up their development would have really large downstream impacts. Just to get a feel for the size of the problem... I believe scientists at TIGR have reported that for every new genome (typically bacterial) that they do they discover 5-10 "novel" genes. Now there are probably tens of millions of geneomes which can be sequenced (right now the methods exist to do a single bacterial genome using a single machine in an afternoon). So that gives one a phase space of perhaps order of 10^5-10^6 nanoparts in nature (the number is likely to be on the low end since the number of "novel" reactions nature requires to support life is limited so the discovery of novel genes should diminish as more genomes are sequenced). In contrast, as Drexler points out in Nanosystems (Ch. 9 Sec. 5), the number of possible nanopart designs is a much much larger (he uses numbers like 10^75 to 10^148 structures in volumes much smaller than that consumed by most proteins). So there is a very large gap between the phase space of molecular structures that Nature has explored and those which can eventually be explored. Anything which can be done using algorithmic, heuristic, or brute force approaches to increase the rate of improving the existing designs (protein design) or developing novel designs is likely to be highly useful in the future. Mind you -- *most* people (even many well informed scientists) have very little awarenes of the minute fraction of the phase space of molecular structures currently explored by the material currently "organized" in our solar system (be they those generated by physical processes, natural evolution or human directed manufacture). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 15 13:22:16 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:22:16 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro In-Reply-To: References: <20060514191700.67044.qmail@web26415.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060515132215.GF26713@leitl.org> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 07:54:45AM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > It is worth noting that one of the biggest blocks to manifesting a > nano-santa world (other than the synthesis and assembly problems) is the > simple lack of nanopart designs. Anything one could do on the It's both. We don't have tools like http://www.nanoengineer-1.com/mambo/ to produce parts, but we also don't have a bootstrap route. I might have a 10^10 atom system running perfectly in the simulation, but it doesn't help me one bit how to bootstrap it. Of course, with a reality simulator one can also look into bootstrap route. But the knowledge is arcane. It's would look like a really boring video game. Don't see much motivation for the artifex wannabees. > math+programming side of the equation to speed up their development would > have really large downstream impacts. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Mon May 15 13:36:48 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:36:48 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <882487F8-E485-4B8D-892D-1369AA88545C@mac.com> References: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> <40362.81.152.102.238.1147561347.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <882487F8-E485-4B8D-892D-1369AA88545C@mac.com> Message-ID: <1900.163.1.72.81.1147700208.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Samantha Atkins wrote: > On May 13, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: >> [Hi, by the way!] > > Hey! Long time no post. Yup. Been busy settling in into the transhumanist hotbed of Oxford. >> So, what can we do? First, giving lots of power to the police isn't a >> problem if we can trust the police to serve us. Hence each new power >> should be coupled with an increase in citizen control over the agency. >> Accountability and transparency in exchange for more power. ... > > If the State has more or less complete awareness of everything > everyone does then the State is also fully aware of any actions by > anyone or any group of people that may thwart its desires. I think you are making the State too much into a person here. States do not have opinions and desires in the same sense as humans do; trying to apply such terms leads to conclusions like that the EU is wildly pro *and* anti-privacy at the same time. Let's try to apply a more sociological approach: states are composed of people and groups with various interests, incentives and ideas. They are not perfectly collaborating or in synch, they are seldom 100% good or evil and so on. Try to thwart the State and you might often find fierce resistance from some parts (based by everything from self-interest to a belief that it is actually for the best), indifference from most parts and sometimes active support from other parts (again, based on what the issue is). > The > police cannot be trusted to serve us because the serve the State and > the State is not perfectly in our control and likely never can be. Maybe that is true in the apparently perfect police state USA, but it is strangely far from the true in commie centralist Sweden. Very odd. :-) The State is a dangerous tool that must be kept under tight control (and most states aren't these days) but one doesn't need total control. Maybe I'm just a blue-eyed Swede who naively trusts his government, but so far the evidence has been that when it is found to do nasty or stupid stuff that the citizens dislike it is actually forced to change direction (too bad about the nasty stupid stuff most of the citizens like). >> Most of the privacy abuses we worry about come from two directions. >> Concentrations of power like corporations and state, and people in our >> close social network. We can use laws and politics against the first, >> enforcing transparency, accountability and maybe paying back >> externalities of privacy loss. ... > I am unsure what you are advocating on the first. Transparency of > the state to the people? The state will never agree to this. Hmm, is that why freedom of information acts have been banned worldwide? Look at the EU Public Sector Information Directive - far weaker than the Swedish version, but still clearly moving in the more transparent direction. And this isn't one state agreeing to a bit more transparency, this is 25. Sure, state employees and organisations often dislike this, sneak around transparency and try to hinder it. But it is clearly something that is politically possible to implement and get a public opinion to support. > Laws > can much more easily protect us from actual harm from our fellow > citizens. Their mere disapproval is another matter that I doubt we > need laws against. Suppose sexual preferences or religion was a matter of public record (maybe compiled ad hoc using eye saccade measurement or statistical analysis of net traces). It could be easy for bigots to use an AR wearable to mark "sinners" to publicly shun (to signal socially to others that these are bad people) or try to save (i.e. harass). What laws could deal with this? And without laws, what is a good social counterstrategy to promote tolerance? The problem with laws is that the legal system is a slow, blunt and expensive instrument only suitable for the very extreme, rare or expensive cases, not the myriad of human-to-human bothers that happen all the time. That is why they work better IMHO when dealing with aggregates like companies and institutions than with individual humans unless the latter do some sufficiently significant crime. > But it is not everyone's business what I do. I > see no reason to make it my neighbor or the state's business. I also > don't believe the perhaps implicit assumption that privacy cannot be > guarded by technology as well as taken away. Hmm, what would be a good privacy shield? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From metavalent at gmail.com Mon May 15 14:53:06 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 07:53:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> On 5/14/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > I was especially impressed with Eliezer's talk. Agreed. Great summary, Hal. > Nick Bostrom quoted a study which asked people to guess at factual > answers by giving a range of possibilities ... Thank you for taking the time to clarify. I may have completely misinterpreted this. I had a bit of a hard time following Dr. Bostrom and understood his summary comment to mean the opposite of what you describe quite well and in great detail. I understood his final comment to mean that we greatly *under* estimate the chances of particular outcomes; that his study subjects essentially said, "i'm 98% certain that such-and-such will *not* happen" and yet 42.6% of the time, the event *did* happen. Implicitly, in that case, they had given the event a 2% chance of happening and they had greatly underestimated those chances. I could be completely wrong, but that's the way my scribbled notes read. As the owner of an unaugemented brain, these days I tend to trust what I wrote down more than what I think I recall. :) Can anyone mediate this one and help us get closer to truth? I looked for Dr. Bostrom's slides, but they don't seem readily available. > Of course, the speakers were not exactly a model of diversity, and > probably an even better estimate could have come from the audience. > I wish they had been polled as well. You could have everybody stand up, > then say to remain standing if you think human-level AI will occur before > 2100, then before 2070, 2050, 2030, and so on. At some point it will be > roughly clear when half the audience sits down, and that's your estimate. Great idea. I too would have loved to have seen this and agree that it may have been the most valuable bit of data gained from the entire day. > But it may be that, even though they don't disagree about the facts, > they should still argue as if they did disagree. Argumentation brings > out issues and directions of analysis that might not appear if they > just exchanged the minimal amount of data necessary to reach agreement. > It is a rich form of communication which can produce higher quality > agreement than would occur otherwise. Couldn't agree more. On 5/15/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > I never thought I'd wish for the day when the "need a fantasy to latch > onto" crowd just waited for the mothership to beam them up. Being a > pessimist only means _most_ of your surprises are pleasant ones. I don't quite follow your comment, Russel. If you are saying that increasingly impressive life extension is a fantasy, or that the continual improvement of AI is a fantasy, I'd be interested to learn what data or personal observations you use to form those particular characterizations. Not saying you're wrong, just interested in how you got there. I'd never thought of this before, but as Hal suggested, I probably do tend to contribute a somewhat more hopeful public vote while retaining a more conservative internal estimate of future progress. Perhaps as our personalities develop, we somehow gain a subconscious sense of "what kind of vote is needed from me" in order to better hone the crowd's wisdom. Over time, it seems that I've most often found myself weighing in on the enthusiastic side, at least outwardly, in order to balance the perceived negativity of the crowd? My internal philosophy is something akin to "hope and work toward the best while expecting and preparing for the worst." Although a gross oversimplification, it is a fairly effective hedge against both unbridled optimism (hypomanic fantasy?) and demoralizing pessimism (general dysthymia?). From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 15 15:34:54 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:34:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 07:53:06AM -0700, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: > I don't quite follow your comment, Russel. If you are saying that > increasingly impressive life extension is a fantasy, or that the Where do you see an impressive life extension, in people? What we see is that CR appears to work, and that someday (not necessarily this decade) there might be a drug to mimick the effects of CR with tolerable side effects. Might. We don't know for sure yet. Okay, assume I have another 60 years in front of me, instead of 40-50. I've been waiting for 25 years for things to arrive I assumed were highly probable, if not granted. Why should AI and nano land by 2050-2070? It's not that there's a train schedule, or even a roadmap with milestones to check off. (If there is, I must have missed my copy). > continual improvement of AI is a fantasy, I'd be interested to learn I see no continual improvement in AI which will lead to robust, natural intelligence. A quantitative discontinuity is needed. Just adding more patchwork to the quilt won't be enough. The bad thing about discontinuities is that they're so hard to predict. > what data or personal observations you use to form those particular > characterizations. Not saying you're wrong, just interested in how > you got there. Don't get me wrong, I like optimism. But you can get hurt by being too optimistic, this is why I wonder how you got at your assessment. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon May 15 16:28:54 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:28:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: <22360fa10605150928l6bc7b833m6f99d08176b7df20@mail.gmail.com> On 5/14/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > I was especially impressed with Eliezer's talk. I'd never seen him > speak before, and he did a great job. I too thought Eliezer gave an excellent presentation. He showed good knowledge of his audience, he talked to the points rather than reading them, and the logical structure of his talk was clear. The conference provided little new information to anyone who frequents the transhumanist lists, but for me the biggest benefit was increased understanding of the people (including the audience) and their activities. I was glad to see that the panel had diversity and balance. I greatly appreciated Bill McKibben's thoughtful and respectful presentation of views counter to the prevailing techno-optimism, even though I disagree with his conclusions. I was a bit dismayed by Douglas Hofstadter's presentation, because while he made a good point about the value of skepticism, he appeared to be somewhat smugly detached and lacking detailed awareness of the thinking he was attempting to criticize. It was a bit of a letdown for me since I have held a bit of hero-worship for him since reading GEB back in 1979. Probably the biggest take-away for me from this conference was that we have several individuals driving leading edge thought, and despite knowing each other quite well, their thinking and efforts are very much lacking in coordination and collaboration. I see huge inefficiencies with regard to common understanding of terms and concepts and clarity of goals. Of course, that is one of the reasons for these gatherings, but wouldn't it be great if it could be continuous and online? - Jef From mstriz at gmail.com Mon May 15 16:57:28 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:57:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 5/15/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Where do you see an impressive life extension, in people? > What we see is that CR appears to work, and that someday > (not necessarily this decade) there might be a drug to > mimick the effects of CR with tolerable side effects. > Might. We don't know for sure yet. Caveat: CR works in very simple systems. We don't know how well it scales up yet. I certainly doubt it's linear. Experiments are currently underway in dogs and gorillas, among other species, and of course the many uncontrolled self-experiments in humans. Martin From hal at finney.org Mon May 15 17:57:19 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Wisdom of Crowds Message-ID: <20060515175719.128D157FD1@finney.org> Thanks for changing the subject line, Bill, I was guilty of topic drift there. BillK writes: > It is correct to claim that the crowd *sometimes* can be a useful > predictor. But to get a good result you have to be very careful about > the selection of the crowd, the selection of the possible results, and > control of the crowd behaviour. > > Michael Shermer reviewed this book in Dec 2004 > Yes, that's a good review, although short. Shermer basically reiterates a few of the points Surowiecki makes. > Everybody can think of cases that disprove the wisdom of crowds. > Surowiecki mentions some of them in his book. Earlier books have put > the opposite case. Mackay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the > Madness of Crowds' include the well known tulipmania phenomenon. > Canetti wrote 'Crowds and Power' with the shouts of Hitler's Nuremberg > rally figuratively ringing in his ears. Also sociologists such as > Gustave Le Bon, in his classic work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular > Mind: "In crowds it is stupidity and not mother wit that is > accumulated." > Lynch mobs are another example. I posted a couple of months ago some thoughts about the book and how it applies to famous cases of crowd hysteria: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-March/025620.html The basic problem is the one I mentioned yesterday, a sort of paradox of rationality. On the one hand, crowds frequently do very well, and a rational person will believe the consensus. But on the other hand, if too many people follow this prescription, the crowd falls into self-perpetuating and ungrounded beliefs. These cases above that Bill mentions, plus well known market bubbles and crashes, can be seen as this kind of failure. I heard a simple example of this recently (can't remember where, maybe Kurzweil's book). Imagine someone who goes to the race track eager to bet on a particular horse he's been reading about. But when he gets there, he looks up at the board and sees that it is running at odds of 100 to 1 against! That mere fact in itself, without any more information, is likely to make him less desirous of betting on the horse. The market consensus influences his private opinion. Economics teaches us that, modulo certain assumptions, this should happen to a much greater degree, to the point where it is basically impossible to disagree with the market consensus. There is something of an unrecognized public goods problem here. Bets that disagree with the market are harmful to the bettors but helpful to society. Luckily, people haven't yet figured out this effect, so markets generally work well. The display of caution at the Singularity conference was an example of what would happen if everyone started behaving rationally, and it was a disaster! (In the sense that we didn't get a meaningful picture of the consensus judgement of the presenters on an important issue.) If that starts to happen we'll need public service announcements saying, Think for yourself! Don't follow the crowd! And actually, in a way, we do have that. Not as PSAs as such, but it is an important cultural lesson in the West. Probably everyone has heard advice such as this, growing up. "If everyone else was jumping off a cliff, would you?" Well, frankly, if everyone was doing that, maybe it's because it is the best of a bad situation, and in fact it's the right thing to do. But if everyone thinks that way and follows the crowd, we see the kinds of bad phenomena that Bill describes above. Hal From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 15 20:01:47 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:01:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) Message-ID: <4D4CBBCB-050C-4D5C-9783-FA86C8846731@mac.com> On 5/14/06, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: What a great day. The singularity is much nearER the day after the summit than it was the day before. Or maybe, just maybe, IT HAPPENED, yesterday. Who can really tell and how would we really know, after all? Odds are that we won't ever "see" it anyway, but in hindsight. And THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU to both Doug Hofstadter and (live by the most bitchin' gadget of the conference, Teleportec) Bill McKibben for their much needed cross-examination. If not for their ever loyal incisive contributions, the Singularity would rapidly implode under the weight of it's own self-centered gravity. Doug: It might be time for "A Coffeehouse Conversation" update on this 25th anniversary of the May 1981 Scientific American essay. :) me: I thought Hofstadter's talk was an utter waste of time. Yeah, he made the good point that Singularity deserved more attention by a broad range of scientists pro and con. But the rest of the time he used silly cartoons and criticized Kurzweil's work in a most unscientific and unprofessional manner. Oh, and he wrung his hands over whether his children or grandchildren would remain human a bit. McKibben spouted mostly gibberish and sound bites. i see no reason to praise the performance of either of them. McKibben is not in the least "loyal" to any form of transhumanism much less Singularity. He believes we all should happily die. Neither of these presentations were remotely "incisive". - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon May 15 20:03:15 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:03:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> "Eugen Leitl" > I see no continual improvement in AI which will lead to robust, natural > intelligence. Years ago I remember being amazed that a home computer could search through a very long document for a particular word or phrase, it seemed like magic; if at that time you'd told me what Google could do with the sum total of human knowledge (or nearly so) I'd have said it was imposable unless Google had real intelligence. And I seem to remember that Hofstader once said that a computer could never beat a chess grandmaster unless the machine was intelligent and had a profound understanding of the game. However Hofstader has changed his mind about that and that's the problem, true AI seems to be whatever computers can't do yet, and by that definition we will never have true AI. > The bad thing about discontinuities is that they're so hard to predict. That's true but I don't think you'd need a discontinuity, like a quantum computer (although that would be very nice to have) to make a AI, just keep getting twice as good every 18 months and you'll get there. If I were a singularity skeptic (and I'm not) I wouldn't concentrate on computers but on medicine. It's astonishing and discouraging how an enormous increase in biological knowledge hasn't translated into cures. There was a discontinuous improvement in medicine in about the year 1900 with the invention of anesthesia and sanitation, for the first time in history medicine did more good than harm. There was another discontinuous improvement in medicine in about 1950 with antibiotics, but after that nothing dramatic, it's just been busy work. A very few people with rare diseases are a lot better off then they would have been in 1950, but most people with common diseases just take a few extra painful weeks to die. And Eugen, you write some good stuff, so I sure wish you'd get a better mail program, it's a pain to open a attachment every time I want to read what you say. John K Clark From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon May 15 19:58:56 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:58:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605150928l6bc7b833m6f99d08176b7df20@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <22360fa10605150928l6bc7b833m6f99d08176b7df20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5BE85F55-9AA7-4218-9447-23F697CFC5EF@ceruleansystems.com> On May 15, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > I was a bit dismayed by Douglas > Hofstadter's presentation, because while he made a good point about > the value of skepticism, he appeared to be somewhat smugly detached > and lacking detailed awareness of the thinking he was attempting to > criticize. It was a bit of a letdown for me since I have held a bit > of hero-worship for him since reading GEB back in 1979. Having seen him give presentations before, I would make the observation that this was a noticeably sub-par performance. If that was your only experience with him, I would recommend seeing him give a presentation somewhere else. He has his own odd style, but he can be far more engaging speaker than he was at the Singularity Summit. J. Andrew Rogers From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Mon May 15 21:17:33 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 23:17:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> On 5/15/06, John K Clark wrote: > > And Eugen, you write some good stuff, so I sure wish you'd get a better mail > program, it's a pain to open a attachment every time I want to read what you > say. Eugen's mail program sends perfectly standard-compliant multipart messages. If Outlook Express can't handle them, that's microsoft fault, as usual. Personally I never had problems reading those messages (on windows, linux and google webmail, but never tried outlook express). We sure wish you'd get a better mail program :-) Alfio From metavalent at gmail.com Mon May 15 21:21:34 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:21:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4e674fa00605151421h72f3a5d4k19d1273cda396396@mail.gmail.com> On 5/15/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I don't quite follow your comment, Russell. If you are saying that > > increasingly impressive life extension is a fantasy, or that the > > Where do you see an impressive life extension, in people? > What we see is that CR appears to work, and that someday > (not necessarily this decade) there might be a drug to > mimick the effects of CR with tolerable side effects. > Might. We don't know for sure yet. CR works well in mice and humans are very close genetic cousins. That said, you are right that it's still an unknown. I try not to rely too much upon such things in my own forecasting; although they certainly do influence thinking. I don't recall which speaker showed the slide, but it was along the lines that in 1900 the average life expectancy was something like 48 years and in 2000, closer to 78. Other sources vary from 45 in 1900 to 73 in 2000. I interpret anything even close to that range as a well established trajectory of impressive life extension. > Why should AI and nano land by 2050-2070? It's not that there's > a train schedule, or even a roadmap with milestones to > check off. (If there is, I must have missed my copy). Again, Eliezer hit the nail on the head, here. AI is not a monolithic entity that will arrive at the train station on time; or at *any* time, for that matter. There are many possible AI's in the larger "mind space" as he put it. Some AI's will emerge before others; the less capable will of necessity precede the more capable, one would expect. That said, I'm also a believer that a certain amount of hand waving and guesstimating, for better or worse, are valid parts of the scientific method; however disparaged the general use in service of digging at a debate opponent. Any hypothesis is just that, an educated Guess. A hypothesis *is* a highly refined form of hand waving, but hopefully it's smart hand waving. Personally, I think that we witnessed some fairly well-educated people making some fairly well-educated guesses. But then, I tend to give the panelists a good deal of slack. It's not at all easy to sit up there and be put upon a pedestal; particularly for the mature and responsible guru who knows the extent to which the pedestal is a grand illusion. :) > > continual improvement of AI is a fantasy, I'd be interested to learn > > I see no continual improvement in AI which will lead to > robust, natural intelligence. A quantitative discontinuity > is needed. Just adding more patchwork to the quilt won't be > enough. Agreed, and you make a super important point. For my part, I came away with the sense of a Eliezer's many minds AI model, if you will. There will not be one "AI" mind that solves everything all at once. Rather, one *kind* of AI mind could focus on Medical Diagnosis, such as Carlos Feder has worked on for many years. Just because one or more of us have not yet directly observed the continual improvement, does not mean that it isn't out there, undiscovered or unpublished. > The bad thing about discontinuities is that they're so hard to predict. True. On the other hand, "suddenly," an advance will appear and many will mistakenly label it a discontinuity. However, like so many scientific advances, it will only be a discontinuity in terms of publicity and general awareness. Long periods of unacknowledged toil are almost a central clich? of breakthrough innovation. > > what data or personal observations you use to form those particular > > characterizations. Not saying you're wrong, just interested in how > > you got there. > > Don't get me wrong, I like optimism. But you can get hurt by being > too optimistic, this is why I wonder how you got at your assessment. Nice lexical parry and reversal. :) My assessment algorithm is definitely not a pure science! In many areas of life and business, I tend to gravitate toward difficult, but solvable problems (in my own subjective estimation); the kind of problems that are A.) clearly discernible as a desirable problem to solve (in my own subjective estimation) and B.) accompanied by well-defined desired outcomes (in my own subjective estimation). From there, my own interests and forecasts generally narrow through a two-stage process of roughly sorting by the delta between A and B (in perceived time, effort, and available resources), followed by filtering through a mishmash of acquired intuition and putative insight. It's not all that pretty in pseudo code, but I don't think that it's really all that unique as an iterative discovery process: WTFDWK ( ); { Real Life Forecasts = Objective Data + Subjective Understanding + Intuitive Insights + Mistakes; Mistakes++; Objective Data++; Mistakes++; Subjective Understanding++; Mistakes++; Intuitive Insights++; Mistakes++; Read ( ); Reason ( ); Return ( ); } WTFDWK is a double-entendre reference to the foregoing process and "What the #$*! Do We Know?" the whimsical film by the same name [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/] which some group members might find an entertaining diversion. This deep whimsical respect for conventional thinking and processes drives some friends and colleagues crazy, because I just can't seem to land squarely in the purely-data-driven camp. I trust the data, I try to start with as much data as possible, and certainly ultimately rely upon the data as the best objective measure of outcomes. Yet, the real world isn't even close to a purely data-dependent domain; however much we might like it to be so. That's what makes *simulating* and *anticipating* the real world so difficult! In sum, technology and trend forecasting reminds me somewhat of flying. When I get behind that flight yoke, I set out with a solid understanding of the physical *laws* of flight and once aloft, I place a firm reliance upon visual and instrument sources of reliable flight *data*. For instance, I need to keep a very close eye on engine power, air speed, flight attitude, and follow all air traffic controller instructions, etc. Yet, very often, I ultimately trust my seat-of-the-pants sense of reality in many of the most crucial situations; especially take-offs and landings. I can't even begin to count the number of cases in which strict data dependence and logic would have landed me straight in the ditch! General aviation pilots must know what the laws of aerodynamics tell us about how the plane is *supposed* to behave, but we must react in real time to what it *actually* does; particularly when in ground effect during take-off and landing, which is different and inspirational every single time. I've come to suspect that one reason that some very, very smart people just don't pick up flying is because they can't let go of what the laws and the data say are *supposed* to happen or what should *logically* happen and so they freeze up and don't respond to what is *really* happening. One might suggest that all human progress is an inherently risky, yet invigorating flight of fancy, constrained by a set of highly deterministic physical laws, and kept aloft by an abiding sense of wonder and curiosity of what *might* be possible just beyond the next discernible horizon. From metavalent at gmail.com Mon May 15 21:41:52 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:41:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <4D4CBBCB-050C-4D5C-9783-FA86C8846731@mac.com> References: <4D4CBBCB-050C-4D5C-9783-FA86C8846731@mac.com> Message-ID: <4e674fa00605151441x49a09aa7j10fd513b3906a6fe@mail.gmail.com> On 5/15/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I thought Hofstadter's talk was an utter waste of time. Yeah, he made the > good point that Singularity deserved more attention by a broad range of > scientists pro and con. But the rest of the time he used silly cartoons and > criticized Kurzweil's work in a most unscientific and unprofessional manner. > Oh, and he wrung his hands over whether his children or grandchildren would > remain human a bit. Hi Samantha. I'd expect that you're not alone in that assessment and I surely don't claim any monopoly on the truth. Unfortunately, unlike many other attendees, I respected the email that asked us to leave active electronics at home. I'd have given just about anything for a camera when Hofstadter sat back down right next to Kurzweil. They both turned their backs to one another, as much as chairs would allow. It was sooo funny, like feuding fourth graders. I carefully watched the body language, and it was actually Hofstadter who "opened back up" first and five minutes later, Kurzweil was able to sit facing forward again. Of course, Doug was the one who launched the "attack," so if I were in Ray's shoes, I certainly would have felt more defensive and taken longer to relax. In any case, that picture would have been worth a billion words. :) > McKibben spouted mostly gibberish and sound bites. i see no reason to > praise the performance of either of them. McKibben is not in the least > "loyal" to any form of transhumanism much less Singularity. He believes we > all should happily die. Neither of these presentations were remotely > "incisive". I didn't mean to imply loyalty or disloyalty to the singularity -- as if the singularity were a religious leader that demanded loyalty at all -- but rather loyalty to the spirit of DEBATE and a forum open to all voices; especially those who disagree with our own point of view. Eliezer did a great job of defending the perimeter against religious incursion and I hope we can keep our own internal machinations focused on the future of human beings. Personally, I would hope that the Singularity is much, much, more than a "Rapture for the Geeks" that requires a specific loyalty to any specific doctrine. From mstriz at gmail.com Mon May 15 22:14:46 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:14:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605151421h72f3a5d4k19d1273cda396396@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> <4e674fa00605151421h72f3a5d4k19d1273cda396396@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/15/06, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: > On 5/15/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > I don't quite follow your comment, Russell. If you are saying that > > > increasingly impressive life extension is a fantasy, or that the > > > > Where do you see an impressive life extension, in people? > > What we see is that CR appears to work, and that someday > > (not necessarily this decade) there might be a drug to > > mimick the effects of CR with tolerable side effects. > > Might. We don't know for sure yet. > > CR works well in mice and humans are very close genetic cousins. That > said, you are right that it's still an unknown. I try not to rely too > much upon such things in my own forecasting; although they certainly > do influence thinking. The problem, again, is the scale up. CR can increase the life span of nematode worms by 300%, from one to three weeks, and mice by 50%, from two to three years. Suppose that it increases the life span of dogs from 10 to 11 years, and so on up, so that the most you can extract from it is one or two years, even for human life spans. The longer you live, the more oppoturnity for other kinds of damage to accrue. That's de Grey's criticism anyway. We'll get a better understanding of the potential of CR when we get the data for dogs. If you can get a breed with a mean life expectancy of 12 years to live 18 or 20, then I'd say you have something. > I don't recall which speaker showed the slide, but it was along the > lines that in 1900 the average life expectancy was something like 48 > years and in 2000, closer to 78. Other sources vary from 45 in 1900 > to 73 in 2000. I interpret anything even close to that range as a > well established trajectory of impressive life extension. A trajectory approaching a natural asymptote created by genetics... > Personally, I think that > we witnessed some fairly well-educated people making some fairly > well-educated guesses. Nick Bostrom gave the best answer. Martin From hal at finney.org Mon May 15 21:49:49 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:49:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford Message-ID: <20060515214949.1E9CB57FD1@finney.org> Metavalent Stigmergy writes: > I understood his final comment to mean that we greatly *under* > estimate the chances of particular outcomes; that his study subjects > essentially said, "i'm 98% certain that such-and-such will *not* > happen" and yet 42.6% of the time, the event *did* happen. > Implicitly, in that case, they had given the event a 2% chance of > happening and they had greatly underestimated those chances. That sounds right to me. I was emphasizing that people overestimate things they think will happen, and you're saying that people underestimate things they think will not happen. It amounts to the same thing. I have to confess, when I hear about irrationalities like this, I always have the same reaction. It's not, "how could I help people overcome these limitations?" Rather, it's "how could I get rich from this?" :-) In principle, if people are being irrational in their beliefs, you should be able to set up some kind of arrangement in which they will systematically give money away. Not only do you get rich, you also provide negative feedback to false beliefs and help people to gradually improve their rationality. At least, that's the rationalization. In practice, either I can't find a way to do it, or else it turns out there is already a thriving industry built around the practice, such as insurance. And in many cases it seems like exploiting these weaknesses is unsavory and destructive, like loan sharking. Interestingly, insurance exploits an opposite fallacy to what we are talking about here. Insurance basically relies on people overestimating the chances of rare events. People are willing to pay to avoid risky events, out of proportion to the true level of danger. (Partially this is because people are risk averse, but the effect is the same as if they were risk neutral and overestimated risk.) Here we have the opposite irrationality, people underestimating the chance of rare events. One place you might hope to make money would be in the commodities markets, where you can use options to bet that the price will change by some large amount. For example, right now, oil is about $70/barrel. Options prices imply that the market consensus of the odds that oil will fall below $45/barrel by the end of the year is about 1%. Maybe you could say, people are overconfident and have too narrow confidence intervals, so the odds are actually probably much greater than that, and take a "long-shot" position on such options. Unfortunately, that doesn't work. I'm not sure why, but when money is on the line like this, people are not idiots. Statistically, option prices do not show systematic biases in terms of underestimating unlikely events. If they did, people would have discovered it a long time ago and made all kinds of money, until the very actions of these traders put the prices back to where they should be. There is a sense though in which markets do provide an opportunity to profit from overconfidence, which is the profit acquired by the market-maker himself. Most markets charge commissions on trading, and trading relies on differences of opinion, which are themselves strengthened (and perhaps actually caused) by overconfidence. So ultimately the market maker is profiting from the error of rationality we are talking about here. The same thing happens with bookmakers who take bets on sports events. The bookie acts as an intermediary and balances the bets on both sides of the outcome, profiting from overconfident differences in opinion. Anyway, in this case as in others I can't see an available niche for exploiting this particular form of irrationality, one that has not already been filled. An interesting dichotomy arises in that some of the institutions, like sports gambling, arguably are harmful to people and exploit their irrationality to their detriment. Others, like markets, are arguably helpful, provide socially useful information, and to at least some extent encourage greater rationality among participants. Hal From kurt at metatechnica.com Mon May 15 22:25:17 2006 From: kurt at metatechnica.com (Kurt Schoedel) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:25:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bureaucracy of Medicine (singularity conference at stanford) Message-ID: You are correct, John Clark, in that there has been a noticable delay in translating research into cures by the medical meliu. The reason is very simple: The medical industry is an intensely gay bureaucracy, just like NASA and the Tokamak fusion program. And just like NASA and the fusion program, no progress will occur untill the system is eliminated or reformed. Just like how progress in Soviet Communism was measured in ever larger and larger factories, progress in our medical industry is measured in ever more enormous hospitals and complex surguries. Very few MDs understand molecular biology as well as many posters here in extropy. Most of them have liberal arts degrees. The FDA and AMA makes sure that this situation never changes. The fact that medicine and health care cost rise exponentially without any increase in lifespan or youthspan is as indicative that the current approach does not work as the fact that each generation of tokamaks is more expensive than the previous one and, yet, fusion remains 50 years in the future. Or how NASA keeps making space transportation more and more expensive. Cost effective therapies that work do not get developed and dessiminated to the marketplace (you and I). Rather, expensive surguries that do nothing to cure the underlying condition (such as pypass surgury, which results in brain damage in the majority of cases) become the preferred methods of the medical industry. This is the reason why political action to maintain our access to nutritional supplements must be pursued at all costs. This is currently the only way to "end-run" around the system for many medical conditions. The other is medical tourism. Many countries, such as India and China, do not have intrenched medical bureaucracies like those in the U.S. and Europe. Hence, no pre-existing system that must be fought in order to bring out new therapies (such as gene therapy and stem cells and the like). The current medical bureaucracy will continue to grow and grow in the U.S. until it finally collapses (like Soviet Communism), probably under the financial weight of the baby boomers. My guess is this will be in the next 10-15 years, maybe sooner. When the current system collapses, medical innovation in the U.S. will once again become possible. Kurt Schoedel MetaTechnica From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon May 15 22:08:29 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <33508.72.236.102.104.1147730909.squirrel@main.nc.us> Alfio writes: > > Eugen's mail program sends perfectly standard-compliant multipart > messages. If Outlook Express can't handle them, that's microsoft > fault, as usual. Personally I never had problems reading those > messages (on windows, linux and google webmail, but never tried > outlook express). We sure wish you'd get a better mail program :-) > I'm having no problem with his mails, either with my windows machine or my linux box. PC-Pine and Squirrel both like what he writes. :) Regards, MB From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 15 23:39:56 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 00:39:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605151639gd48ffb0v693d611378b00ef0@mail.gmail.com> On 5/15/06, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: > > On 5/15/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > I never thought I'd wish for the day when the "need a fantasy to latch > > onto" crowd just waited for the mothership to beam them up. Being a > > pessimist only means _most_ of your surprises are pleasant ones. > > I don't quite follow your comment, Russel. If you are saying that > increasingly impressive life extension is a fantasy, or that the > continual improvement of AI is a fantasy, I'd be interested to learn > what data or personal observations you use to form those particular > characterizations. Not saying you're wrong, just interested in how > you got there. Your not following is more my fault than yours, since it wasn't terribly clear (spare time to write posts when I'm _not_ exhausted isn't amazingly thick on the ground, alas), but I'll try and expand on it and explain my reasoning under a separate subject line. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Mon May 15 22:43:32 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford Message-ID: <20060515224332.221DE57FD1@finney.org> One more post while this is all fresh in my mind... I enjoyed Douglas Hofstadter's talk. BTW, they mentioned that he has a new book coming out next year, "I am a Strange Loop". I bumped into him after the conference and he confirmed that it will be a philosophy oriented book rather than the more computer-science one he came out with most recently. OK, I see it is available for pre-order from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465030785/sr=8-1/qid=1147735260/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7711137-4698517?%5Fencoding=UTF8 They imply that it will be out this summer but he said it would not be until early next year. As far as the talk, I liked three things particularly. The first was that he took issue with a number of things in Kurzweil's book that bothered me, too. Some were trivial, like Kurzweil's reference to the "knee" of an exponential curve. But others were more important, like the "law" of accelerating returns. Hofstadter pointed out that it was not really a law, but a trend, and there was no guarantee it would continue. I would say it has similar status to Moore's Law, which is also a misnomer IMO. One thing that bothered me about the conference was the status given to Kurzweil. He was not only the keynote speaker, he also got time at the end for rebuttal (and went over his time limits for both). It was like he was the king of the conference, the Father of the Singularity. Since when did he achieve this status? I don't want to take anything away from his many lifetime accomplishments and well-deserved acclaim in general, but we've been talking about the Singularity here for a long time and I've never gotten the sense that Ray Kurzweil was one of the foremost thinkers on the topic. We've probably mentioned Moravec more than Kurzweil on this list. Anyway, I was glad to see someone of Hofstadter's stature who was willing to stand up and directly criticize Kurzweil's books and presentation. I didn't notice the amusing body language byplay that Metavalent mentioned but I can certainly believe it! Second, I liked Hofstadter's cartoons. They used clever word play that reminded me of the playfulness in his writing that made GEB such a pleasure to read. I hope the new book maintains the same spirit. And third, I liked the fact that he had gone around and queried a bunch of people about the Singularity to see what they thought of the concept. That's very much in the spirit of what I was talking about this morning. The upshot was that some people were skeptical, many simply had no idea about what would happen in the future, and some were supportive and agreed that this was what would happen. He didn't make it clear what the percentages were, although I had the impression that skepticism dominated. Now, these were people who had not read Kurzweil's book, but in some ways that makes them a better sample, more likely to be thinking independently about the topic. Hofstadter also mentioned that these subjects are not being discussed among the scientific community in general, such as physicists. However I don't find this all that significant as it doesn't much impact the day to day work of a scientist. I remember back when Hofstadter was doing his column for Scientific American, in the 1980s. He had gotten fixated on the idea of super-rationality. This is the principle that you should make your decisions on the basis of what would happen if everyone reasoned like you. In this way you would cooperate in the prisoner's dilemma, and behave "nicely" in a variety of social conflict situations. It's supposed to be superior to rationality, and Hofstadter was convinced that it was how everyone should be. He had tried to get various friends and colleagues interested, presenting them with various thought experiments and such, but without much luck. Everyone was rational rather than super-rational. And he was really getting pretty frustrated, you could tell! He finally posed a PD-related thought experiment for the readership of SA, people sending in their responses on postcards, and the same thing happened, everyone was rational and messed up his contest. He seemed really upset and announced he was quitting. That was his last column! I see a connection between this event and his comments on the Singularity. In each case he was asking a variety of people for their opinions. The problem with the earlier case is that he just didn't listen to their answer. But he should have. Super-rationality is not rational, by definition, and he had really gotten himself into a confused place, IMO. He would have been a lot better off to listen. And then, the same lesson should be drawn with regard to the Singularity. He (and we) should listen to the results of his little poll, and ideally expand it beyond super-smart college professors and business leaders. But I give him lots of credit for doing the poll at all; nobody else mentioned any such experiment. Hal From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 16 00:59:58 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:59:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <20060515224332.221DE57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060515224332.221DE57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <22360fa10605151759j64656605g78192956288c74a7@mail.gmail.com> On 5/15/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > I remember back when Hofstadter was doing his column for Scientific > American, in the 1980s. He had gotten fixated on the idea of > super-rationality. This is the principle that you should make your > decisions on the basis of what would happen if everyone reasoned like you. > In this way you would cooperate in the prisoner's dilemma, and behave > "nicely" in a variety of social conflict situations. It's supposed to > be superior to rationality, and Hofstadter was convinced that it was > how everyone should be. Hal - I've admired and respected your rationality for many years, and this is the most intriguing statement from you I've ever seen. When I first learned about Prisoners' Dilemma -- and it was from that same Scientific American article -- it illustrated clearly for me that there was something more to real-world rationality than what was being dealt with in standard game theory. This sensitivity to more encompassing context which is always a factor in the real world needed accounting for, and Hofstadter's superrationality, along with Buckminster Fullers statements about synergy, and other thinking on positive sum interactions seemed (to me) to make sense of this important question. I am extremely interested in knowing why you see Hofstadter's superrationality as wrong. - Jef From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 01:15:52 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 02:15:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award Message-ID: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> Some years ago there was an incident in which a gang of robbers held up a bank, using fake guns carefully made to look like the real thing. It worked. It worked so well that while trying to escape, the robbers were shot dead by armed police officers. The moral of this story is that, puffer fish notwithstanding, making yourself appear more dangerous than you are is not always a wise strategy. The Singularity is a lovely idea. (Bad word for it, mind you - misuse of the mathematical terminology - but unfortunately we seem to be stuck with it now.) In the works of E.E. Smith and Olaf Stapledon, Asimov and Clarke, it provided inspiring visions of possible futures; and while any particular vision is unrealistic, the general concept that our remote descendants may be greater than we are, is a good and reasonable one. Somewhere along the way it mutated into the meme of _imminent_ Singularity. This version is pure fantasy, but like astrology and spiritual healing, it has memetic survival advantage because it resonates with strong predispositions in the human brain. In this case, the predisposition is to believe in apocalypse or nirvana in our lifetimes; no matter how many times this is falsified, each new generation's faith is diminished not one iota. Of course there's nothing wrong with make-believe if it's kept under control, like children playing with realistic-looking fake guns in their own back garden. But it's another thing when it spills out of the pages of science fiction books and unnoticed geek mailing lists, and into the mainstream media and conferences hosted by major universities. When calls are made to base real life public policy on fantasy - made and listened to. I'm not a big fan of government regulation at the best of times - I think it's a blunt instrument that often does a lot more harm than good - but if molecular manufacturing, human-level AI, neurohacking or any of the usual list of buzzwords actually existed, it would at least make sense to call for a public debate on whether they should be regulated. In reality, they're nowhere near being on the horizon, and if they ever are invented they are unlikely to resemble our present visions any more than real life space exploration involves rescuing Martian princesses from bug-eyed monsters; in our current state of ignorance as to what they might eventually look like, any regulations we might invent now would ultimately prove about as useful as Roger Bacon trying to draw up restrictions on the manufacture of nerve gas. That is not to say, unfortunately, that regulation would have no effect. Substantial advance in technology is going to require generations of hard work - basic research that's hard to get funding for at the best of times. If you have to spend $10 on lawyers to get permission for $1 of lab work, it's not going to happen. Nor do we have an infinitely long window of opportunity; the conditions that support free inquiry and rapid technological progress are, on the scale of history, a rare and short-lived aberration. There is a threshold we need to reach; it is not the badly-named "Singularity", but Diaspora - the technology to live sustainably off Earth. With a quarter trillion stars in our galaxy alone, there'll be room to find a way forward come what may; but we need to attain that level of technology first, and the truth, as many a driver with children in the back seat has had to point out, is that we are not nearly there yet. The Earth isn't going to be demolished to make room for a hyperspace bypass, or eaten by grey goo, or blown up by Skynet, but we - humanity - may die nonetheless, looking up at the unattainable stars as our vision fades and goes out, not a mark on us from any outside force, merely strangled by our own illusions. Lest this be taken as another libertarian "government = evil" rant, I'll emphasize that if we fail for the above reason it won't be the politicians' fault. They have their jobs to do; are they wrong to trust us to do ours? If we scientists and technologists come along babbling about people wireheading themselves into vegetables or turning themselves into monster cyborg killing machines or eating the planet, _how are politicians and the public supposed to know we were just deluding ourselves with paranoid fantasy_? If we must ultimately drink a lethal draught, it will be because we ourselves poisoned the well. So I am proposing that at last we leave childhood behind and accept the difference between fantasy and real life, and if we choose to entertain ourselves by gathering to tell each other stories, title the gathering "Science fiction convention" not "Singularity summit". Granted that everyone needs something to believe, if you find "Singularity in my lifetime" is what you personally need, then believe in life extension or cryonics that'll let you stick around to see it, and let go of the illusion that it's just around the corner. And the correct response to "Gray goo is going to eat the planet" isn't "Let's draw up a list of safeguards" but "You need to lay off the bad science fiction". Let us cease poisoning the well, grow up and face reality. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 01:23:55 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 02:23:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605151759j64656605g78192956288c74a7@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515224332.221DE57FD1@finney.org> <22360fa10605151759j64656605g78192956288c74a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605151823w65452afbm3566a6ae62b785ed@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > When I first learned about Prisoners' Dilemma -- and it was from that > same Scientific American article -- it illustrated clearly for me that > there was something more to real-world rationality than what was being > dealt with in standard game theory. This sensitivity to more > encompassing context which is always a factor in the real world needed > accounting for, and Hofstadter's superrationality, along with > Buckminster Fullers statements about synergy, and other thinking on > positive sum interactions seemed (to me) to make sense of this > important question. > I agree with your premise, but not with your conclusion. Yes, the rational strategy in one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma does not capture real-world rationality, but I think that is adequately captured by the following: 1) Truly one-shot interactions are rare in the real world. (Screw someone over badly enough, and he may go out of his way to create a second interaction.) 2) Even if you never interact with that particular partner again, word gets around; other people are more likely to want to deal with you if you have a reputation for being willing to cooperate. 3) We are not mathematically perfect beings with infinite computing power, but finite mortals. When you defect on someone who has not defected on you, your action does not only affect him; it also changes you by a small increment in the direction of being the sort of person who is first to defect; and, leaving aside ethical considerations and just considering self-interest, that is by and large not a good way to live, for reasons dealt with by standard game theory. There's no need to invoke Hofstadter's "superrationality" at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 16 02:07:09 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:07:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605160207.k4G27aST007353@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Martin Striz > ...Suppose that it increases the life span of dogs > from 10 to 11 years... > Martin My veterinarian friend estimated that doing CR on the dogs to where they maintained a svelte waist their entire lives added about a quarter again to their average lifespans. He would go as hish as about a third again if compared to overfed and under-exercised dogs, which he saw on a regular basis in his practice. This caught my attention because we humans are overfed and under-exercised, very much including my vet friend. I didn't ask him why he wasn't doing CR himself. {8-] spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 16 01:51:14 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:51:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605160226.k4G2QXVA024465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Martin Striz > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford > > On 5/15/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > What we see is that CR appears to work... > > ... Experiments are > currently underway in dogs and gorillas, among other species, and of > course the many uncontrolled self-experiments in humans. > > Martin Dogs? Surely you jest Martin. The beneficial effects of CR in dogs has been well known and well documented longer than perhaps any other species. A dog breeder and veterinarian of my acquaintance had over 40 years of direct experience from owning from a dozen to twenty dogs at a time. He pointed out the effect to me when I was a teen, which had a profound impact on my thinking at the time. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 16 02:45:08 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:45:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605151759j64656605g78192956288c74a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605160245.k4G2jt5m027677@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford > > On 5/15/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > I remember back when Hofstadter was doing his column for Scientific > > American, in the 1980s... Yes I was in college then, and part of the crowd that hung on pretty much any word that Hofstatder wrote or uttered. I remember that so well because I was coming up on graduation when the June 83 SciAm came out with the following entertaining game. Scientific American was offering a million dollar prize in a lottery wherein the entries were free, just send in a postcard with your name. (This was before email was common. We computer geeks had it, but most did not.) You could enter as many times as you wished, in fact there was no need to send a bunch of cards, a waste of paper and postage, just write the number of entries on your card. Of course your chances of winning would be proportional to your number of entries, as in any lottery. The catch was that the million dollar prize was divided by the total number of all entries. Hofstadter reasoned that his super-rational readers would perform some kind of super-rational calculus, with the result that in most cases the reader would not enter at all. A handful of defectors would bring down the prize to an affordable level. What he did not count on is that among the super-rational are the super-defectors. A super-defector not only wants win at all costs, he has as a second goal to keep others from winning. He received cards with a 1 followed by the rest of the card filled with zeros. He received cards with things like 9^9^9, far more than the number of atoms in the universe, which of course made the prize zero, even if it were somehow possible to determine a winner. This must have been discouraging to him, for the million dollar lottery game demonstrated the long term futility of the policy of mutual assured destruction as a means of maintaining nuclear peace over the long run. This experiment suggests that as more governments get nuclear weapons, eventually we get a nuclear-armed leader whose actual goal is not just to protect his own country, but to destroy other countries. I think of this nearly every day, as I read of the comments made by a certain middle-eastern president. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 16 03:02:11 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 20:02:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605151441x49a09aa7j10fd513b3906a6fe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605160307.k4G37Y1Y018096@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > On 5/15/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > I thought Hofstadter's talk was an utter waste of time. Yeah, he made > the > > good point that Singularity deserved more attention by a broad range of > > scientists pro and con. But the rest of the time he used silly cartoons > and > > criticized Kurzweil's work in a most unscientific and unprofessional > manner... I thought the cartoons were very creative, classic Hofstadter. But I agree that he hammered Ray way too hard. Hofstadter wasted far too much time picking on minor details of an otherwise fine work. I too noticed the icy posture between the two after Doug's talk. What bothered me far more was Bill McKibben's talk. Since I haven't the exact quote, I will need to approximate or paraphrase. McKibben thought we need to cut the libertarian notions and acknowledge the propriety of subjugating our wildest transhuman ambitions to the greater human community. Did I get that about right, summiters? Immediately the question came to my mind: what then is the human community? Is it the two thousand humans in Standford Memorial Hall at that moment? OK, I am willing to listen to that crowd. Is it the community of the US? Possibly I would take that under consideration. Is the human community to include the Muslim dominated world? Or a future Muslim dominated Europe? Do we need to subjugate our aspirations to their notions of justice? I think not. We must have free-spirited pioneers, for intrepid explorers tackle the tough problems, they discover things, they open the way for the rest of humanity. We cannot and must not hold back the pioneers, for in doing so we all perish in tragic stagnation, just when humanity stands on the threshold of a dream. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 16 03:02:48 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 20:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060516030248.61513.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > There is a threshold we need to reach; > it is not the badly-named > "Singularity", but Diaspora - the technology to live > sustainably off Earth. > With a quarter trillion stars in our galaxy alone, > there'll be room to find > a way forward come what may; but we need to attain > that level of technology > first, and the truth, as many a driver with children > in the back seat has > had to point out, is that we are not nearly there > yet. Amen, Brother. Thank you for this beautiful post. > The Earth isn't going to be demolished to make room > for a hyperspace bypass, > or eaten by grey goo, or blown up by Skynet, but we > - humanity - may die > nonetheless, looking up at the unattainable stars as > our vision fades and > goes out, not a mark on us from any outside force, > merely strangled by our > own illusions. Or pummeled by an asteroid we saw coming for 30 years because we wasted so much money defending against bogey-men like Iraqi WMD, the "war on terror", and grey-goo. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9871982/ Relevant details: He worried that the funding might not be available to make high-quality radar readings of Apophis by 2013 ? particularly readings from the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, the world's largest single radio dish. "It's no secret that Arecibo is fairly precarious right now, and especially the radar function, because that is not needed for the bulk of radio astronomy," Schweickart said. The B612 Foundation said the National Science Foundation should make sure there is reliable radar capability "to support early warning of pending NEO [near-Earth object] impacts and rational deflection mission planning." Schweickart said NASA should also boost research into advanced propulsion methods that might come into play for deflecting near-Earth objects ? such as Project Prometheus, the nuclear propulsion program that was recently pared back." Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From metavalent at gmail.com Tue May 16 04:26:19 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 21:26:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria Message-ID: <4e674fa00605152126n2888da57n7df3c863aacc7663@mail.gmail.com> Hope this is an appropriate branching of this particular thread. On 5/15/06, spike wrote: > What bothered me far more was Bill McKibben's talk. Since I haven't the > exact quote, I will need to approximate or paraphrase. McKibben thought we > need to cut the libertarian notions and acknowledge the propriety of > subjugating our wildest transhuman ambitions to the greater human community. > Did I get that about right, summiters? I don't think that's too far off the mark. Although I do have to admit, it's a pretty messy proposition to begin thinking about guidelines for the Admission Board to the Immortal Class of 2029. What are the criteria for admittance into the emergent class of immortals? Just money? There are lots of rich idiots out there and I don't know if conventional market economics -- which have worked GREAT for the most recent centuries of advancing and distributing Good Stuff in general -- are the right way to let the market decide in this case. I'm right with Hal in terms of finding ways to make a profit off of observed tendencies and I think that *some* kind of market should decide, but I wonder if the same market that moves everything from eye bolts to iPods is the right kind of market for the Immortality Commodity. Perhaps college and university admissions are an interesting model. Most are needs-blind, not based (solely) on economics; rather based upon the aptitudes, interests, and general direction of the applicants life. Not every psychology will adaptive to greatly extended life spans. Returning to the rich idiot scenario, perhaps idiots an important part of a diverse, posthuman or extropian society. In any case, who defines "idiot"? What if I'm a relatively harmless, fairly well-read, and happy hermit? Do I lose points for lack of face-to-face interaction? Who do I have to impress and what norms do I have to comply with? Is it enough to contribute the occassional provocative thought, demonstrate authentic respect and interest in the provocative thoughts of others, and periodically prompt interesting, original, or compelling discussion? Or do I need to exhibit the advanced bureaucratic organizational skills of a PhD, and nothing less? What are the Guidelines for Admission and who is on the draft commitee to create them? Whoever it is, it's probably time to get rockin' ... that is, if work is not already well underway. RFC: Guidelines for Admission to the First Posthuman, Potentially Immortal Extropian Class. Welcome, Class of 2029. From jonkc at att.net Tue May 16 06:42:31 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 02:42:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award. References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00e501c678b3$edcfb750$d2084e0c@MyComputer> Russell Wallace Wrote: >any regulations [on Nanotechnology] we might invent now would ultimately >prove about as useful as Roger Bacon trying to draw up restrictions on the >manufacture of nerve gas. That is a good line, that is a damn good line, it's so good I intend to steal it. Unfortunately the rest of your post was not as good. Your argument seems to be that the Singularity idea can't be true because if it were then someday things would be odd; well, as far as I know there is no law of physics that says things can't be odd. And you're right, the Singularity idea does resonates with strong predispositions in the human brain, and yes that doesn't make it true, but it doesn't make it false either. John K Clark From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 07:01:39 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:01:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516030248.61513.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <20060516030248.61513.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605160001ke43db8ej7a532c7674dd3d1e@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Amen, Brother. Thank you for this beautiful post. Glad you like it! I'd been bracing myself for a napalm shower :) (and you make some good points in addition.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 07:06:11 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:06:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award. In-Reply-To: <00e501c678b3$edcfb750$d2084e0c@MyComputer> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c678b3$edcfb750$d2084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605160006v5f19e9a7w550ea326bdb3d6f7@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, John K Clark wrote: > > Russell Wallace Wrote: > > >any regulations [on Nanotechnology] we might invent now would ultimately > >prove about as useful as Roger Bacon trying to draw up restrictions on > the > >manufacture of nerve gas. > > That is a good line, that is a damn good line, it's so good I intend to > steal it. Thanks! Sure, go ahead. Unfortunately the rest of your post was not as good. Your argument > seems to be that the Singularity idea can't be true because if it were > then > someday things would be odd; well, as far as I know there is no law of > physics that says things can't be odd. > Not quite. I criticize only the idea of the Singularity being around the corner. I said the idea of it coming to pass sometime in the distant future is a fine one - there's certainly nothing to say things won't someday become odd. My point is that if it does, it will have to be sufficiently far off and in a world sufficiently odd to begin with, that we can't predict it with any sort of accuracy, so any attempt to draw up Singularity policy in 2006 will be worse than useless. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Tue May 16 07:15:03 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton