From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Nov 1 01:32:03 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:32:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Heartland wrote: > Jef Allbright: > So you're saying > > (1) "Values, beliefs and memories (VBM) are not necessarily unique > (they're quite commonly shared) therefore they do not uniquely define > a person." > > (2) Therefore, to say that a person is defined by their VBM is > tantamount to saying that each person is all persons. > > (3) This is clearly absurd, therefore the unique essence of a thing > must be defined elsewise. > > Is this a correct summary of your statements? (2) should be, "Therefore, to say that a person is defined by their VBMs implies that a person can survive as long as these same VBMs distributed among other people's heads survive." So you appear to be saying that it follows from (1) that a set of values, beliefs and memories distributed throughout a set of persons is equivalent to a set of values, beliefs, and memories associated with a single person. Again this would be the fallacy of the undistributed middle. While I know of many who have asserted that one is effectively defined or distinguished by ones values, beliefs and memories, I know of no one (other than you) who has said that this implies values, beliefs and memories could be independently distributed as you say. So what are you arguing against here? A->B does not mean B->A and no on other than yourself has said that this is implied. > My response: > > (1) Note that this is logically consistent with what many of us have > been saying; that there can be a gradient of personal identity and > that there can be duplicates of personal identity. > But that's just like saying that 1 can also mean 2 or that "blue sky" can sometimes be red. The words imply certain conditions you must follow when assigning the referents. If you violate these conditions you're just end up using a wrong referent for a word and, consequently, should be using a different word. So, for example, there's no such thing as "duplicates of personal identity" or a "gradient of personal identity" just like there's no such thing as "two originals" or "23% of being pregnant." No, the point is that we can find other statements that are both contextually related and logically consistent with the first statement. The example I gave was relevant to the discussion since it is generally a part of the package of understanding which you are trying to refute. > (2) Non sequitur. Fallacy of the undistributed middle leading to > affirming the consequent (a form of circular reasoning). A->B does not > imply B->A. Also, same comments as (1). > Let's really get into this, Jef. Before I acknowledge my fault please state precisely what your A and B are. Slawomir, A and B are symbols representing antecedent and consequent in the form of a syllogism. The particulars don't matter if the form is logically invalid. In this particular case, A->B corresponds to the statement "any person is defined by values, beliefs and memories". This does not imply the statement B->A corresponding to "any values, beliefs and memories define a person" because not all values, beliefs and memories are associated with any given person. It's not symmetrical. > (3) Non sequitur. Affirming the consequent (circular). Where is it > logically shown that all persons must have unique identity? > Again. I've always assumed that, by definition, "identity" can have at most one referent. Are you really saying that we can stretch the meaning of this word to include more than one thing? HOW MANY PEOPLE HOW MANY TIMES HAVE SAID EXACTLY THAT TO YOU ON THIS LIST? Slawomir, THAT IS THE KEY POINT. You repeatedly make the logical error of affirming the consequent. Your reasoning is circular and thus proves nothing, regardless or whether you're right or wrong about what you believe. It appears that you don't understand and don't care to gain understanding of this point. A few weeks ago I said I would make the effort to respond to you as long as you seemed to reciprocate. As you know, I scanned and filtered my email archives and gave you about 168kB of your own statements (since April) with the first several pages marked up for your examination. I've posted careful criticism of recent examples and I've given you google search phrases in case you actually wanted to study the points that have been offered to you. What's especially ironic about this is that if you were ever able to get past the hurdle of logical argument, we would have found that there's still no way to prove whether you're right about the "specialness of a unique trajectory through space-time of the physical constituents of the mind-producing process" because it can't be proved absolutely within the context of our subjective experience. But we might have agreed on a model of what we do and don't know, and we might have applied Occam's razor to find the simplest explanation that fits our observations. I can't justify spending any more time on this. I'm done. - Jef From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Nov 1 00:24:44 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:24:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction Message-ID: <380-22006113102444113@M2W040.mail2web.com> Has anyone spent time reading Jacques Derrida's philosophical views on Deconstruction? If so, do you recognize *any* crossovers between deconstructivism and extropy, or transhumanism in general. Thanks, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From fauxever at sprynet.com Wed Nov 1 02:40:25 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:40:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! References: <20061031065242.90753.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000b01c6fd5f$191a6b00$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Al Brooks" Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 10:52 PM > But 86 percent of Americans believe in a God, > and from everything I've seen the religious still > dominate society. Yes, sad ... ain't it? From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Nov 1 03:25:22 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:25:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction In-Reply-To: <380-22006113102444113@M2W040.mail2web.com> Message-ID: What might it mean to say, in the semblance of a question, that Derrida and Transhuman had some sort of crossover? If I were asked this in a personal sense, although not, of course, in the person of Derrida, but rather, as one who might have a sense of some aspect of being that is Derrida, I might answer that it is in large part unknowable, but in some small part I could say that the crossover, however small, gathers meaning from the context of the question, and the questioner. Transhumanism as transhumanism has both everything and nothing to do with Derrida, but crossover exists, and derives significance... Had enough? My personal view of Derrida is that he found a comfortable niche from which to exercise his considerable skills discovering patterns of text and meaning, obfuscating recursively his message that the meaning of the message is the meaning of the message which is essentially what we make of it and that by understanding this we gain some understanding of ourselves. Many people found him to be quite profound, whereas I found him merely deep. ;-) With regard to crossover with Transhumanism, his moral thinking was strongly influenced by Nietzsche with some obvious implications apropos individual empowerment and piercing the veils of society. His message of how meaning is derived from context has implications for those who contemplate how meaning might change with accelerating change of context. While he claimed not be a postmodernist, the similarities are all too apparent and I would hope to avoid the association much as I would avoid a very profound mound of dada. - Jef -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:25 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction Has anyone spent time reading Jacques Derrida's philosophical views on Deconstruction? If so, do you recognize *any* crossovers between deconstructivism and extropy, or transhumanism in general. Thanks, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From ben at goertzel.org Wed Nov 1 03:40:22 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:40:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction In-Reply-To: <380-22006113102444113@M2W040.mail2web.com> References: <380-22006113102444113@M2W040.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150610311940u32b37e1en269a10ffb8f65016@mail.gmail.com> I don't know Derrida's work well, but I would recommend Jean Baudrillard's book "Simulations" as a very amusing work of postmodernism... Basically, Baudrillard's message is that the whole world is virtual anyway. Everything is a simulation, and this has been the psychological and cultural reality for decades now. So creating a physical simulation and uploading ourselves into it (something he does not discuss) would in his view not be a signficant deviation... -- Ben G On 10/31/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Has anyone spent time reading Jacques Derrida's philosophical views on > Deconstruction? If so, do you recognize *any* crossovers between > deconstructivism and extropy, or transhumanism in general. > > Thanks, > Natasha > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Nov 1 03:56:25 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:56:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061031215425.02195248@satx.rr.com> At 05:32 PM 10/31/2006 -0800, Jef wrote: > > (2) Therefore, to say that a person is defined by their VBM is > > tantamount to saying that each person is all persons. >... > >(2) should be, "Therefore, to say that a person is defined by their VBMs >implies that a person can survive as long as these same VBMs distributed >among other people's heads survive." > >So you appear to be saying that it follows from (1) that a set of >values, beliefs and memories distributed throughout a set of persons is >equivalent to a set of values, beliefs, and memories associated with a >single person. Again this would be the fallacy of the undistributed >middle. > >While I know of many who have asserted that one is effectively defined >or distinguished by ones values, beliefs and memories, I know of no one >(other than you) who has said that this implies values, beliefs and >memories could be independently distributed as you say. So what are you >arguing against here? My understanding is that Slawomir 's saying *exactly the contrary*, and that this is what vexes him about your reading. Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Nov 1 04:25:58 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:25:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061031215425.02195248@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Damien - I understand your point, but I think what you're getting is out of context. You'll probably need to go back one earlier in the thread to see this. Slawomir was saying that if someone asserts (1) that persons are defined by their VBM, then *they* must see that this implies (2) that their BVM could be distributed piecemeal among a large set of persons. He then points to the absurdity of (2) in an attempt to show that (1) must be false. If (2) did in fact follow from (1), and (2) were found to be absurd, then (1) would have to be false. However, I have been trying to show Slawomir that his argument doesn't hold because (2) doesn't follow from (1), and furthermore no one (other than he) suggested that it did follow from (1). In other words, I'm not saying that he believes (2) but I did make two attempts at getting him to clearly specify it. On the contrary, it is understood that he thinks it is an absurd consequent, to be used to prove the falsity of (1). Incidentally, I'm also not saying that I believe (1), because I think it's only a part of what defines a person, but again that is not the point. Does this make sense to you? - Jef -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:56 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent At 05:32 PM 10/31/2006 -0800, Jef wrote: > > (2) Therefore, to say that a person is defined by their VBM is > > tantamount to saying that each person is all persons. >... > >(2) should be, "Therefore, to say that a person is defined by their >VBMs implies that a person can survive as long as these same VBMs >distributed among other people's heads survive." > >So you appear to be saying that it follows from (1) that a set of >values, beliefs and memories distributed throughout a set of persons is >equivalent to a set of values, beliefs, and memories associated with a >single person. Again this would be the fallacy of the undistributed >middle. > >While I know of many who have asserted that one is effectively defined >or distinguished by ones values, beliefs and memories, I know of no one >(other than you) who has said that this implies values, beliefs and >memories could be independently distributed as you say. So what are you >arguing against here? My understanding is that Slawomir 's saying *exactly the contrary*, and that this is what vexes him about your reading. Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Nov 1 04:41:27 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:41:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything In-Reply-To: <4547AB5F.5060608@ramonsky.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061031105302.021c3850@satx.rr.com> <4547AB5F.5060608@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: On 10/31/06, Alex Ramonsky wrote: > > "Forgo what is near; win what is afar" -in the I Ching is translated as > meaning something like this. Of course, nobody knows who wrote the I > Ching...it could have been Robert? > Unless it was a much earlier version of myself (or one in a parallel universe) I take no credit for the I Ching. I think my statement may have arisen from some combination of watching Kung Fu as a child, Karate Kid when I was much older and a bunch of Zen koans thrown in at various stages of my life. During the late '90s I realized that no matter how hard I might strive to achieve indefinite "human" longevity it was probably a struggle doomed to failure due to limits on the minimization of the external hazard function. Uploading offered a clear evolutionary strategy but would involve eliminating a rather strong mental attachment I have for my current instantiation (but hell, cut a few axons here, a few dendrites there, upload the rest and I'll probably find it amusing that I was once so "attached"). It could probably also be said that certain experiences over the last decade have made the concept a bit more real for me. Concepts are interesting but its experiences that give them wings. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Nov 1 05:03:03 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 00:03:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <20061031062441.82209.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1089.86.130.24.207.1162270695.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20061031062441.82209.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/31/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > Anne, naturally you have the right to keep the word marriage. Hmmm.... Humpty dumpty comes to mind.... It's important to know why it is homosexuals want full marriage rights and > will not be satisfied with mere civil unions: homosexuals want the right of > making > serious medical decisions (as Terry Schiavo's husband had in her case); I think you can get this with a simple contract (power of medical decisions, power of attorney, etc.). they want full interitance rights; etc. This too can be specified by a last will & testament. What I think *isn't* covered is pension or surivorship rights since these depend on how the plan actually defines them. This would get sticky because even if a state allows same sex marriages (as MA does) federal entities may not have to recognize them. I suspect a pension plan might be free to provide benefits "for legal marriages or social unions involving to individuals of the opposite sex as specified by their having different sex chromosome combinations". Of course that would probably run afoul of various antidiscrimination laws in which case pensions would be free to specify benefits for only one single individual and no other family members (or uploads or molecular copies of said individual). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 1 06:04:19 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:04:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) References: Message-ID: <03e801c6fd7b$9cb91da0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > While I know of many who have asserted that one is effectively defined > or distinguished by ones values, beliefs and memories, I know of no one > (other than you) who has said that this implies values, beliefs and > memories could be independently distributed as you say. But to some extent, values, beliefs, and memories *can* be independently distributed, in the sense of being distributed among a set of causally independent running processes. The case of physical duplicates, or near physical duplicates, is what of course I have in mind. (I realize that some have already stated this.) But we have to consider sliding scales. If your own VBM overlap to a tremendous extent those of "another person", then it seems to me that indeed to that same extend you are that other person. Of course, infinite care is required here to avoid begging the question of what a "person" is. That is, I mean that two physically distinct and causally separate processes ought to be regarded as the same person under the right circumstances. (Heartland, of course, regards this as absolutely contrary to what is meant by a "person", who he invariably sees as totally incapable of being in two places at once.) But people can be in two places at once, even though it seems uncanny to our evolutionarily derived notions of self. Nonetheless, once forking is a possibility (either after uploading or, less plausibly, via teleporters and copying machines), people will have to accustom themselves to the idea. And if that's true, then sliding scales can apply: there could be two separately running instances X and Y such that I am logically compelled to identify with X to about a 20% level and Y to about a 60% level. (Concrete cases might be my own selves at ages 5 and 15 respectively, and future tech could allow contemporaneous execution.) Heartland or Jef writes (the attribution isn't so easy for some reason) >> (1) Note that this is logically consistent with what many of us have >> been saying; that there can be a gradient of personal identity and >> that there can be duplicates of personal identity. That is so, whoever wrote it. > But that's just like saying that 1 can also mean 2 or that "blue sky" > can sometimes be red. The words imply certain conditions you must follow > when assigning the referents. If you violate these conditions you're > just end up using a wrong referent for a word and, consequently, should > be using a different word. So, for example, there's no such thing as > "duplicates of personal identity" or a "gradient of personal identity" > just like there's no such thing as "two originals" or "23% of being > pregnant." Well, blue skies can indeed contain shades of red, and just why aren't there "duplicates of personal identity"? I may be missing your logical point. Also, why can't there be a "gradient of personal identity"? Surely one is a lot more the same person one was at age 15 than one was at age 5. What worries me about survival in particular is that as it stands I am alas turning into someone else slowly but surely. But more of than later, in a different response I hope. Lee From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Nov 1 06:03:49 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:03:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200611010619.kA16JeXF008282@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything ...? Concepts are interesting but its experiences that give them wings. Robert Thanks Robert, you have a certain virtuosity with words. spike Virtuous! That's the word I was searching for the other day, when I couldn't think of a workable opposite to evil. Good and righteous weren't working, but virtuous might do. OK then, body parts that start with V. Virtuous Vul... Virtuous Va... OK then, Righteous... {8^D Do forgive ExI-ers, humor is my way of dealing with the situation. s From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 1 06:18:28 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:18:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! References: <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> <001401c6fcab$dbd3dd20$6600a8c0@brainiac> <021e01c6fcb7$fbbab5d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <03f501c6fd7d$b84903d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robert writes > On 10/31/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > But what happened to *me* in there? I'm more than my memes, pal. > > Don't forget my memories. > Well memories are memes and at least some of them are essential > components of the survival and reproduction processes. Memories are memes??? That does violence to the concept so far as I understand it. Memories are more like raw data; for one thing, they're very seldom contagious. Beliefs are something else, and are indeed memetic. > > That's me, maybe. I don't want to "become", especially if the end > > product is not me. I would rather "are". As you put it. > Then you will be fighting a continual and probably eventually lose the battle. Exactly! And I vastly prefer not being dead! I'm already dead almost everywhere, dead on Mars, dead on Pluto, dead in Australia, Texas, and more places than I can name. And it's no fun at all being dead in those places, I can tell you. Simplyh, it's definitely of no benefit to one whatsoever to be dead anywhere or at any time. > I have yet to see a strategy that guarantees avoidance of the external > hazard function. I've mentioned one on this list more times than I can remember, sigh. Once the technology is in place, all one has to do is to make sure that previous versions of one get adequate runtime. If we had a benevolent singularity tomorrow, I would request that new LC2006 versions be spawned every so often. That way, none of them (including this one) can logically look forward to never being alive again (pace Heartland and others who can't abide other instances being oneself). > For many the breaking point will be the decisions involving when and > how to upload. For others it may be managing the "self"-collective > after uploading. The problem is deciding when losing some part of > oneself (some genes, reproduction behaviors, ones tribe, some ideas, > etc.) constitutes "no longer surviving". Yes, but again, there is a simple solution! As I described above! > For some it involves the "destruction" of memes derived from very > old books programmed into them before they ever learned how > to *think* about them. Honestly, it sounds to me as though you are still wedded, though hidden at a deeper level, to the same notion: that that other thing over there cannot be me. Fully me. Provably me. But YES IT CAN: So you get your cake and get to eat it too: just run another, earlier copy of yourself who's still looking forward to eating the cake. It's really you. Physically you. Provably you. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 1 06:21:16 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:21:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] not humor: evil eye References: Message-ID: <03fa01c6fd7e$24112d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Amara chides me, with some justification: > Lee Corbin >>Yes, but keep in mind WHY [those evil eyes are] there and WHAT >> [they're] for! > > I think you missed the humor point of Spike's post. You changed the > subject title to make a different point and wrote that, and then you > proceed to pound your same message in Spike's humor thread too. Pardon my excess excitement. Sometimes new revelations seem like the most important thing in the world, and need to be shouted from rooftops. Sorry if I wrecked your fun. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 1 06:38:33 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:38:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! References: <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> <001401c6fcab$dbd3dd20$6600a8c0@brainiac> <021e01c6fcb7$fbbab5d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <040101c6fd80$abc3b990$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robert also wrote > On 10/31/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Secondly, if the Singularity tarries, there won't be any people, > > me or like me either one, you or like you, se?or Bradbury. > > La ilaha ila Allah; Muhammadur-rasul Allah. > I've been thinking a lot about inertia. I like to remember there > are many more people leaning towards the saner primary meme > frameworks than the less sane frameworks. What a optimist! What is the basis of your optimism? (Except for your list of countries below.) All the posts you see in our little pathetically small extropian list? Those with what you'd call "un-saner" primary meme frameworks are reproducing themselves at an astonishing rate. > I'm not sure you could say that rational frameworks are > dominant yet but the populations leaning that way do > outnumber and carry significantly more throw weight than > those leaing in the other direction (E.g. Korea, Japan, > Taiwan, China, Thailand, much of Russia & India, AU, > NZ, Canada, a large fraction of Europe, the blue states > in the U.S., some significant parts of Africa (usually S. > of the equator) . As long as you can claim China, you may have a point. But don't confuse the small citified numbers of urban Chinese with the vast numbers in the foresaken countryside. As for others you mention, e.g. the U.S., Europe, and Canada, they're losing the demographic race. Extremely religious people are being born faster than we're converting them. It falls into just too clear a pattern: religion exists and works because it's an ESS. Nontribalism is not, and unless very high tech or a singularity saves us, nontribalism will be as quaint an historical offshoot as the Skoptsy or other castration sects. > The trick will be to shift things so one's near term survival interests > tend to trump the more ethereal "promises". Good luck shifting. Any notable progress lately? (Success getting something printed in some transhumanist journal really doesn't count!) > The human social and political components are the least well understood > parts of Kurzweil's "Law of Accelerating Returns". "We", for the most > part, haven't even started the discussion of how fast we should go. Yes, that sort of fantasizing (which hopefully is more that just fantasy) is really fun. I enjoy contemplating what I'll say to a GAI who tells me I've been uploaded, and specifying what portion of my alloted resources will go to running previous versions, running extremely IQ-advanced versions, and so on. Again, it can't be said too many times, they're all me. > I tend to be more worried about a backlash against the Singularity than > it not arriving soon enough. They're both risky, like terrorism and states that try to over-protect against terrorism. Hell, life is risky. But I agree: forces, social and religious, that forestall a singularity threaten my survival as much as a Singularity gone awry. Both are very dangerous! But at least I'm still alive. For now. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 1 06:38:39 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:38:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061101063839.51598.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > The 'righteous rectum' is probably the 'colossal > colon' that tours round the US. > > > "Coco," as the Colossal Colon(r) is affectionately > known, is a 40-foot > long, 4-foot tall oversized model of the human colon > that is designed > to educate about colorectal cancer and other > diseases of the colon. > Visitors who crawl through the Colossal Colon(r) . . . Only in America, folks. So I was wondering, would you call that a "turd's eye view"? ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com/preview) From velvethum at hotmail.com Wed Nov 1 07:43:39 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 02:43:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) References: Message-ID: Jef, I'm really trying hard to understand what your point is and how it applies to the things I'm talking about. What is it exactly that you think that I'm proving here (if anything)? Have you noticed that this thread has the word "survival" in it as opposed to "identity?" I'm trying to establish some shreds of common ground here. J: > A->B does not mean B->A and no on other than > yourself has said that this is implied. Of all the things I've said, I certainly don't recall saying that "A->B means B->A." That is merely *your interpretation* of what I said. J: > Slawomir, A and B are symbols representing antecedent and consequent in > the form of a syllogism. The particulars don't matter if the form is > logically invalid. Of course, but who said I accepted that strawman form in the first place? Stating what you meant as A and B might have revealed what you missed. And yes, Jef, I'm familiar with what antecedents, consequents, syllogisms and rules of logic are, thanks. :) J: > Slawomir, THAT IS THE KEY POINT. You repeatedly make the logical error > of affirming the consequent. Your reasoning is circular and thus proves > nothing, regardless or whether you're right or wrong about what you > believe. Okay, so can you tell me what that consequent is? J: > It appears that you don't understand and don't care to gain > understanding of this point. A few weeks ago I said I would make the > effort to respond to you as long as you seemed to reciprocate. As you > know, I scanned and filtered my email archives and gave you about 168kB > of your own statements (since April) with the first several pages marked > up for your examination. I've posted careful criticism of recent > examples and I've given you google search phrases in case you actually > wanted to study the points that have been offered to you. And I did address your comments line by line and was able to discover quite quickly the source of the problem. Then I wrote: "Clearly, that pattern [of your criticism] consists of you highlighting not the circularity within assumed framework of what *I'm* saying, but merely pointing out things that are incompatible with patternism." In other words, you had already assumed that your map was *the only true* map and proceeded to show me why my map didn't match yours instead of pointing out which parts of my map weren't matching the territory or which parts of my map didn't fit with the other parts of my map. Slawomir From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 1 07:51:57 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:51:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061031105302.021c3850@satx.rr.com><4547AB5F.5060608@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <043e01c6fd8a$cc9aa980$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> As Alex quoted our sage Robert: You must be willing to give up everything you are for what you might become. But ask I, (Mark 8:36) For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul? You should NOT be willing to give up EVERYTHING, or you won't be you any longer! > During the late '90s I realized that no matter how hard I might strive to > achieve indefinite "human" longevity it was probably a struggle doomed > to failure due to limits on the minimization of the external hazard function. It's a small point, but remember that you *do* succeed in some fraction of universes, if, that is, you follow the Holy MWI, Everitt, and his prophet Deutsch: La ilaha ila Everett; Deutsch-rasul Everett. (The Korbin) > Uploading offered a clear evolutionary strategy but would involve eliminating > a rather strong mental attachment I have for my current instantiation (but hell, > cut a few axons here, a few dendrites there, upload the rest and I'll probably > find it amusing that I was once so "attached"). Yes, so long as you're still you. Hell, I doubt if you are really attached anyway. If hundreds of test animals, and then hundreds of people got uploaded, and everyone agreed that they still seemed to be exactly the same people, I'd estimate your so-called "attachment" in atto-Newtons. About the same strength of Damien's and Slawomir's reluctance to teleport, if everyone else started doing it. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Wed Nov 1 08:16:30 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 03:16:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061031105302.021c3850@satx.rr.com><4547AB5F.5060608@ramonsky.com> <043e01c6fd8a$cc9aa980$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee: "It's a small point, but remember that you *do* succeed in some fraction of universes, if, that is, you follow the Holy MWI, Everitt, and his prophet Deutsch: La ilaha ila Everett; Deutsch-rasul Everett. (The Korbin)" That's easily the funniest thing I've read on this list. :) ("The Korbin" - LOL!) Slawomir From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Nov 1 14:12:04 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:12:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything In-Reply-To: <043e01c6fd8a$cc9aa980$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061031105302.021c3850@satx.rr.com> <4547AB5F.5060608@ramonsky.com> <043e01c6fd8a$cc9aa980$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 11/1/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > It's a small point, but remember that you *do* succeed in some fraction of > universes, if, that is, you follow the Holy MWI, Everitt, and his prophet > Deutsch: > * La ilaha ila Everett; Deutsch-rasul Everett. (The Korbin)* > This wasn't clear to me and Babelfish wasn't helping (spanish to english doesn't work presumably because it isn't Spanish (duh)), but a Google did turn up a page which made things clearer [1]. I have not read the entire page and so make no representations for the content. Robert 1. http://www.masmn.org/documents/Books/Syed_Qutb/Milestones/006.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed Nov 1 16:13:14 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:13:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Calorie Restriction: "robust life extension" ? Message-ID: <20061101161314.44466.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> Another glimpse into ongoing primate CR research in a New York Times article: "'The preliminary indicators are that we're looking at a robust life extension in the [calorie] restricted animals,' Dr. Weindruch said." http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fuj/nytimes30a.htm http://IanGoddard.net "A proposition is a picture of reality. [...] A picture cannot, however, place itself outside its representational form. [...] No proposition can make a statement about itself, because a propositional sign cannot be contained in itself (that is the whole of the 'theory of types')." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein __________________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta) From jonkc at att.net Wed Nov 1 16:59:54 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 11:59:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. References: Message-ID: <000401c6fdd7$934e3550$860a4e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > Again. I've always assumed that, by definition, "identity" can have at > most one referent. Well that's exactly the trouble with your argument; you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove. > Are you really saying that we can stretch the meaning of this word to > include more than one thing? It's amazing, armchair philosophers try to tackle deep problems without the slightest nod to the revolution in physics over the last century, you're arguing as if it's 1906 not 2006. But even in 1906 you should have know better, even then you should have known that more than one thing could be fast or beautiful or red or small or Heartland. In closing let me ask you a very simple question: do you believe the Heartland of yesterday has continued into today? I'm not even asking you if he did or not, all I want to know is if you believe that he did. I don't need nine paragraphs of bafflegab as a response, a simple yes or no will do. I mean.... you must know if you believe it or not. John K Clark From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Nov 1 18:44:58 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:44:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20061101105706.04a2b7b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: Natasha - In all seriousness (this time) I spent some time a few years ago exploring postmodernism. I performed this study with the goal of understanding a worldview outside of my direct experience and outside my comfort zone, so as to better understand, relate and communicate with others who share my world, if not my understanding of it. My study was limited to research on the web, some representative books[1], interaction with a certain assistant professor of rhetoric familiar with both transhumanism and postmodernism and attending a documentary film with Q&A with people who knew Derrida intimately. Not a complete study, certainly, but enough to familiarize myself with the some of the substance, the broad outlines, and the style of postmodernist thought and behavior. I'm well aware of CP Snow's Two Cultures, and that I am strongly grounded in the Sciences side while you are strongly grounded in the Humanities, so I can appreciate that you are skeptical of any unfavorable criticism from across that great cultural divide. I don't know if my earlier parody of Derrida's style got in the way of my message, but I did also offer what I thought were practical pointers with regard to likely areas of crossover being (1) individual-based ethics and (2) meaning as completely dependent on interpreter and context. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that to go further would require slogging through text that is far from concise or rigorous in its exposition of a few truly valuable concepts. [1] Some relevant books from my exploration of postmodernist thinking: _How We Became Posthuman_ by Katherine Hayles _Representations of the Post-Human_ by Elaine Graham _Metal and Flesh_ by Joel Slayton _The Postmodern Adventure, Science, Technology, and Cultural Studies at the Third Millennium_ by Steven Best, Douglas Kellner (I think there was a second book by Best and Kellner but I can't find it in my library right now and I've run out of time to look.) - Jef -----Original Message----- From: Natasha Vita-More [mailto:natasha at natasha.cc] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:06 AM To: Jef Allbright Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction At 09:25 PM 10/31/2006, Jeff wrote: What might it mean to say, in the semblance of a question, that Derrida and Transhuman had some sort of crossover? If I were asked this in a personal sense, although not, of course, in the person of Derrida, but rather, as one who might have a sense of some aspect of being that is Derrida, I might answer that it is in large part unknowable, but in some small part I could say that the crossover, however small, gathers meaning from the context of the question, and the questioner. Transhumanism as transhumanism has both everything and nothing to do with Derrida, but crossover exists, and derives significance... Had enough? No, not really. What you said in your reply, however well stated, does not offer the depth that I was hoping for. :-) Surely you are accurate and I had already read all this on the Wikipedia site and elsewhere, but don't believe that Derrida was as much of a fool or machinist that his critiques said of him. Maybe I will learn that he is, but I am not so sure because I tend to rebel against the voice of critiques who pigeonhole philosophy or politics. With regard to crossover with Transhumanism, his moral thinking was strongly influenced by Nietzsche with some obvious implications apropos individual empowerment and piercing the veils of society. His message of how meaning is derived from context has implications for those who contemplate how meaning might change with accelerating change of context. Yes. While he claimed not be a postmodernist, the similarities are all too apparent and I would hope to avoid the association much as I would avoid a very profound mound of dada. Postmodernism, postsnodernism - - it is tiresome at best. Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller From pj at pj-manney.com Wed Nov 1 18:37:34 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:37:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! Message-ID: <19214692.400831162406254732.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >Robert writes > >> On 10/31/06, Lee Corbin wrote: >> >> > But what happened to *me* in there? I'm more than my memes, pal. >> > Don't forget my memories. > >> Well memories are memes and at least some of them are essential >> components of the survival and reproduction processes. > >Memories are memes??? That does violence to the concept so far >as I understand it. Memories are more like raw data; for one thing, >they're very seldom contagious. Beliefs are something else, and >are indeed memetic. > >> > That's me, maybe. I don't want to "become", especially if the end >> > product is not me. I would rather "are". As you put it. What about Martine Rothblatt's concept of "bemes?" www.imminst.org/conference/Martine.ppt PJ From velvethum at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 00:03:04 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 19:03:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. References: <000401c6fdd7$934e3550$860a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: S: >> Again. I've always assumed that, by definition, "identity" can have at >> most one referent. John Clark: > Well that's exactly the trouble with your argument; you're assuming the very > thing you're trying to prove. Oh, so that's what you and Jef ("the J's?") thought I've been doing all this time? Well, that certainly wasn't my intention. If it was my intention to prove *that* I would have certainly picked a better argument, wouldn't I (stay tuned)? Except I wasn't proving that. My sole focus has been to have a meta-discussion about what it means to live and survive. Yes, I admit that while doing that I assumed that life was an instance, not a type, just like I assumed that 1 isn't 2, the Earth is round, 3AM yesterday comes before 5PM tomorrow, and that little kittens are cute (I know, you're going to fight me to death on that last one :)) not realizing that all this time you were still stuck on trying to figure out how many things it takes to have one thing. So, here's a quick observation that might help you. 1kg + 1kg != 1kg. (Regardless of whether you understand the implications of this or not, this basically rules out that cute "afterlife through duplication" fairy tale. There's no such thing as afterlife. I'm really sorry about that.) S: >> Are you really saying that we can stretch the meaning of this word to >> include more than one thing? John Clark: > It's amazing, armchair philosophers try to tackle deep problems without the > slightest nod to the revolution in physics over the last century, you're > arguing as if it's 1906 not 2006. But even in 1906 you should have know > better, even then you should have known that more than one thing could be > fast or beautiful or red or small or Heartland. When will you understand that "life" is not an adjective but a noun and "live" is a verb? Stop inventing arbitrary referents for clearly defined terms. John Clark: > In closing let me ask you a very simple question: do you believe the > Heartland of yesterday has continued into today? There's no such thing as you-at-t1 and you-at-t432. A mind is nothing more or less than a single instance of a *process* defined across all ts during an interval. I guess in your language that would translate to "yes." (I might also add for the millionth time that what *I think* has absolutely no influence on *what I am* physically. Thank you.) Slawomir From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Nov 1 03:29:46 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:29:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <20061031065242.90753.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061101032946.52126.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Olga, you are correct concerning agnostics & atheists having lower divorce rates than xians however the number of xians in this country is so large that even with a roughly fifty percent divorce rate, xian marital unions are still a potent factor. Not that I accept xian mythology (cf Brookhiser's "dying and reviving gods, the myths of agriculture"). All the same, xian mythology gives frightened families peace of mind, in fact I would say those xian families who are not fundamentalists are remarkably-- considering the pressures they are under-- kind and cheerful; if they are not optimists then they do possess a resilience. This is what I in effect say to them: "I cant dispute with you that Jesus is the son of God because doing so would negate your whole faith, rendering the discussion a nonstarter, yet I don't accept Jesus' resurrection". They invariably reply: "being the Son of God, he was able to resurrect". So the logic is entirely circular but at least they understand the debate is not immediately a total rejection of their faith but rather is based on doubt of the ability of their savior to have resurrected from death. > Begging your pardon - I'm not certain if you meant > this seriously or not. Presently, families of > agnostics and atheists have lower divorce rates that > Christians ... especially evangelical Christians... --------------------------------- Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Nov 1 03:44:47 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:44:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <000b01c6fd5f$191a6b00$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20061101034447.57396.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Agreed, it is sad, but it may be possible to reach a modus vivendi with more optimistic and openminded xians, that is, without misleading them into thinking we accept their faith. We can say, for instance, " 'forgive thy enemy' was and is an original and unusual precept", without actually committing to it-- my long & very unpleasant experience with those at the bottom of society has demonstrated they respect only strength, and forgiveness is perceived as weakness. Olga Bourlin wrote: > But 86 percent of Americans believe in a God, > and from everything I've seen the religious still > dominate society. Yes, sad ... ain't it? --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pzonik at gmail.com Wed Nov 1 12:35:44 2006 From: pzonik at gmail.com (pzonik at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:35:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction In-Reply-To: <380-22006113102444113@M2W040.mail2web.com> References: <380-22006113102444113@M2W040.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <454894A0.6010503@gmail.com> I read, I don't see. Polish Lvov-Warsaw School and Cracow Circle (analytic and science philosophy) better relate to think about world. nvitamore at austin.rr.com napisa?(a): > Has anyone spent time reading Jacques Derrida's philosophical views on > Deconstruction? If so, do you recognize *any* crossovers between > deconstructivism and extropy, or transhumanism in general. > > Thanks, > Natasha > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Nov 2 01:31:44 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:31:44 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [SK] Re: Just curious, it's not natural! Message-ID: <24483912.1162431104763.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- > >On 01/11/2006, at 12:32 PM, James H.G. Redekop wrote: > >> On 10/31/06, Terry Colvin forwarded: >>> > >>> >I think that gay people should have every right to be >>> >"married", i'm just not sure whether it should be >>> >called a "marriage"?. >>> > >>> >The word "marriage" is described as a union, joined >>> >for life, creating a family, it's been around >>> >for centuries, it's scriptural, and so on, it's >>> >already been named. Why change it? >>> > >>> >Why wouldn't the gay communities want their own >>> >word for their union and still keep the basic >>> >laws for spouse and marital? >> >> Maybe because they're forming a union, joined for life, and creating >> a family -- so there's a perfectly good word for that already in >> existence. >> >> In any case, it's not "scriptural" -- the institution predates and is >> independent of any particular scripture. >> >>> >I can't pressume to understand the relationship >>> >between 2 men or 2 women and who am I to judge what >>> >"Union" they want but as a heterosexual woman, don't I >>> >have every right to keep the word "marriage"?. >> >> Sure you do. Your marriage won't suddenly become a "flerm" just >> because someone else got married. Did all heterosexual marriages >> suddenly change somehow in 1989, when Denmark recognized gay marriage? >> >> What you don't necessarily have is the right to deny the word to >> other people. > >You might like to consider the pragmatic solution that is likely to >happen in Oz in the near future. > >While legal discrimination against homosexuals was outlawed long ago, >there remained a number of areas in which gay couples suffered >serious disadvantages when compared to heterosexual couples, whether >married of in a de facto relationship. It involved inheritance law, >and a wide variety of other matters where couples can gain a >financial break by appearing as a family. > >A backbench MP in the federal; parliament then sought leave to >present a "private member's bill" (ie, not a government policy >matter) and the major parties allowed a conscience vote (ie members >did not have to conform to the party whip) to remove all these >disadvantages . It is very likely to pass by a large majority and >should be law before long. Incidentally it will also help non-gay >peoples (mainly elderly people) such as siblings or old friends >sharing a home in their dotage, etc. > >An interesting sidelight is that the MP proposing the bill is a >married senior ex-Army officer who once made a living catching wild >bulls, is a member of the government party and who represents a rural >constituency in arguably our most conservative state (Queensland - >nothing should be read into the name). > >Sure, it isn't marriage, but it removes (almost) all discrimination >that previously distinguished homo- from heterosexual relationships, >which should help. As it happens none of my gay acquaintances (and >quite a few hetero ones too) would get married even if was legal. >One of the downsides, of course, is that accepting the marriage laws >means also accepting the divorce laws, which can be quite fraught. > >PS It looks as though we will also get pretty reasonable therapeutic >cloning laws as well following another private member's bill onn >which the conscience vote has been allowed by all major parties. >Latest figures suggest it will pass in both the Senate (where there >was some doubt) and the Reps easily. > > >Barry Williams From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Nov 2 02:03:49 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:03:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] EDU: Lecture on Transhumanism Message-ID: <380-2200611422349876@M2W022.mail2web.com> A "Biotechnology Futures" graduate school prof. asked me to speak to his students on transhuamnism. If you have available online writings which would enrich their knowledge, please send your urls to me and I will give to the class. Thanks, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Nov 2 02:40:13 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:40:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye In-Reply-To: <20061101063839.51598.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200611020256.kA22ugXV022497@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye > > --- BillK wrote: > > The 'righteous rectum' is probably the 'colossal > > colon' that tours round the US. > > > > > > "Coco," as the Colossal Colon(r) is affectionately > > known, is a 40-foot > > long, 4-foot tall oversized model of the human colon > > that is designed > > to educate about colorectal cancer and other > > diseases of the colon. > > Visitors who crawl through the Colossal Colon(r) . . . > > Only in America, folks. So I was wondering, would you > call that a "turd's eye view"? ;) > > Stuart LaForge Ja, I was thinking about the person who had to sell this idea to the venture capitalists or the board of directors. "We propose an educational tool: an enormous colon, that visitor's crawl through..." How would you like that job? spike From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Nov 2 02:07:00 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:07:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] 415 for lectgure Message-ID: <380-2200611422705@M2W009.mail2web.com> I am not alone in the universe. Gooble recognizes 415 references to lectgure on the net. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Nov 2 04:08:52 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:08:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism as slippery slope In-Reply-To: <03fa01c6fd7e$24112d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200611020411.kA24B9jw001186@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Macleans reviews the book America Alone by Mark Steyn: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134 898 The following comment caught my eye: ...As the most advanced society with the most advanced demographic crisis, Japan seems likely to be the first jurisdiction to embrace robots and cloning and embark on the slippery slope to transhumanism... spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Nov 2 04:11:40 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:11:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] 415 for lectgure In-Reply-To: <380-2200611422705@M2W009.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200611020413.kA24DnaZ005731@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com > Subject: [extropy-chat] 415 for lectgure > > I am not alone in the universe. Gooble recognizes 415 references to > lectgure on the net. > > Natasha I would rather they had called it Gooble. I don't like having perfectly good math terms gobbled by Google. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Nov 2 04:48:30 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:48:30 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 415 for lectgure In-Reply-To: <200611020413.kA24DnaZ005731@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <380-2200611422705@M2W009.mail2web.com> <200611020413.kA24DnaZ005731@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061101224505.021f6888@satx.rr.com> At 08:11 PM 11/1/2006 -0800, spike wrote: >I don't like having perfectly >good math terms gobbled by Google. What math term has Google gobbled? Map? Sign? Groups? Hey, I can throw a googol of them at ya. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Nov 2 05:07:44 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:07:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Juicy Classical Physics Problem Involving Gravitational Potential Message-ID: <046a01c6fe3d$3a108860$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> First of all, a clock at the Earth's north pole runs *exactly* at the same rate as does one on the equator. Did you know that? Yet the polar radius is about 13 miles less than the equatorial radius, so the first supposition might be that the polar clock would run more slowly. It is, after all, immersed more deeply in the Earth's gravitational field (by general relativity). But the speed of the clock on the equator, by special relativity, is less because of its motion. Amazingly, these two effects exactly cancel, and the clocks progress at the same rate! (I actually worked this out a year or two ago, and found that the difference was less than 10^-16.) Now this isn't really unexpected, I suppose, because of the shape of the Earth. Newton understood that ocean water at the equator was at the same "gravitational potential" as water at a pole; he had a memorable diagram of a well that went down from the north pole to the center of the Earth, and another well dug to the same point ninety degrees away at a point on the equator. He argued that you wouldn't expect water to flow "downhill" from the equator to the pole. (A reason is, of course, the centrifugal force that keeps the equatorial water 13 miles higher.) Newton---but not I---was able to calculate the spherical oblateness of the Earth by carefully regarding this notion of gravitational potential. (He'd be wonderfully jazzed by the generalization to relativity theory spoken of above.) But my Newtonian calculation---problematical in some way---is off by a factor of two! Perhaps someone here who really likes classical physics can see what is going wrong. Of course, I *could* find some alternate derivations on the web, or find some in a book somewhere, but that would take all the fun out of it. Nothing like trying to work through something yourself to really master the concepts. Let r be the equatorial radius and R the polar radius. The facts are that R is 6357000 meters (or 6357 km), and r is 6378 km, a twenty-one kilometer difference. But my calculations below show that r "should" be only 6368 km, that is, just 11 km more than R instead of the correct value of 21 more. (One may point out that as a cc of water is raised by a hypothetical elevator shaft to the equator, it gets kinetic energy from the walls of the shaft. This ends up being some momentum, (1/2)mv^2.) Now v equals omega * r, or, as I write it, wr. The next equation, and what I'm trying to go by, reads "the sum of the K.E. of a particle at the equator and the remaining energy it needs to get to infinity must equal the energy that the particle at the pole would need to acquire to get to infinity". Is there a problem with that? It certainly raises questions in my mind, and one's that I don't have clear answers for. Anyway, in symbols (wr)^2 + IntegralFromrToInfinity[ GM/r^2 ] = IntegralFromRToInf[ GM/R^2 ] where velocity = wr, and I suppress m (the mass of the particle) from both sides of the equation. (A note on GM: we have F = GMm/r^2 from Newton's formula, and so stripping m gives force per mass, or GM/r^2.) The integral of 1/r^2 is -1/r, so (wr)^2 - [GM/r] eval from r to Inf = - [GM/R] eval from R to Inf or (wr)^2 + GM/r = GM/R What is cool about this is that it allows one to solve for r, the equatorial radius, in terms of R, the polar radius. The only problem is omega, w, the frequency of the Earth's rotation, which must be taken into account. We have w = 2pi/T (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_frequency) Now T is the period of the Earth's rotation, which is not quite 86,400 seconds because we must consider the sidereal day, not the solar day. This turns out to be 86,160 seconds, because it's four minutes a day different, or 4x60 = 240 seconds. Then 2pi/86160 is, by my calculator, 7.2924x10^-5 What is GM? G is 6.67 x 10^-11, and the Earth's mass is M = 6x10^24 kg approximately. When I do it carefully, I get GM = 3.9885 x 10^14, using values I found online. So then the equation (wr)^2 + GM/r = GM/R becomes w^2Rr^3 - 2GMr + 2RGM = 0 which is unfortunately a cubic. Nonetheless, some calculators and some on-line programs solve it. The answer is, alas, r = 6368000 meters only, not the hoped for 6378 km. Lee P.S. Here is an intermediate step in the above calculation: 6.2742x10^7 = 3.9885x10^14/r + 5.318x10^-9xr^2 / 2 From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Nov 2 05:23:55 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:23:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction References: Message-ID: <049501c6fe3f$1b8f03b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > In all seriousness (this time) I spent some time a few years ago > exploring postmodernism. I performed this study with the goal of > understanding a worldview outside of my direct experience and outside my > comfort zone, so as to better understand, relate and communicate with > others who share my world, if not my understanding of it. > > My study was limited to research on the web, some representative > books[1], interaction with a certain assistant professor of rhetoric ... > [1] Some relevant books from my exploration of postmodernist thinking: > > _How We Became Posthuman_ by Katherine Hayles That was very good, though it has been too many years since I read it, and I ought to go back and look at it again. As for a good introduction to postmodernism that seems to make sense to those of us who come from the sciences is "On Deconstruction" by Jonathan Culler. Everyone I know who's read it agrees that it's a great intro to this mess. Lee > _Representations of the Post-Human_ by Elaine Graham > _Metal and Flesh_ by Joel Slayton > _The Postmodern Adventure, Science, Technology, and Cultural Studies at > the Third Millennium_ by Steven Best, Douglas Kellner > > (I think there was a second book by Best and Kellner but I can't find it > in my library right now and I've run out of time to look.) > > - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Nov 2 05:39:43 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:39:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] 415 for lectgure In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061101224505.021f6888@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200611020541.kA25fpZg015120@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:49 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] 415 for lectgure > > At 08:11 PM 11/1/2006 -0800, spike wrote: > > >I don't like having perfectly good math terms gobbled by Google. > > What math term has Google gobbled? Map? Sign? Groups? Hey, I can > throw a googol of them at ya. > > Damien Broderick Google gobbled the goofed version of googol. Many mathmeisters are not meticulous masters of linguistic mechanics. {8^D Good catch Damien. I saw the term google so often, I had forgotten how to spell 10^100. I retract my Google accusation, with apologies to the non-evil corporation. The scary part is that Damien actually trusted me to proofread one of his books, oy. {8^D spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Nov 2 05:54:17 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:54:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] 415 for lectgure References: <200611020541.kA25fpZg015120@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <04a201c6fe43$5e637c80$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike writes > Google gobbled the goofed version of googol. Many mathmeisters are not > meticulous masters of linguistic mechanics. > > {8^D > > Good catch Damien. I saw the term google so often, I had forgotten how to > spell 10^100. > > I retract my Google accusation, with apologies to the non-evil corporation. No, it was still evil. Or ignorant. The whole world has been and will go on mispelling 10^100 thanks to them. They ought to have chosen something different for their browser. I'm afraid to google for googleplex. :-( Lee From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Nov 2 06:01:43 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:01:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Juicy Classical Physics Problem InvolvingGravitational Potential In-Reply-To: <046a01c6fe3d$3a108860$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200611020603.kA263quT012311@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > Subject: [extropy-chat] Juicy Classical Physics Problem > InvolvingGravitational Potential > > First of all, a clock at the Earth's north pole runs *exactly* at the same > rate as does one on the equator. Did you know that? Yet the polar radius > is about 13 miles less than the equatorial radius... > Lee ... Thanks Lee, this is so cool! spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Nov 2 06:03:44 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:03:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 415 for lectgure In-Reply-To: <04a201c6fe43$5e637c80$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200611020541.kA25fpZg015120@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <04a201c6fe43$5e637c80$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061102000316.02272900@satx.rr.com> At 09:54 PM 11/1/2006 -0800, Lee wrote: >I'm afraid to google for googleplex. It's a place, Lee, not a number. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Nov 2 06:12:22 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:12:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061031105302.021c3850@satx.rr.com><4547AB5F.5060608@ramonsky.com> <043e01c6fd8a$cc9aa980$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <04ae01c6fe45$e5b91b70$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Heartland writes > Lee [wrote] > > "It's a small point, but remember that you *do* succeed in some fraction of > > universes, if, that is, you follow the Holy MWI, Everitt, and his prophet Deutsch: > > > > La ilaha ila Everett; Deutsch-rasul Everett. (The Korbin)" > > > > That's easily the funniest thing I've read on this list. :) ("The Korbin" - LOL!) Thanks, but you'll only encourage me. By Jove, I think I'll start a new religion! Ron Hubbard did, and (as he predicted) got rich. The name of the new religion will be I S L A M E What does "Islame" mean, you ask? It means "sublimation". This will further the study of chemistry, a noble science. We worship at the shrine of Everett, with David Deutsch as our holy profit. Now the only hard part will be to convince Deutsch to co-author "The Korbin" with me: the holy book must have the Prophet at least as one of the authors. It will consist of all my email posts to Extropians, ordered from the longest to the shortest. Each is called a "yessirah!". Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Nov 2 06:17:15 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:17:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] 415 for lectgure References: <200611020541.kA25fpZg015120@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <04a201c6fe43$5e637c80$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20061102000316.02272900@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <04b401c6fe46$ad364a60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien writes > At 09:54 PM 11/1/2006 -0800, Lee wrote: > >>I'm afraid to google for googleplex. > > It's a place, Lee, not a number. You're quite right--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googleplex It's a few miles away in Mountain View and I've driven past it many, many times. It's a feature attraction in Google Earth. Perhaps unconsciously I refused to accept YET ANOTHER MATH TERM DESTROYED BY THESE INFIDELS. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Nov 2 06:20:16 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:20:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism as slippery slope References: <200611020411.kA24B5XQ018796@mail0.rawbw.com> Message-ID: <04ba01c6fe47$193ed880$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mark Steyn is the most articulate person I've ever heard. I'll print this article out right now and read it. Thanks, Spike. Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "spike" To: "'Lee Corbin'" ; "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:08 PM Subject: transhumanism as slippery slope > Macleans reviews the book America Alone by Mark Steyn: > > http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898 > > The following comment caught my eye: > > ...As the most advanced society with the most advanced demographic crisis, > Japan seems likely to be the first jurisdiction to embrace robots and > cloning and embark on the slippery slope to transhumanism... > > spike From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Nov 2 06:27:35 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:27:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) Message-ID: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > Where is it logically shown that all persons must > have unique identity? The classical definition of 'identity' in logic is found in the second-order statement quantifying over objects (x, y) and properties of objects (P): AxAy[(x = y) <-> AP(Px <-> Py)] Literally: for all objects x and y, x is y if and only if for all properties P, P is a property of x if and only if P is a property of y. More simply: x is y just in case every property of x is a property of y and vice versa. Now, given the logical definition of 'identity', if there is a perfect copy of my brain with all its encoded contents and possible states, that copy still lacks at least: (1) the property of being 'the original', (2) the property of being in the location that the original is, and (3) the property of being encoded on the physical substrate that the original is encoded on. Ergo, there exists at least one property that the original has but the copy lacks, and thus, by the definition of 'identity', any claim that "the original = the copy" is false. QED > Slawomir, A and B are symbols representing > antecedent and consequent in the form of a > syllogism. The particulars don't matter if the > form is logically invalid. > In this particular case, A->B corresponds to the > statement "any person is defined by values, beliefs > and memories". This does not imply the statement > B->A corresponding to "any values, beliefs and > memories define a person" because not all values, > beliefs and memories are associated with any given > person. It's not symmetrical. By denoting 'Any person', your statement "Any person is defined by values, beliefs and memories" *quantifies* over the set of all people. So the proposed formula of propositional logic 'A->B' is not an indicated model. The statement instead points to a quantified model in predicate logic, something more like: "For all x, if x is a person, then x is defined by values, beliefs and memories." Consider also, in that statement you quantify over the set of all people, but in your interpretation of its converse 'B->A' you quantify over the set of all values, beliefs, and memories, saying: "Any values, beliefs and memories define a person." Apart from my previous observation about 'identity', I'm not taking a side in all aspects of the discussion, but it might be helpful to explicitly articulate the analytic model you're proposing. ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "A proposition can be true or false only in virtue of being a picture of reality." - Wittgenstein ____________________________________________________________________________________ We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups (http://groups.yahoo.com) From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 08:53:43 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 03:53:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calorie Restriction: "robust life extension" ? In-Reply-To: <20061101161314.44466.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061101161314.44466.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 11/1/06, Ian Goddard wrote: > "'The preliminary indicators are that we're looking at a robust life > extension in the [calorie] restricted animals,' Dr. Weindruch said." I know Richard, and he is a good scientist. He and I however have quite different definitions of the term "robust". Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 10:10:13 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 05:10:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction In-Reply-To: References: <380-22006113102444113@M2W040.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 10/31/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > If I were asked this in a personal sense, although not, of course, in the > person of Derrida, but rather, as one who might have a sense of some aspect > of being that is Derrida, I might answer that it is in large part > unknowable, but in some small part I could say that the crossover, however > small, gathers meaning from the context of the question, and the questioner. > [snip] > Being unfamiliar with Derrida (and much "philosopy" for that matter [I know a little about Chomsky]) I briefly scanned his Wikipedia entry. One thing I wondered (given how long his entry is) is *why* do people care so much about this stuff? As a total aside, when one gets into these "transhumanist" vs. "postmodernist", vs. xyzzy-ist "type" discussions, I am struck by some of the similarities between fields like philosophy and computer science. For example programmers can have long and passionate debates over the relative merits of C++ vs. Perl vs. Python vs. Java (and don't even mention Lisp or Smalltalk). One difference between computer science and philosophy is that in the former the discussions can rely on some generally agreed upon definitions that mean the same thing to everyone. In the later I'm less sure that that is the case. With computers a 1 is a 1, a 0 is a 0, an "and" and an "or" are certain things you can do with them. With philopsophy, at least at some levels, those things are still being defined and debated. It seems that much of the discussion originated before any modern hunderstanding of what the brain is and how it works (neuroscience) which in turn is developing in parallel with the understanding of the hardware itself (molecular and genomic biology). With philosophers, not only do you have this *huge* body of knowledge, represented by relatively nondeterministic and highly unique neural patterns but its running on top of hardware (genetic polymorphisms) which may have sufficient differences that it may be relatively impossible for the individuals to "think" the same way. In computer science one would look at it and say its simple -- machine X executes the X instruction set and machine Y executes the Y instruction set and there is no way that either of them is ever going to execute each other's instructions [1]. The best you can do is create sort of an abstraction (which is what higher level languages are) that let machine X and machine Y accomplish specific tasks in their own way. One has to wonder if the entire area of philosophy is nothing more than a complex variation of this. It will be interesting to see how philosophy deals with differences in genetic polymorphisms and neural structures that explain precisely why Chomsky could never have understood Derrida, why a postmodernist can never understand a humanist, etc. Robert 1. One could consider spoken languages, written languages and perhaps cultures to be parallels to computer languages and computer instruction sets -- but they are *so* much less precise that one would wonder whether people not educated in computer science (presumably most philosophers) can even begin to comprehend the degree to which they are communicating with play-doh? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 11:29:42 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 06:29:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism as slippery slope In-Reply-To: <200611020411.kA24B9jw001186@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <03fa01c6fd7e$24112d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200611020411.kA24B9jw001186@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 11/1/06, spike wrote: > Macleans reviews the book America Alone by Mark Steyn: > > > http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134 > 898 > Works better when the URL isn't munged by the mailer (:-|). http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898 It is interesting given the pessimistic analysis of the demography of an Islamic population in Europe that there is a counterbalancing trend in the U.S. which is the continual immigration from Mexico and Latin America (Catholics vs. Islam). The open question remains whether we (the leading edge) will simply choose to emigrate (to the oceans, to the ocean floors, to Antarctica, to outer space)? Leave the planet to the believers -- just as we leave parts of Pennsylvania to the Amish, parts of Maine to the Shakers, etc. So the jihad takes over Europe -- its a small fraction of the planet. It is interesting that the concept is about one tribe controlling real estate or political systems or perhaps nuclear weapons -- rather than about energy or technology. If you take into account the land area of places like Russia, Canada and Australia (with relatively small Islamic population fractions and less than open arms immigration polices) then one perhaps sees over the next 30-50 years is shift of perhaps 10-20% of the land area being under Islamic control to something like 20-30%. The larger countries more distant from Mecca have sufficient energy resources (once they get off the oil addiction) that they can adopt a Japanese solution to the near term demographic crisis (avoiding the path the Europeans have chosen). The analysis also doesn't seem to appreciate how biotech and/or nanotech and/or robotics (or AI) completely change this analysis [1]. The only question might be what happens if we get Catholic or Islamic AIs? R. 1. The European's don't need to allow the immigration they currently allow if biotechnology extends healthy lifespan and the elderly choose to return to work (rather than be a burden on the state) or if nanotechnology makes need for state support unnecessary or if robots replace the functions performed by immigrants (or some combination of these). The picture painted is *only* a done deal assuming societies remain organized as they currently are. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu Nov 2 08:23:08 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 03:23:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) Message-ID: <20061102082308.30427.qmail@web37204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Tue Oct 31, Jef Albright wrote: >So you appear to be saying that it follows from (1) >that a set of values, beliefs and memories >distributed throughout a set of persons is equivalent >to a set of values, beliefs, and memories associated >with a single person. Again this would be the >fallacy of the undistributed middle. I can't seem to grasp this dispute. I believe that there have been very minor groups that have set values, beliefs and memories and that have historically changed the meme belief but I don't recall reading that "one" particular "single person" ever changed anything. Am I not understanding the conversation? Please let me know. Just curious, thanks Anna:) "It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf." -- Walter Lippman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu Nov 2 09:14:30 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 04:14:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [SK] Re: Just curious, it's not natural! Message-ID: <20061102091430.60569.qmail@web37208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anna wrote on Mon Oct 30: >>> >Why wouldn't the gay communities want their own >>> >word for their union and still keep the basic >>> >laws for spouse and marital? On 10/31/06, Terry Colvin forwarded: >> Maybe because they're forming a union, joined for >>life, and creatin a family -- so there's a perfectly >>good word for that already in existence. That word is already taken. It describes the "Union" between male and female. >>In any case, it's not "scriptural" -- the >>institution predates and is independent of any >>particular scripture. No. Laws are institutions that predate. If gays want to be married, I again will repeat, I have no problem with that. I believe they should have every right to the same benefits and laws as a "married" couple should have but I think it should be defined by a different word. >>>I can't pressume to understand the relationship >>>between 2 men or 2 women and who am I to judge what >>>"Union" they want but as a heterosexual woman, >>>don't I have every right to keep word "marriage"?. >> Sure you do. Your marriage won't suddenly become >>a "flerm" just because someone else got married. Did >>all heterosexual marriages suddenly change somehow >>in 1989, when Denmark recognized gay marriage? It's not about recognizing gay marriage. I have the upmost respect for gays, I would never disrespect any choice of sexual behavior unless it violates rights. I feel using the word "marriage" as a symbol of the union between 2 men or 2 women violates my right as a heterosexual female. Why is that so wrong? >> What you don't necessarily have is the right to >>deny the word to other people. Why? If the word had already been established, why wouldn't I have the right to keep it just the way it is? The "Union" between man and woman. What I don't understand is why the gay community would not choose to represent itself as a self-sufficient member of society and choose a word that describes what their future "union" may one day represent. I am aware that most don't believe in the sanction of a woman and a man. That's their choice. I do. Not the laws, not the piece of paper but the choice to want to procreate with somebody and evolve as humans. It's not my scenario, at the present time, but I do believe that it should be a right and that "right" is the term defined by the word "marriage". Just an opinion. Anna __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Nov 2 15:52:24 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:52:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTICLE: AnOtherMan Magazine Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061102094131.04b26078@pop-server.austin.rr.com> My article on the transhuman man ("The Perfecting of Man") is now available in the high-gloss "AnOtherMan" magazine (UK). In a few days the website most likely will have all the articles available to read; but you can look at the magazine here: http://www.anotherman.co.uk/issue1/index.html Sorry for the late notice for anyone in the UK who wants to look at it, but I just received my copies. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Nov 2 16:01:28 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:01:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 415 for lectgure In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061101224505.021f6888@satx.rr.com> References: <380-2200611422705@M2W009.mail2web.com> <200611020413.kA24DnaZ005731@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061101224505.021f6888@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061102095941.04c106c0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> >Spike and Damien ... > > >I don't like having perfectly > >good math terms gobbled by Google. > >What math term has Google gobbled? Map? Sign? Groups? Hey, I can >throw a googol of them at ya. hahaha! hahah. LOL! Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Nov 2 16:50:15 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 08:50:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <20061102082308.30427.qmail@web37204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anna - > I can't seem to grasp this dispute. I believe that there have been > very minor groups that have set values, beliefs and memories and that > have historically changed the meme belief but I don't recall reading > that "one" particular "single person" ever changed anything. Am I not > understanding the conversation? Please let me know. No, you are not understanding that conversation. (By the way, your English writing keeps getting better and better. It's amazing to me.) My point in that conversation was the use of valid logic. It so happens that I didn't fully agree with any of the assertions being made. I don't agree that persons, in the very general sense of independent agents, are well defined by their "values, beliefs, and memories", but I wasn't supporting or denying that assertion. My point was that Heartland makes invalid logical inferences almost continually when he argues for his belief regarding survival of a person based on his concept of "a unique trajectory through space-time of the physical constituents of the mind-producing process". My concern is that we strive to maintain fairly high standards on the extropy list such that people will tend to stick around for intelligent and stimulating discussions. Many of us feel that repetition and circular argument degrade the quality of the list, so I made the effort to highlight some examples and I provided key terms for anyone interested to google for further information. Those terms include "affirming the consequent", "denying the antecedent", "circular reasoning", "logical fallacy". Wikipedia has some good concise descriptions of these, but the writing style may be a little too academic for the general reader. I'm sure that other pages exist with plenty of good examples of logical fallacies, in particular the fallacy of circular reasoning. Note again that I was not arguing here for or against any particular assertion; only for clarity and logical coherence. ---------------------------------------- As to the substance of your intended question, there are those who think (or feel) that a person is necessarily unique. That is certainly our observation to date, and that is certainly our personal experience. We certainly feel unique and we don't seem to have any examples in normal life that contradict this. Furthermore, our linguistic idioms and our culture strongly reinforce the idea of unique identity and make it difficult to imagine or discuss alternatives without very careful attention to our use of the linguistic symbols by which we represent our thoughts. But with advancing technologies we can imagine situations where the usual, common-sense order may be disrupted, and since this is the extropy list, we explore and discuss these ideas. [Actually this occurs in cycles as new people join the list. [It would be highly desirable to have an easily accessible repository of these ideas and arguments, but that's another project.] So, for example, we talk about what it would mean if/when we could make exact physical duplicates of a person, and what it really means to be a person in a broader than common sense. Philosophers have been dealing with the question of personal identity for thousands of years already. Anyone seriously interested in discussing the topic should be familiar with previous thinking including "ship of Theseus", Max More's thesis on the "diachronic self", and Derek Parfit's _Reasons and Persons_ in order to avoid rehashing. Buddhist thinking adds another perspective as it shows why even the concept of an individual self may be incoherent within any reasonably broad context. And of course there are many works of fiction that explore this idea in an inspiring but less than rigorous manner. Two things about this topic remain interesting to me: (1) Even after people have become quite familiar with the logical arguments, they tend to stay with whatever belief *feels* right to them. This has immense implications for effective decision-making under accelerating change, and so is of increasingly practical importance to our lives and well-being. (2) Some people have "moved up" beyond the common-sense description of personal identity to embrace the broader "patternist" definition but have yet to embrace an even more general description based on agency rather than physical/functional similarity. In my opinion this is where our thinking graduates from the "aha, it should be possible" stage to the more practical level of how we might deal with the social and moral ramifications of multiple instances of a personal identity. Anna, as usual I've packed too much into too few paragraphs. If you have questions after googling the search terms I've suggested, let me (or others) know. I'll do my best to respond on or offlist as appropriate for list quality. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Nov 2 17:02:20 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:02:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Ian - Unfortunately, this discussion became fragmented, with the result that it might appear that I was arguing a point of view, when actually I was arguing only for the use of valid logic. I don't in fact believe that a person is fully and effectively defined by their values, beliefs and memories. I think that a more general and useful definition rests on the concept of shared agency, regardless of physical form and function. As to your point about the rigorous meaning of identity, I fully agree. That being said, within the topic of "personal identity" we are specifically allowing for the case when two objects, recognized as persons, appear to be *effectively* the same within a given context. - Jef -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 10:28 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) Jef Allbright wrote: > Where is it logically shown that all persons must have unique > identity? The classical definition of 'identity' in logic is found in the second-order statement quantifying over objects (x, y) and properties of objects (P): AxAy[(x = y) <-> AP(Px <-> Py)] Literally: for all objects x and y, x is y if and only if for all properties P, P is a property of x if and only if P is a property of y. More simply: x is y just in case every property of x is a property of y and vice versa. Now, given the logical definition of 'identity', if there is a perfect copy of my brain with all its encoded contents and possible states, that copy still lacks at least: (1) the property of being 'the original', (2) the property of being in the location that the original is, and (3) the property of being encoded on the physical substrate that the original is encoded on. Ergo, there exists at least one property that the original has but the copy lacks, and thus, by the definition of 'identity', any claim that "the original = the copy" is false. QED > Slawomir, A and B are symbols representing antecedent and consequent > in the form of a syllogism. The particulars don't matter if the form > is logically invalid. > In this particular case, A->B corresponds to the statement "any person > is defined by values, beliefs and memories". This does not imply the > statement > B->A corresponding to "any values, beliefs and > memories define a person" because not all values, beliefs and memories > are associated with any given person. It's not symmetrical. By denoting 'Any person', your statement "Any person is defined by values, beliefs and memories" *quantifies* over the set of all people. So the proposed formula of propositional logic 'A->B' is not an indicated model. The statement instead points to a quantified model in predicate logic, something more like: "For all x, if x is a person, then x is defined by values, beliefs and memories." Consider also, in that statement you quantify over the set of all people, but in your interpretation of its converse 'B->A' you quantify over the set of all values, beliefs, and memories, saying: "Any values, beliefs and memories define a person." Apart from my previous observation about 'identity', I'm not taking a side in all aspects of the discussion, but it might be helpful to explicitly articulate the analytic model you're proposing. ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "A proposition can be true or false only in virtue of being a picture of reality." - Wittgenstein ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups (http://groups.yahoo.com) _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Nov 2 17:03:09 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:03:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything (2nd try) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061102120259.03d2eee0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:59 AM 10/31/2006 -0800, Jef wrote: snip >While Scientology and Avatar promise (and deliver) growth within a >limited, internal, context, they are dangerous because they restrict >growth beyond their own context. [I know, they have polished and >emotionally persuasive arguments to the contrary.] I don't know that much about Avatar except it is a scientology splinter like EST/Landmark. But I do know scientology and a *long* list of former scientologists. The main psychological mechanism used by scientology and (as far as I know, *all* cults) is a perversion of attention reward. In the stone age, people got attention for activity that fed the tribe or otherwise improved genetic survival for self and kin. Over evolutionary time attention became extremely rewarding. It is still a good part of the drive that makes Nobel prize winners. But cults pervert it with "empty" attention, such as scientology "auditing." I wrote a lengthy article you can find with sex drugs cults in Google or here: http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html (Google claims 11,800 links on that article.) >Buddhism, on the other hand (if you can escape the traditional >trappings), provides similar benefits of realization while insisting on >openness to the greater, external context. L. Ron and Harry Palmer >might say (as did Buddha) that "it's not about me", but the Buddha never >insisted on secrecy and payments. Scientology gets huge amounts of money out of people (essentially for releasing brain chemicals with the same effect as addictive drugs). They spend a lot of it harassing the media and people like me who try to expose them. (Google my name and look at the Wikipedia page about my adventures with the clam cult.) They have spent upwards of a million, on me by their own admission. Keith Henson From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Nov 2 17:46:27 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:46:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert - I took a chance with my perceived credibility by writing an opening paragraph parodying the style of Derrida. It contained virtually zero direct content, but many allusions to profundity. I received offlist comments that were *very* appreciative of the humor, but I'm afraid others may have taken a quick look and thought something like "there's Jef being inscrutable again." As I said to Natasha, I spent some considerable time looking into postmodernism, for the purpose of understanding, relating, and better communicating with those who view the world from that mindset. Over the years I have taken a similar approach to understanding beliefs about Christianity, other religions, Buddhism, other philosophies, paganism, parapsychology, occult practices, drug use and abuse and other less than rational areas. Hell, a few days ago, I spent a half hour in conversation with a clearly deranged homeless person camping in a public park. Our conversation was almost entirely bereft of substance, but I came away with a deeper understanding of his world. But back to postmodernism. My bottom-line and crude assessment is that postmodernism represents essentially a bottomless pit of navel-gazing, mental masturbation and academic in-fighting. I think Derrida did have a valuable point about the contextual relativity of meaning and how the contextual sphere extends to the reader and even beyond, and quite probably he made some other good points, but the [IMHO] self-inflicted vagueness and obfuscation makes it an anti-extropic use of time. And let's not forget the Sokal hoax as another important indicator on this topic. It reminds me of certain forms of "abstract" art which some people (by virtue of their "sophistication") will find to be very profound, while others may observe that this says more about the person and society than it does about the actual work of art We should also recognize that there is a certain response in the brain that can trigger a very real sense of awe and profundity regardless of the stimulus providing any real substantial content. Examples include feelings of profound significance induced by drugs, directed intercranial magnetic fields, epileptic fits, hormonal fluctuations or even the hypnotic influence of being part of a large crowd. That said, I value very highly the freedom of individuals to follow these paths, I appreciate the diversity generated by such "unproductive" efforts, and I trust that overall, that which is more effective will tend to persist and grow to our benefit. - Jef ________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 2:10 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction On 10/31/06, Jef Allbright wrote: If I were asked this in a personal sense, although not, of course, in the person of Derrida, but rather, as one who might have a sense of some aspect of being that is Derrida, I might answer that it is in large part unknowable, but in some small part I could say that the crossover, however small, gathers meaning from the context of the question, and the questioner. [snip] Being unfamiliar with Derrida (and much "philosopy" for that matter [I know a little about Chomsky]) I briefly scanned his Wikipedia entry. One thing I wondered (given how long his entry is) is *why* do people care so much about this stuff? As a total aside, when one gets into these "transhumanist" vs. "postmodernist", vs. xyzzy-ist "type" discussions, I am struck by some of the similarities between fields like philosophy and computer science. For example programmers can have long and passionate debates over the relative merits of C++ vs. Perl vs. Python vs. Java (and don't even mention Lisp or Smalltalk). One difference between computer science and philosophy is that in the former the discussions can rely on some generally agreed upon definitions that mean the same thing to everyone. In the later I'm less sure that that is the case. With computers a 1 is a 1, a 0 is a 0, an "and" and an "or" are certain things you can do with them. With philopsophy, at least at some levels, those things are still being defined and debated. It seems that much of the discussion originated before any modern hunderstanding of what the brain is and how it works (neuroscience) which in turn is developing in parallel with the understanding of the hardware itself (molecular and genomic biology). With philosophers, not only do you have this *huge* body of knowledge, represented by relatively nondeterministic and highly unique neural patterns but its running on top of hardware (genetic polymorphisms) which may have sufficient differences that it may be relatively impossible for the individuals to "think" the same way. In computer science one would look at it and say its simple -- machine X executes the X instruction set and machine Y executes the Y instruction set and there is no way that either of them is ever going to execute each other's instructions [1]. The best you can do is create sort of an abstraction (which is what higher level languages are) that let machine X and machine Y accomplish specific tasks in their own way. One has to wonder if the entire area of philosophy is nothing more than a complex variation of this. It will be interesting to see how philosophy deals with differences in genetic polymorphisms and neural structures that explain precisely why Chomsky could never have understood Derrida, why a postmodernist can never understand a humanist, etc. Robert 1. One could consider spoken languages, written languages and perhaps cultures to be parallels to computer languages and computer instruction sets -- but they are *so* much less precise that one would wonder whether people not educated in computer science (presumably most philosophers) can even begin to comprehend the degree to which they are communicating with play-doh? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Nov 2 19:02:00 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:02:00 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061102124441.021ac220@satx.rr.com> At 09:46 AM 11/2/2006 -0800, Jef wrote: >My bottom-line and crude assessment is that postmodernism represents >essentially a bottomless pit of navel-gazing, mental masturbation >and academic in-fighting. The last-mentioned is crucial, especially when parsed as "ladder-climbing" (into the professoriate). One should not underestimate the sheer combative brilliance and mental agility of the best deconstructors, the capacity to take a stone and wring not just water but sparkling fountains of multi-colored streams from it, all without getting wet. For those who can bear it, here's a bit from my book THEORY AND ITS DISCONTENTS, which might convey something of the texture of the process. Damien Broderick ====== The pun is mightier than the word/s. Don't quibble. (A quibble, the dictionary tells us, is a pun. The shortest distance between two puns is a straight-line.) Still--and one recalls Steiner's preference for author over critic--both New Critic W. K. Wimsat and deconstructor Howard Felperin borrow as epigraph this radiant fragment from Kafka: "Leopards break into the temple and drink to the dregs what is in the sacrificial pitchers; this is repeated over and over again; finally it can be calculated in advance, and it becomes a part of the ceremony." Post-structuralists (especially the patriarchal prophets, hovering always on the edge of glossolalia: Lacan, Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard) burst into the temple. They savage the canon. They mark it with their reeking urine. They desecrate sheets and signatures. In time their terrifying charisma is stolen by bureaucrats, routinised and institutionalised (the grinding verbs fill their own forms). Aporia indeed. Perhaps the most poignant paradox is how conscientious, how hard-working and scholarly, these high-wire gamesters are. Are they the last of the Protestant-ethic anarchists, tutting at their obediently disobedient children cavorting in atrocious disinhibition? `By scrutinizing the words on the page harder than new criticism ever had,' Felperin writes, `deconstruction discovered not their translucent and free-standing autonomy but, in a radical defamiliarization, their dark, even opaque, character as writing... not the organic unity that binds together irony, paradox and ambiguity in a privileged, indeed redeemed and redeeming language, but unrecuperable rhetorical discontinuity' (p. 110). What, practically speaking, does this mean that is not obvious to anyone alert to modernist and postmodernist texts, from Brecht to Barth, David Caute to (ahem) my own novel Transmitters (1984)? Felperin sets out to Show by Doing not Telling, accepting a text pawed over in 1980, in a parody of deconstruction, by a hostile Denis Donoghue: Robert Frost's `Acquainted with the Night' (Felperin, pp. 115). Felperin confounds scorn with a learned display in the mode of Harold Bloom and Geoffrey Hartman (who, alas, balky Donoghue would not agree are the genuine deconstructive article). In the end, a `Derridean' reading is essayed (`actually a rewriting of an inspired reading by my colleague Dr Simon During... very much a palimpsest of intertextuality' [fn. 21, p. 129]) in which Frost's terza rima `means' virtually anything but what it says. " `I have been one acquainted with the night,' the poem confesses, but for During this is a cover-up, and when `an interrupted cry... came over houses from another street, /But not to call me back or say good-by;' this doubt is confirmed. Frost's text is, plainly, refusing the ghosts of unborn, repressed texts: it is, at a deeper level, `acquainted with delight'. The cry does not not say good-by, but actually not not say `"you'll die" '. And so on. `The controlled, formal, fully socialised language of the poem is at once concealing and revealing the libidinous energy behind or beneath its care and caution... What such a "reading" ultimately deconstructs of course is any possible recuperation of the text as a unitary utterance' " (p. 128). Aaron Green, the 46-year-old New York Freudian who Virgils Janet Malcolm through her writing of Psychoanalysis: the Impossible Profession, made distressing discoveries of his own during training analysis. `"Well, I'll be frank. It's the desire to be a beautiful woman. You find all kinds of surprises in analysis... It bothered me, I can tell you." ' (Malcolm, 1982, p. 57). Felperin's long and quite enthralling full-dress analysis of Shakespeare's Sonnets bothered me, I can tell you. But just as we dispute with Freud only at the risk of unseemly revelations, the reader (I am not trying to get away) stands under some pressure to applaud or grin or even yawn in the face of such funambulating gymnastics. Felperin throws out a line at the last instant: " `Therefore I lie with her and she with me, /And in our faults by lies we flattered be.' The point cannot be made too strongly, however, against those textualists and grammatologists who would like to proclaim the end of representation, that representation does not, because it cannot, cease. What ceases is the dream of univocal representation, which now becomes multivocal, in something of the way the Roman Empire does not so much cease as become Europe. [The deconstructed text arises] from the hyperactivity of the pun... generating numerous objective correlatives." (Felperin, p. 197) Behind and about each poem and fiction, then (but also, presumably, shadowing each scientific text as well), drift or loom the shades of other texts, just as Saussurean language, deconstructed still further by Lacan and Derrida, is made of floating signifiers and sliding signifieds. For much of his life, like the elder Newton scratching at alchemy and astrology, Ferdinand de Saussure searched the poems of antiquity for nominal anagrams he felt certain were secreted there. James Thurber's friend Jordon made a similar discovery and kept everyone awake all night: `There are lips in pistol /And mist in times, /Cats in crystal, /And mice in chimes' (Thurber, 1961, p. 104). "What if the poem is always already the writerly foreknowledge... of all possible readerly or critical constructions or misprisions of it?... These other poems are not, strictly speaking, `readings' or interpretations that offer themselves to particular critics or poets in particular contexts at particular times.... They are other poems that this poem writes and erases in a single moment, writes and erases in a moment of fear and desire: fear of being what they are, and desire to be what they are." (Felperin, pp. 127 8) The upshot of this desperate polyphonic ingenuity seems inevitably to be an abstention from action or commitment (Marxism and other `contextualist' doctrines having been subverted at source by their vulnerable status as texts). It is not only `contextualists' who collapse under this onslaught, of course; so too do the deconstructors themselves. Luckily, theory is at hand with one last reversal of expectations. Literary studies is an academic discipline, after all, within a certified interpretative community. It must `offer its reasons for saying and doing what it does, reasons which will be deemed valid or invalid, embraced or rejected, only according to the norms of the historical community within which they are offered' (Felperin, p. 222). Remarkable. When the Bakhtinian carnival has left town, those who remain turn regretfully from the empty, elephant-dung spattered fairground and press their suits for work. While it cannot--despite the rear-view mirror of a Las Meninas--give us sight in the blindspots of our own episteme (implicit in the social construction of our splintered, only-apparently unitary selves), `this counsel of liberal scepticism--some would call it pragmatism,' spares us any intemperate plunge into `some monistic and overarching theory of theories.' The best we can hope for, `beyond deconstruction', is a cross-disciplinary Pidgin in which, given the vulgar mercantile reality of life, `the new tribe of literacy [sic; literary?] theorists, more multinational and entrepreneurial in spirit, will negotiate their mergers and puff their products...' (p. 222 3). Glossolalia has a long tradition in religion and the academy both. An innovator makes her mark as much by introducing a fresh lexicon as by convincing us of her startling point of view, her barrage of surprising evidence. Often this cascade of jargon is altogether justified, and cannot be avoided: we think with words, and new words, even new syntax, help us to think new things. But that very fact makes us vulnerable to its abuse. The generosity we evince toward those who offer us a renewed discourse should not be allowed to blur into the delirious enthusiasm, captured rather aptly in Mark 16:17-18, of modish converts: `And these signs shall follow them that believe... they shall speak with new tongues... and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them...' Swallowing a dram of Heidegger, Baudrillard and their ululating poststructural followers may very easily teach you the use of new tongues but is likely, for all that, to leave you (as Althusser's odd Marxism did for many theorists a decade or two back) with a nasty hangover. From jonkc at att.net Thu Nov 2 18:52:51 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:52:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. References: <000401c6fdd7$934e3550$860a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <001401c6feb0$3623c190$05094e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > When will you understand that "life" is not an adjective but a noun So you believe that when someone dies something must go away. The name of that something is the soul. I know you'd prefer a more scientifically sounding word but that doesn't change the fact it's the same idea. I think that is nonsense, I believe the difference between a 180 pound man and a corpse is not that something has gone away but that something has changed in that 180 pounds of protoplasm, it's organized differently and so requires a different adjective. And to answer your question, I will believe in the soul when my IQ declines to double digits due to Alzheimer's disease. > here's a quick observation that might help you. > 1kg + 1kg != 1kg. Big + Big = Big Me: >>let me ask you a very simple question: do you believe the Heartland of >>yesterday has continued into today? You: > I guess in your language that would translate to "yes." So if somehow you knew you'd feel the same way tomorrow there would be no reason to fear you'd die today. I'd be willing to parachute over Niagara Falls blindfolded in a barrel full of snakes. > I might also add for the millionth time that what *I think* has absolutely > no influence on *what I am* Absolutely none? Not even a little? Are you sure? Oh sorry, I shouldn't have asked that last question, what you think doesn't matter. So if you had all my thoughts and none of your own it still wouldn't change what you are. If you had no thoughts at all it still wouldn't change what you are as long as the proper rituals had been performed on the sacred original atoms. You don't think it matters if you think you're alive or dead, thinking doesn't matter, all that matters is matter. As for me, I call someone who is incapable of thought dead and I don't give a damn about his idiot atoms. One last thing, if you decide to respond to this send me your ORIGINAL E mail. For all I know you may actually agree with me because I've never seen an original from you and all the E mail copies floating around on the net have a different identity. John K Clark From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Nov 2 19:37:21 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:37:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye Message-ID: <25455990.52161162496240993.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >--- BillK wrote: >> The 'righteous rectum' is probably the 'colossal >> colon' that tours round the US. >> The Avantguardian wrote: >Only in America, folks. So I was wondering, would you >call that a "turd's eye view"? ;) You bet your ass only in America. The Mall of America, in Minneapolis, MN, to be precise. From our Christmas Card, 2003: http://www.russellrukin.co.uk/tempimages/2003%201%20of%203.JPG http://www.russellrukin.co.uk/tempimages/2003%202%20of%203.JPG [Thanks Russell for finding a temporary home to send them to!] My personal favorite is my daughter posing prettily next to external hemmoroids! PJ From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 21:08:15 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:08:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything In-Reply-To: <04ae01c6fe45$e5b91b70$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061031105302.021c3850@satx.rr.com> <4547AB5F.5060608@ramonsky.com> <043e01c6fd8a$cc9aa980$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <04ae01c6fe45$e5b91b70$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240611021308u341c66beo3e84e8e5cdc89d24@mail.gmail.com> On 11/2/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > The name of the new religion will be > > I S L A M E > > Is Lame? Yes. The same problem the "Lame Ain't (an) MP3 Encoder" has, "If it's lame, why would we want it? Definately need a good name for your new religion, it's all about marketing you know... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Nov 2 22:46:32 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:46:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction Message-ID: <380-220061142224632968@M2W103.mail2web.com> Max left two papers on the breakfast table from me this morning: 1. "Postmodernism disrobed" by Richard Dawkins http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html and, 2. "The Broken House: The postsemanticist paradigm of discourse and textural objectivism" (on Baudrillardist hyperreality and dialectic desublimation) by John J.R. Scuglia, Department of English, Yale University. [Afraid I cannot give you a link to this one because it was created by the Postmodernism Generator (Bulhak) software which turns any muck into what Alan Sokal and Jean Briemont would call a m?lange of banal philosophical jargon. But it gave me a really great laugh! http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo "The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page." Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From velvethum at hotmail.com Fri Nov 3 00:01:07 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 19:01:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. References: <000401c6fdd7$934e3550$860a4e0c@MyComputer> <001401c6feb0$3623c190$05094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: S: >> When will you understand that "life" is not an adjective but a noun and "live" >> is a verb? Stop inventing arbitrary referents for clearly defined terms. John Clark: > So you believe that when someone dies something must go away. The name of > that something is the soul. Honestly, you must have graduated from Karl Rove's School of Spin. :) Last time I checked with people who believe this stuff souls were eternal and could exist in absence of physical implementation. I claim something completely opposite. No function/process/life can exist in absence of physical implementation and when the hardware that implements that function/process/life disintegrates, that function/process/life on that hardware ceases to exist. What's not to understand here? Your "patterns" are actually a lot more similar to souls in a sense that, when a body disintegrates, life (function/process) continues as if nothing happened *just because* the same brain pattern might exist in some other body. That's a quite a leap of faith, if you ask me, probably motivated by an overwhelming desire to make "afterlife" work at all cost. I know, it's hard to deal with inevitability of death, but at some point you have to realize that there's no such thing as afterlife. When you die, you stay dead, and no amount of "spin" can save you. John Clark: > I believe the difference between a 180 pound man and a > corpse is not that something has gone away but that something has changed in > that 180 pounds of protoplasm, it's organized differently and so requires a > different adjective. The important difference between a living person and a corpse is that they are "organized differently?" :) S: >> 1kg + 1kg != 1kg. John Clark: > Big + Big = Big So, according to you, a diamond is made up of letters "C" instead of atoms of carbon? Symbols are more important than material things they refer to? S: >> I might also add for the millionth time that what *I think* has absolutely >> no influence on *what I am* John Clark: > So if you had all > my thoughts and none of your own it still wouldn't change what you are. If you paint a white car black, will that cause the car to morph into a toaster oven? (The *function* of a car remains stable regardless of whether that function is produced by a black Toyota or white Honda. Get it?) John Clark: > If > you had no thoughts at all it still wouldn't change what you are Whoa, hold your horses. Who said something about having no thoughts? As usual, you're jumping to conclusions without knowing what you are referring to. (No, it's not "matter" you should be referring to.) John Clark: > as long as > the proper rituals had been performed on the sacred original atoms. You > don't think it matters if you think you're alive or dead, thinking doesn't > matter, all that matters is matter. Atoms don't matter! Any mind is a process (what I am) so the process is the only thing that matters. As long as this process continues to produce output it makes no difference *how and what* implements it. It might as well be falling dust, I don't care. Obviously that would make sense to you if you grasped what process is, let alone "instance of a process." Instead, you continue to substitute "process" with "atoms" and pretend to know exactly what I'm talking about. Slawomir From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Nov 2 23:50:19 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:50:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <03e801c6fd7b$9cb91da0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061102235019.83835.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Lee, Lee writes: "But people can be in two places at once, even though it seems uncanny to our evolutionarily derived notions of self. Nonetheless, once forking is a possibility (either after uploading or, less plausibly, via teleporters and copying machines), people will have to accustom themselves to the idea." Personally, I'm not ready to reject Slawomir's ideas and conceptions. But, in this particular example, I agree with you Lee. That the intricate weave of *consciousness* of a person can effectively "exist" at two places simultaneously. An easy and tangible example is the binocular vision of humans; where the two spatially separated eyes recieve separate data streams from different locations, are processed, and "emerge" in the same "conscious moment" as standard vision, complete with parralax and depth perception. Of course, it is not true simultaneity in a strict physical sense, but it does seem to be truly simultaneous "consciousness", if that makes any sense. Although, choosing to upload or teleport is still strongly causally linked. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Lee Corbin wrote: Jef writes > While I know of many who have asserted that one is effectively defined > or distinguished by ones values, beliefs and memories, I know of no one > (other than you) who has said that this implies values, beliefs and > memories could be independently distributed as you say. But to some extent, values, beliefs, and memories *can* be independently distributed, in the sense of being distributed among a set of causally independent running processes. The case of physical duplicates, or near physical duplicates, is what of course I have in mind. (I realize that some have already stated this.) But we have to consider sliding scales. If your own VBM overlap to a tremendous extent those of "another person", then it seems to me that indeed to that same extend you are that other person. Of course, infinite care is required here to avoid begging the question of what a "person" is. That is, I mean that two physically distinct and causally separate processes ought to be regarded as the same person under the right circumstances. (Heartland, of course, regards this as absolutely contrary to what is meant by a "person", who he invariably sees as totally incapable of being in two places at once.) But people can be in two places at once, even though it seems uncanny to our evolutionarily derived notions of self. Nonetheless, once forking is a possibility (either after uploading or, less plausibly, via teleporters and copying machines), people will have to accustom themselves to the idea. And if that's true, then sliding scales can apply: there could be two separately running instances X and Y such that I am logically compelled to identify with X to about a 20% level and Y to about a 60% level. (Concrete cases might be my own selves at ages 5 and 15 respectively, and future tech could allow contemporaneous execution.) Heartland or Jef writes (the attribution isn't so easy for some reason) >> (1) Note that this is logically consistent with what many of us have >> been saying; that there can be a gradient of personal identity and >> that there can be duplicates of personal identity. That is so, whoever wrote it. > But that's just like saying that 1 can also mean 2 or that "blue sky" > can sometimes be red. The words imply certain conditions you must follow > when assigning the referents. If you violate these conditions you're > just end up using a wrong referent for a word and, consequently, should > be using a different word. So, for example, there's no such thing as > "duplicates of personal identity" or a "gradient of personal identity" > just like there's no such thing as "two originals" or "23% of being > pregnant." Well, blue skies can indeed contain shades of red, and just why aren't there "duplicates of personal identity"? I may be missing your logical point. Also, why can't there be a "gradient of personal identity"? Surely one is a lot more the same person one was at age 15 than one was at age 5. What worries me about survival in particular is that as it stands I am alas turning into someone else slowly but surely. But more of than later, in a different response I hope. Lee _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 00:33:39 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:03:39 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye In-Reply-To: <200611020256.kA22ugXV022497@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20061101063839.51598.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <200611020256.kA22ugXV022497@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0611021633w1fa10ba1l8b2b32ff441483a0@mail.gmail.com> On 02/11/06, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye > > > > --- BillK wrote: > > > The 'righteous rectum' is probably the 'colossal > > > colon' that tours round the US. > > > > > > > > > "Coco," as the Colossal Colon(r) is affectionately > > > known, is a 40-foot > > > long, 4-foot tall oversized model of the human colon > > > that is designed > > > to educate about colorectal cancer and other > > > diseases of the colon. > > > Visitors who crawl through the Colossal Colon(r) . . . > > > > Only in America, folks. So I was wondering, would you > > call that a "turd's eye view"? ;) > > > > Stuart LaForge > > > Ja, I was thinking about the person who had to sell this idea to the > venture > capitalists or the board of directors. "We propose an educational tool: > an > enormous colon, that visitor's crawl through..." How would you like that > job? > > spike I wonder if someone did it as a bet or a dare (put forward the proposal). I would hire that person ;-) Emlyn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 00:56:35 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 19:56:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061102124441.021ac220@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061102124441.021ac220@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 11/2/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 09:46 AM 11/2/2006 -0800, Jef wrote: > > >My bottom-line and crude assessment is that postmodernism represents > >essentially a bottomless pit of navel-gazing, mental masturbation > >and academic in-fighting. > > The last-mentioned is crucial, especially when parsed as > "ladder-climbing" (into the professoriate). One should not > underestimate the sheer combative brilliance and mental agility of > the best deconstructors, the capacity to take a stone and wring not > just water but sparkling fountains of multi-colored streams from it, > all without getting wet. > > From my perspective... Jef expresses it Damien translates it. (though Jef's expressions were pretty clear). :-; The complexity of the human mind dicates that one can generate something from nothingness. It would be extopic to clearly label shit as shit. You may be wrong from a generalization perspective, But is that knowledge or are those procedures extropic? One can admire "generation", particularly "novel" generation -- it is the basis of much of "academia". The questions are whether it is productive or typical aspects of that thread? Inventing ideas is great. Inventing useless ideas isn't. How do you distinguish them? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Nov 3 01:04:26 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:04:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) Message-ID: <20061103010426.62496.qmail@web52611.mail.yahoo.com> John said to Heartland: > One last thing, if you decide to respond to this > send me your ORIGINAL E mail. For all I know you > may actually agree with me because I've never seen > an original from you and all the E mail copies > floating around on the net have a different > identity. Let me offer semantic and syntactic logical proofs that different copies of a file posses unique identities under the classic definition of 'identity'. Because 'identity' is a partial ordering it is transitive. Consequently this is a universal truth: if x = y, then x relates to z iff y relates to z. In second-order logic (where 'R' denotes any 'relation' and 'Rxz' means "x has a Relation to z"): AxAyAz[ (x = y) -> AR(Rxz <-> Ryz) ] Now, at any given moment any computer file has a unique relation to a unique block of memory -- the physical substrate upon which it is encoded. So given a domain with files and memory blocks, if 'x' denotes a file and 'z' denotes a memory block, 'Rxz' means: "File x has a Relation to memory block z." But now we can easily see that for any two copies (x, y) of a file, if 'Rxz' is true, then 'Ryz' is false since each copy has a unique relation to a unique memory block. Therefore, the consequent above 'AR(Rxz <-> Ryz)' is false in the given domain, and thus, since the whole logical statement above is true in all domains (proof below), by the truth conditions for '->' (an if-then statement is false iff its antecedent is true and its consequent false, but is true if both antecedent and consequent are false), the antecedent 'x = y' must also be false. So n copies of a file represent n unique identities (hence 'copies' is plural), even if they are all similar in just the ways that matter. QED Syntactic proof: Derive: AxAyAz[(x = y) -> AR(Rxz <-> Ryz)] from: x = y 1. x = y assume 2. Rxz assume 3. Ryz 1,2 identity 4. Rxz -> Ryz 2-3 deduction theorem 5. Ryz assume 6. Rxz 1,5 identity 7. Ryz -> Rxz 5-6 deduct theorem 8. Rxz <-> Ryz 4,7 def. of '<->' 9. AR(Rxz <-> Ryz) 8, universal gen 10. (x = y) -> AR(Rxz <-> Ryz) 1-9 deduct theorem 11. AxAyAz[(x = y) -> AR(Rxz <-> Ryz)] 10, univer gen This proves that 11 is in fact a universal truth. So, pointing back once again to our semantic domain of interpretation, if any file x and any file y are the same, then they must be encoded on exactly the same memory block (ie, physical elements). ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "Propositions show the logical form of reality. They display it." -- Wittgenstein ____________________________________________________________________________________ Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited (http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/) From velvethum at hotmail.com Fri Nov 3 02:03:39 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:03:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) References: <20061102235019.83835.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Lee writes: > "But people can be in two places at once, even though it seems uncanny > to our evolutionarily derived notions of self. Nonetheless, once forking > is a possibility (either after uploading or, less plausibly, via teleporters > and copying machines), people will have to accustom themselves to the > idea." Jeffrey: "Personally, I'm not ready to reject Slawomir's ideas and conceptions. But, in this particular example, I agree with you Lee. That the intricate weave of *consciousness* of a person can effectively "exist" at two places simultaneously. An easy and tangible example is the binocular vision of humans; where the two spatially separated eyes recieve separate data streams from different locations, are processed, and "emerge" in the same "conscious moment" as standard vision, complete with parralax and depth perception." --- But these two streams of data are merely components in a single instance of mind. I suspect that when Lee says that, "people can be in two places at once," he means that, "people can *see* two places at once" which is certainly possible, as you say. However, *seeing* two places at the same time and *being* in two places at the same time are two different things. What is also important to point out is that each stream of visual data is not equivalent to a complete mind just like a single neuron firing is not equivalent to a full mind. In the end, all these different subprocesses that happen inside a brain still add up to a single instance of mind. So two streams of visual data don't produce two minds. There's still only one mind there. Incidentally, that 2 things cannot be at the same place and time has nothing to do with "evolutionarily derived notions of self" (what I'm saying just happens to apply to notions of "self" as well) but everything to do with the law of conservation of mass/energy. Two brains weighing 1.4kg cannot share the same spatiotemporal location and still weigh 1.4kg. Two unconnected instances of mind cannot be a single instance of mind. Slawomir From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Nov 3 02:27:28 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:27:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) Message-ID: <20061103022728.293.qmail@web52614.mail.yahoo.com> I wrote: > Because 'identity' is a partial ordering it is > transitive. D'oh! Edit: Because 'identity' is an equivalence relation it is transitive. All else follows... http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-November/030142.html ____________________________________________________________________________________ Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited (http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited) From velvethum at hotmail.com Fri Nov 3 03:58:35 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:58:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061103022728.293.qmail@web52614.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Ian Goddard: "Literally: for all objects x and y, x is y if and only if for all properties P, P is a property of x if and only if P is a property of y. More simply: x is y just in case every property of x is a property of y and vice versa." What you describe is, of course, Leibniz's law. "1" and "1" are different instances of "1" since the first "1" has a property of being to the left of "and" while the other "1" has a property of being to the right of "and". Multiple instances of anything are "automatically" different. Slawomir From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Nov 2 21:24:53 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:24:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <20061102091430.60569.qmail@web37208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061102212453.53791.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> Agreed. We could arrive at an expression such as "gayiage" in the place of marriage. It would make sense on grounds of diversity as well-- a diversity of terminology. It's not about recognizing gay marriage. I have the upmost respect for gays, I would never disrespect any choice of sexual behavior unless it violates rights. I feel using the word "marriage" as a symbol of the union between 2 men or 2 women violates my right as a heterosexual female. Why is that so wrong?[...] Why? If the word had already been established, why wouldn't I have the right to keep it just the way it is? The "Union" between man and woman. What I don't understand is why the gay community would not choose to represent itself as a self-sufficient member of society and choose a word that describes what their future "union" may one day represent[...] I am aware that most don't believe in the sanction of a woman and a man. That's their choice. I do. Not the laws, not the piece of paper but the choice to want to procreate with somebody and evolve as humans. It's not my scenario, at the present time, but I do believe that it should be a right and that "right" is the term defined by the word "marriage". Just an opinion. Anna --------------------------------- Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited Try it today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ps.udoname at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 21:35:03 2006 From: ps.udoname at gmail.com (ps udoname) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:35:03 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism as slippery slope In-Reply-To: References: <03fa01c6fd7e$24112d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200611020411.kA24B9jw001186@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <28553f510611021335t7d5c2555s8f0e464ad122bd0b@mail.gmail.com> > > > 1. The European's don't need to allow the immigration they currently allow > if biotechnology extends healthy lifespan and the elderly choose to return > to work (rather than be a burden on the state) or if nanotechnology makes > need for state support unnecessary or if robots replace the functions > performed by immigrants (or some combination of these). The picture painted > is *only* a done deal assuming societies remain organized as they currently > are. > Perhaps the question is whether these technologies appear before we get swamped under a wave of resurgent religious fundamentalism, these technologies get banned and liberal secular democracy becomes a thing of the past.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mmbutler at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 04:38:28 2006 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 20:38:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything (2nd try) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061102120259.03d2eee0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061102120259.03d2eee0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890611022038s743cac9j2cb647ee9a432ac4@mail.gmail.com> On 11/2/06, Keith Henson wrote: > At 09:59 AM 10/31/2006 -0800, Jef wrote: > > snip > > >While Scientology and Avatar promise (and deliver) growth within a > >limited, internal, context, they are dangerous because they restrict > >growth beyond their own context. [I know, they have polished and > >emotionally persuasive arguments to the contrary.] I guess I should de-lurk about this. A while back, I did the Avatar materials, got benefit from them, and didn't cult out. YMMV, of course. I'm not going to argue or try to persuade. I'll simply state: no one associated with Avatar has ever done anything to restrict my growth. Believe it or don't. My "context" does not particularly include those folks today, so I don't see how my context can be "internal" by Jef's meaning. Maybe they have really _sophisticated_ orbital mind control lasers? I used to say that Avatar was the least-fscked-up human-potential thingy I'd checked out so far -- *but* that I could say nothing about the "Wizards" ("advanced" Avatar) material but was/am concerned about it being somehow doctrinaire or inflexible or bogus. Recently, I appear to have info that it is-was. Too bad. The (re)directed attention stuff I learned to practice still works for me. Am I kidding myself? Well, isn't everyone, where belief systems are concerned? _And_ attention? Remember all that Psych 101 stuff about seeing what is expected? > I don't know that much about Avatar except it is a scientology splinter > like EST/Landmark. Splinter or squirrel den, it's all how you look at it. > But I do know scientology and a *long* list of former scientologists. > > The main psychological mechanism used by scientology and (as far as I know, > *all* cults) is a perversion of attention reward. Welp. The Avatar stuff I did was mostly about (re)directing attention and I didn't get Moonie-style-love-bombed (*or* Stockholm-syndromed) AFAIK. So, not a lot of cult function in evidence, as such things go. And I could run down (sorry!) a list as long as my arm of more-cultish groups than that that I have direct experience with. Checked 'em out, didn't drain the cup of Kool-Aid; am still standing. WRT Avatar, I didn't get a big-assed flaming letters "CULT" readout at any point. Nobody was vying for the honor of polishing the brightwork on anyone's yacht (and yes, people did that for Elron and Werner, too). Maybe a hint of a "Stairway to Florida" with "cult?" in cursive on a sign next to it. When I studied, and when I reviewed, the Avatar materials, I paid close attention to (and was annoyed by) some of the residual terminology reminiscent of the Co$, but can report that what I did was not dissimilar to some stuff written about by, e.g., Tarthang Tulku (and, oddly enough, Nietzche!); and I did *not* get handed _any_ of the Co$ hooey (based on my extensive readings regarding same, both before and after). The good news about Avatar's upper level seems to be that they're *not* funneling money to the Co$, even though they're not far away in Florida. The bad news seems to be that Harry and his close asociates are? were? not as enlightened as they put forth. Sigh. 'Twas ever thus. To some degree, whether due to better ethics or less-extreme megalomania, Harry Palmer is not Elron, not by a long chalk. Does he wish he were? Quien sabe? I'm not gonna tell anyone else how to spend their money. And I don't know what is *really* up with Star's Edge International, in the US, France or elsewhere. As someone said, the lotus growing in the sewage is still a lotus. *shrug* -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m 'Piss off, you son of a bitch. Everything above where that plane hit is going to collapse, and it's going to take the whole building with it. I'm getting my people the fuck out of here." -- Rick Rescorla (R.I.P.), cell phone call, 9/11/2001 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 04:42:21 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 04:42:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism as slippery slope In-Reply-To: <28553f510611021335t7d5c2555s8f0e464ad122bd0b@mail.gmail.com> References: <03fa01c6fd7e$24112d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200611020411.kA24B9jw001186@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <28553f510611021335t7d5c2555s8f0e464ad122bd0b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0611022042s75b45dfah2067feea401dfad5@mail.gmail.com> On 11/2/06, ps udoname wrote: > > Perhaps the question is whether these technologies appear before we get > swamped under a wave of resurgent religious fundamentalism, these > technologies get banned and liberal secular democracy becomes a thing of the > past.... Which is one reason why there is every need for the most desperate hurry imaginable and being "cautious" is the most dangerous thing we can do. I think it's not impossible we'll make progress fast enough, but at best it'll be a close call. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 3 05:23:32 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:23:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Juicy Classical Physics Problem Involving Gravitational Potential In-Reply-To: <046a01c6fe3d$3a108860$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061103052332.13505.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Newton---but not I---was able to calculate the > spherical oblateness of > the Earth by carefully regarding this notion of > gravitational potential. (He'd > be wonderfully jazzed by the generalization to > relativity theory spoken of > above.) > > But my Newtonian calculation---problematical in some > way---is off by a > factor of two! Perhaps someone here who really likes > classical physics > can see what is going wrong. Of course, I *could* > find some alternate > derivations on the web, or find some in a book > somewhere, but that > would take all the fun out of it. Nothing like > trying to work through > something yourself to really master the concepts. > > > Let r be the equatorial radius and R the polar > radius. The facts are > that R is 6357000 meters (or 6357 km), and r is 6378 > km, a > twenty-one kilometer difference. > > But my calculations below show that r "should" be > only 6368 km, > that is, just 11 km more than R instead of the > correct value of 21 more. I did not actually do the calculation myself however there are two possible errors which may have led to the discrepancy. 1. Did you remember the factor (1/2) in your kinetic energy term? i.e. KE = (1/2)mv^2 for your particle. 2. The mass of the earth that contributes to the gravitational field at the poles is LESS than the mass contributing to the field at the equator. The reason for this is Guass' Law in gravitation. At any point, a given distance from the barycenter of an extended body, the only mass that contributes to the gravitational field at that point is that portion of the mass that is closer to the barycenter. In other words, the mass of the earth that is included as M in GM/R should be the portion of the mass that is contained within a perfect sphere of radius R. If R is the polar radius this will be the total mass of the earth minus the mass of those parts of the earth that bulge out past the polar radius at the equator. Now mind you the mass of the bulge will be very small compared to the total mass of the earth. But 10 km is not a very large error at the scale of distances you are considering. > The next equation, and what I'm trying to go by, > reads "the sum of > the K.E. of a particle at the equator and the > remaining energy it > needs to get to infinity must equal the energy that > the particle at the > pole would need to acquire to get to infinity". Is > there a problem > with that? It certainly raises questions in my mind, > and one's that > I don't have clear answers for. I am curious as to what those questions are. As far as whether your equation is problematic, I don't think so, at least not classically. What you stated is pretty much the mathematical definition of a gravitational equipotential (guassian) surface. Now I have a puzzle for you guys: What is the maximum value of g, the acceleration of earth's gravitational field, and where is this maximum g located? Hint: Don't get stuck in two dimensions. :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates (http://voice.yahoo.com) From mmbutler at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 06:01:24 2006 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:01:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: References: <20061103022728.293.qmail@web52614.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890611022201k522c6986v809c18f4f6593a2b@mail.gmail.com> On 11/2/06, Heartland wrote: > What you describe is, of course, Leibniz's law. "1" and "1" are different instances > of "1" since the first "1" has a property of being to the left of "and" while the > other "1" has a property of being to the right of "and". > Multiple instances of anything are "automatically" different. > > Slawomir > For some reason, I feel obliged to reminisce: "We may note that in these experiments the symbol = stands for 'is confused with'." G. Spencer Brown, "Laws of Form" (quote is only approximate: I sold my copy years ago). -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m 'Piss off, you son of a bitch. Everything above where that plane hit is going to collapse, and it's going to take the whole building with it. I'm getting my people the fuck out of here." -- Rick Rescorla (R.I.P.), cell phone call, 9/11/2001 From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Nov 3 05:54:26 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:54:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] polls again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200611030609.kA369dKc008585@andromeda.ziaspace.com> A couple weeks ago we had a discussion on how paperless voting machines may be causing loss of confidence in the outcomes of elections, which I commented is a serious threat to democracy, perhaps the most serious threat we have seen in some time. A new twist I saw today. The local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury, reported in big bold headlines the outcome of next week's elections. The outcome was based on some poll that someone did. There are a number of ways to look at this. The Merc and the newspaper industry is in decline, for reasons that are no surprise: the internet offers more material, more quickly, at no cost, content that can be more controlled by the user and effectively searched. Even the classified ads are in steep decline due to the same services, actually superior advertising services offered by eBay, Craig's List and others, for free or nearly so. Declining revenue leads to layoffs in the news room, thinner papers and fewer readers, spiraling downwards. Newspapers once made endorsements of candidates and propositions before the biannual elections. Now with fewer readers, this is a new way to state an endorsement. No need to pay for a poll when one can simply dream one up that matches one's endorsements. Another way to look at these headlines is that as confidence in elections declines, the difference is made up by making the local news poll the de facto standard by which the honesty of the election may be verified. Thus a process with unknown controls is supplanted by another process with known but suspect controls. Politics is full of paradox. spike From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Nov 3 07:07:26 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 23:07:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) Message-ID: <20061103070726.85382.qmail@web52611.mail.yahoo.com> Heartland wrote: >> Literally: for all objects x and y, x is y if and >> only if for all properties P, P is a property of x >> if and only if P is a property of y. More simply: >> x is y just in case every property of x is a >> property of y and vice versa." > What you describe is, of course, Leibniz's law. "1" > and "1" are different instances of "1" since the > first "1" has a property of being to the left > of "and" while the other "1" has a property of > being to the right of "and". Multiple instances of > anything are "automatically" different. Right, the definition of 'identity' in logic matches Leibniz's Identity of Indiscernibles. And if we're talking about 'identity', our conclusions should derive from its logical definition. Doing so shows that if x and y are identical, then all the properties of x and of y are identical and all the relations of x to z and of y to z are identical. But as I believe I've shown, due to physical reality, all the properties and relations of copies (be they copies of brains or computer files) are not identical. Indeed, the fact that 'copies' is as a plural term denotes that there are differences between them. ~Ian ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com/preview) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 3 06:48:14 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:48:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] polls again In-Reply-To: <200611030609.kA369dKc008585@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061103064814.56398.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > Another way to look at these headlines is that as > confidence in elections > declines, the difference is made up by making the > local news poll the de > facto standard by which the honesty of the election > may be verified. Thus a > process with unknown controls is supplanted by > another process with known > but suspect controls. > > Politics is full of paradox. Yes, Spike, I agree with this observation. I think the reason that politics seems so paradoxical is that it is by far the most complicated dynamic on the planet. If you are uncertain of this point, think of it this way: We have yet to be able to mathematically model a single conscious entity. Politics however is the resultant vector of the "will vector" of any number of such concious entities. Yet bizarrely, for the simple concept of "space" in physics, we have three dimensions" x,y, and z. But for politics there seems to exist a notion that there is but a single dimension: X. Now along the X dimension of politics, a given "platform" is assigned a value of some magnitude which is either positive or negative. A political concept is always classified as either being politically "left" or "right". Thus politics is a space of N-dimensions, yet for some reason all that matters in society is whether the projection of the N-dimensional reality of politics onto a line of a single dimension. The right or left of center. This completely infuriates me because my politics is a point in at least four dimensional space if not more. That I somehow have to figure out which three out of four dimensions of my politics I am forced to ignore every election cycle, in order to have any say in a two party system is ridiculous. I say: Down with the two party system! To try to reconcile the tropics with the North Pole or Antartica is silly. It is stupid that I convince myself to vote for Coke or Pepsi when what I really crave is orange juice. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. ____________________________________________________________________________________ We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups (http://groups.yahoo.com) From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 10:55:59 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 05:55:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism as slippery slope In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611022042s75b45dfah2067feea401dfad5@mail.gmail.com> References: <03fa01c6fd7e$24112d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200611020411.kA24B9jw001186@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <28553f510611021335t7d5c2555s8f0e464ad122bd0b@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0611022042s75b45dfah2067feea401dfad5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/2/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > I think it's not impossible we'll make progress fast enough, but at best > it'll be a close call. > Indeed. Moore's Law trumps human replication time (by a wide margin). Human memesets cannot adapt at the rate technology is evolving unless they are focused on doing so [1]. Particularly memesets which involve the setting aside of "rational thought" upon which the technology is based [2]. Robert 1. Memesets focused on static laws (as most religions are) are inherently non-adaptive in nature. 2. Though I will admit that the human mind is relatively adept at the simultaneous maintenance of conflicting memesets (denial of reality). Makes you wonder whether "Core Duo" could have been pushed as "Core conflicted". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 11:26:53 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:26:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] polls again In-Reply-To: <20061103064814.56398.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200611030609.kA369dKc008585@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20061103064814.56398.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 11/3/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > I say: Down with the two party system! To try to reconcile the tropics > with the North Pole or Antartica is silly. It is stupid that I convince > myself to vote for Coke or Pepsi when what I really crave is orange juice. Having voted outside of the box in several national elections I can only beat my shoe on the table in agreement. The reality, unfortunately, and one which "we" may not adapt to easily is that while many people on the list are adept at balancing N-dimensional spaces, the "public" (which is buying those newspapers) is not. Now, this leads to an interesting question -- is the destiny of humanity multispatial? Does the direction and politics and news of Smartski (Deepski?), CA differ significantly from the direction and politics of Slowski (Shallowski), CA? [1] You can view it as an orthogonal vector to red v. blue. A second interesting question is whether the power brokers can afford to allow humanity to become multispatial? [2] Robert 1. For those outside of New England, Comcast (cableco) has been raking Verizon (phoneco) over the coals with a very aggressive advertising campaign with respect to people who have DSL connections (the "slow"skis) vs. people with cable internet connections (the "fast"skis). 2. Oh those "slowskis" back on Earth aren't doing anything productive with their materials -- "All their materials are belong to us." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 11:44:41 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:44:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890611022201k522c6986v809c18f4f6593a2b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061103022728.293.qmail@web52614.mail.yahoo.com> <7d79ed890611022201k522c6986v809c18f4f6593a2b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/3/06, Michael M. Butler wrote: > > "We may note that in these experiments the symbol > = > stands for > 'is confused with'." > [snip] Now, now, now Michael teasing the young'uns [1] in public can be viewed as nonproductive [2] R. 1. Given the depth of the discussion the descriptive term is a misapplication -- but it may suffice for the comment. 2. I am relearning my education in logic through the discussion so diss'ing it may have negative consequences IMO. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 12:27:03 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 07:27:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything (2nd try) In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890611022038s743cac9j2cb647ee9a432ac4@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061102120259.03d2eee0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <7d79ed890611022038s743cac9j2cb647ee9a432ac4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/2/06, Michael M. Butler wrote: > Harry Palmer is not Elron, not by a long chalk. Of course, he does not have the Vilya ring. If one takes steps back from all of this (xyzzyCo) one can wonder whether their might be some unique combination of human traits (a leader?) [1] or discovered compu-bio-synthetics (hopefully implantable) that will eventually lead us to true "self-actualization" (for lack of a better term) Of course this gets all messed up by the copies one has pursuing different future vectors and the problem of reintegration of self-derivatives. Tolkien did not anticipate this or chose to ignore it. Robert 1. And for the readers, I am not anticipating this happening. The unique combination of memes that would have to be manifested in a single human could indeed be labeled as a "miracle". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Nov 3 07:15:22 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 23:15:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] polls again In-Reply-To: <200611030609.kA369dKc008585@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061103071522.41697.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Does anyone understand the tax propositions on ballots? don't you have to be an accountant to grasp them? Why doesn't a state empanel twelve economists as a jury to arbitrate decisions on taxes rather than let less educated or uneducated voters do so? That's why I like gay issues; sex-related issues aren't really important, but at least anyone can comprehend them. --- spike wrote: >[...] Politics is full of paradox. > > spike ____________________________________________________________________________________ We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups (http://groups.yahoo.com) From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:48:51 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:48:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything - the self identity quest Message-ID: "*I see Robert's statement as very powerful because it highlights the very general principle that there is no growth without change, despite popular sentiment to the contrary.."* ** Around three months ago I have posted to this list about a new strategy of digital immortality through identity capture that can be performed now, to achieve now a good backup copy of ourselves, to increase our personal chances of survival to the transhumanist future. I brought a strategy backed by serious theories and research of the self, like Max More, W.S. Bainbridge and Kurzweil insights, yet the final conclusions oblige me alone. The argumentation raised was never seriously related by this list participants, not disputed earnestly, yet since then my postings to this list has been placed into the moderation list until now and basically the method was ignored. Aren't some of you even here refusing to think outside the box ? frightened by the innovation ? some participants reaction to new scientifically based procedure of survival was conceit and unimaginative refrain without even bothering to review the material. if it can be shown that by reliable self-identity capture, we can capture now the salient information regarding the self- identity, in other words, the identity-critical-information, that means that future information technologies will be able to upload that information into personalized-artificial-intelligence to the effect of your survival. This is uploading, but not through full neural scanning but by way of identity capture, the capture of your self identity, a process which it is claimed that can soon be perfected and performed. So the critical question is, can I reliably and seriously capture my identity ? Max More in The Diachronic Self argue that the content of self-transformation is itself a primary component connecting our former self with our new self phase and that* *transformation content will compensate for the reduction in other connections it causes". From this respect it is clarified that a person is, for a large extent, a matter of self definition. *Thus, I am not mainly what I am, but I am rather what I will be able to be. * *Please check seriously for yourself, before ignoring or ridiculing that opportunity, the material is clear and compelling. Death is our prime threat and any rationally based strategy of self identity capture and survival hopefully will not be totally overlooked by transhumanists*. a revised edition of this option of immortality. *http://davidishalom1.googlepages.com/home * Jef Allbright" Philosophers have been dealing with the question of personal identity for thousands of years already. Anyone seriously interested in discussing the topic should be familiar with previous thinking including "ship of Theseus", Max More's thesis on the "diachronic self", and Derek Parfit's _Reasons and Persons_ in order to avoid rehashing ?..two things about this topic remain interesting to me: (1) Even after people have become quite familiar with the logical arguments, they tend to stay with whatever belief *feels* right to them. This has immense implications for effective decision-making under accelerating change, and so is of increasingly practical importance to our lives and well-being??some people have "moved up" beyond the common-sense description of personal identity to embrace the broader "patternist" definition but have yet to embrace an even more general description based on agency rather than physical/functional similarity. In my opinion this is where our thinking graduates from the "aha, it should be possible" stage to the more practical level of how we might deal with the social and moral ramifications of multiple instances of a personal identity. as to your point about the rigorous meaning of identity, I fully agree. That being said, within the topic of "personal identity" we are specifically allowing for the case when two objects, recognized as ?..persons, appear to be *effectively* the same within a given context. Now, given the logical definition of 'identity', if there is a perfect copy of my brain with all its encoded contents and possible states, that copy still lacks at least: (1) the property of being 'the original', (2) the property of being in the location that the original is, and (3) the property of being encoded on the physical substrate that the original is encoded on. Ergo, there exists at least one property that the original has but the copy lacks, and thus, by the definition of 'identity', any claim that "the original = the copy" is false Don't let what you are being get in the way of what you might become. - Robert Bradbury wrote: > > *You must be willing to give up everything* you are for what you might > > become. > Excellent statement! Before I add this to my quote file with attribution to > Robert, can anyone tell me of the existence of a more original source of > this powerful insight? Jef Allbright" You must be willing to give up everything .. *I see Robert's statement as very powerful because it highlights the very general principle that there is no growth without change, despite popular sentiment to the contrary.*** (1) Note that this is logically consistent with what many of us have been saying; that there can be a gradient of personal identity and that there can be duplicates of personal identity. ? the rate of change increases (the singularity) it is likely that only > those who adopt the path of greatest flexibility will survive. > You must be willing to give up everything you are for what you might > become: Unfortunately very very few individuals in the world today > grasp this -- they are more concerned with being who or what they > "are" than simply "being". *"First they ignore you,** then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mohandas Gandhi* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Nov 3 16:20:25 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:20:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything (2ndtry) In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890611022038s743cac9j2cb647ee9a432ac4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael M. Butler wrote: > On 11/2/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > At 09:59 AM 10/31/2006 -0800, Jef wrote: > > >While Scientology and Avatar promise (and deliver) growth > > >within a limited, internal, context, they are dangerous > > >because they restrict growth beyond their own context. > > >[I know, they have polished and emotionally persuasive > > >arguments to the contrary.] > > I guess I should de-lurk about this. A while back, I did the > Avatar materials, got benefit from them, and didn't cult out. I see that my statement might appear to lump the two organizations together as equals, while my intention was only to show certain similarities. My knowledge of Scientology comes from personal experience in my twenties and what I know of the experiences of others. I had read Dianetics and found L Ron's engram theory interesting but an overly simplified model of cognitive processing. [I did take away and still use one practice from that book, which is to minimize verbal stimulus when the other person is feeling highly emotional because of their increased susceptibility to imprinting.] So one day in a shopping mall I was approached by a pretty girl who invited me to attend a "communications course." Intrigued (for various reasons), I went inside and spent a few months observing a fairly well-organized process of mind control and identification of susceptible individuals. Having seen enough, I left, but a quarter century later postal mail from the COS still arrives at my old mailing address. Incidentally, a year or so later while walking in San Francisco I was approached and invited to visit the Moonies. That was a different sort of experience, with food and singing and showering of love from everyone there. By the end of the evening I was invited to take the bus to their farm, which I declined. My knowledge of Avatar is close but second-hand through the experiences of my SO, who spent many thousands of dollars on their ladder of programs. She found great benefit from the initial Resurfacing program, followed it with the main Avatar program, and then two sessions of the weeklong Masters program in Florida. She came under a lot of pressure for many months to enroll in the next level, called Wizards, with promises of (secret) advanced knowledge of how to modify reality, but she declined. It took her a few years after leaving before she was able to look back and see the web of influence that had held her. >From my reading and conversations on Avatar, I observed the key Scientology tactic of using arcane terminology for common concepts in philosophy and psychology. This has the direct effect of building a strong in-group/out-group mentality. I observed that their teachings (which do indeed provide growth for many people) consisted of repackaging the same teachings that can be found in eastern religion, psychology, philosophy, and self-help books, but without references, attribution or rigor, and all with the implication of deriving from the wisdom of Harry Palmer, who of course acknowledged studying in all these areas before he came to his grand realization. I see more commonalities than differences, but I do agree that Avatar (Star's Edge) appears to be more benign than Scientology. > > YMMV, of course. I'm not going to argue or try to persuade. > I'll simply state: no one associated with Avatar has ever > done anything to restrict my growth. Believe it or don't. Michael, I don't know how many steps up the ladder you paid for and took, but I meant restricted in the sense of a path turning inward with the wisdom of Harry Palmer always at its center, as opposed to a path growing outward among many competing and evolving sources of knowledge. The first steps of any path to self-knowledge are similar, with increasing realization of the nature of attention, self, and ones relationship with the surrounding world. > My "context" does not particularly include those folks today, > so I don't see how my context can be "internal" by Jef's > meaning. Maybe they have really _sophisticated_ orbital mind > control lasers? THAT was supposed to be kept secret! > I used to say that Avatar was the least-fscked-up > human-potential thingy I'd checked out so far -- *but* that I > could say nothing about the "Wizards" ("advanced" Avatar) > material but was/am concerned about it being somehow > doctrinaire or inflexible or bogus. > > Recently, I appear to have info that it is-was. Too bad. So you are supporting my point that there is initial growth, but it turns increasingly inward? > The (re)directed attention stuff I learned to practice still > works for me. Am I kidding myself? Well, isn't everyone, > where belief systems are concerned? _And_ attention? Remember > all that Psych 101 stuff about seeing what is expected? Again it seems that you are supporting my point about the early growth provided by all such paths to self-awareness. > > I don't know that much about Avatar except it is a scientology > > splinter like EST/Landmark. > > Splinter or squirrel den, it's all how you look at it. > > > But I do know scientology and a *long* list of former > scientologists. > > > > The main psychological mechanism used by scientology and > (as far as I > > know, > > *all* cults) is a perversion of attention reward. > > Welp. The Avatar stuff I did was mostly about (re)directing > attention and I didn't get Moonie-style-love-bombed (*or* > Stockholm-syndromed) AFAIK. So, not a lot of cult function in > evidence, as such things go. > And I could run down (sorry!) a list as long as my arm of > more-cultish groups than that that I have direct experience > with. Checked 'em out, didn't drain the cup of Kool-Aid; am > still standing. Sounds like we have a fair amount in common here. Probably my initial statement comparing the two groups gave the wrong impression. > WRT Avatar, I didn't get a big-assed flaming letters "CULT" > readout at any point. Nobody was vying for the honor of > polishing the brightwork on anyone's yacht (and yes, people > did that for Elron and Werner, too). > > Maybe a hint of a "Stairway to Florida" with "cult?" in > cursive on a sign next to it. > > When I studied, and when I reviewed, the Avatar materials, I > paid close attention to (and was annoyed by) some of the > residual terminology reminiscent of the Co$, but can report > that what I did was not dissimilar to some stuff written > about by, e.g., Tarthang Tulku (and, oddly enough, > Nietzche!); and I did *not* get handed _any_ of the Co$ hooey > (based on my extensive readings regarding same, both before > and after). > > The good news about Avatar's upper level seems to be that they're > *not* funneling money to the Co$, even though they're not far > away in Florida. The bad news seems to be that Harry and his > close asociates are? were? not as enlightened as they put > forth. Sigh. 'Twas ever thus. To some degree, whether due to > better ethics or less-extreme megalomania, Harry Palmer is > not Elron, not by a long chalk. Does he wish he were? Quien sabe? > > I'm not gonna tell anyone else how to spend their money. And > I don't know what is *really* up with Star's Edge > International, in the US, France or elsewhere. > > As someone said, the lotus growing in the sewage is still a lotus. Very true, but one might still ask "why all this sewage?" > *shrug* From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Nov 3 17:16:20 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 09:16:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything - the selfidentity quest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It seems odd to find various pieces of my comments the last few days tacked onto David's message. I'm not sure what relevance is implied, other than possibly the implication that I, Max More, Kurzweil and others think it's a topic worth discussing, therefore David's writing should be worth discussing? David, I've seen your writing, mainly on WTA-Talk, and my impression (trying to give allowance for the language barrier) is one of breathless enthusiasm but relatively little substance. For me personally, it would help if you would use a format that doesn't come across as a sales pitch. For example, if you were to make some statement (preferably something novel, insightful or controversial within the context of the extropy list), and follow it will some concise supporting statements and perhaps a statement as to why others might see it as significant. By doing so, I think you would be very likely to get a meaningful response. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Fri Nov 3 18:57:02 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:57:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. References: <000401c6fdd7$934e3550$860a4e0c@MyComputer><001401c6feb0$3623c190$05094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <00fd01c6ff79$f94ee220$ba084e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: Me: >> you believe that when someone dies something must go away. The name of >> that something is the soul. > Last time I checked with people who believe this stuff souls were eternal The soul concept is common in all human cultures but in many of them the soul is not eternal, it's not a defining attribute. > I claim something completely opposite. You say life is a noun so when you die something must leave or be destroyed. Whatever that something is it must be very important, even more important than thinking, even more important than believing you are alive, even more important than remembering being you yesterday. However as huge as this something is it's completely undetectable by the scientific method. There is a word in English for a something like that. > No function/process/life can exist in absence of physical implementation True, but any physical implementation will do because the scientific method can not detect a difference between one hydrogen atom and another. > Your "patterns" are actually a lot more similar to souls In a previous post I already listed the similarities and differences between the soul and information, the biggest difference being that information can be studied with the scientific method but the soul and your Sacred Original Atoms can not be. > in a sense that, when a body disintegrates, life (function/process) continues as if nothing happened *just because* the same brain pattern might exist in some other body. That's a quite a leap of faith, if you ask me It takes no leap of faith to deduce you Sacred Original Atoms theory is pure nonsense. > If you paint a white car black, will that cause the car to morph into a > toaster oven? No. > probably motivated by an overwhelming desire to make "afterlife" work at > all cost. I know, it's hard to deal with inevitability of death, but at > some point you have to realize that there's no such thing as afterlife. > When you die, you stay dead, and no amount of "spin" can save you. I'm sure you picture yourself as tragic hero, bravely staring into the face of death and refusing to turn away from grim reality. However I see you in a somewhat less epic light. I see you as a man who is terrified of the dentist because he fears he might slip him a anesthetic which he believes is equivalent to death, a man who has an irrational fetish for Original Atoms, a man who has views a well educated child in the 18'th century would be very comfortable with but are hopelessly old fashioned today. >The important difference between a living person and a corpse is that they >are "organized differently?" :) Do you really have to ask this question? The ONLY difference between a 16 year old boy a 90 year old man and a corpse is the way the atoms are organized, and there is simply no doubt about it. There is no reason you couldn't turn one into the other at will, there is no reason you couldn't turn me into you; all you'd need is Nanotechnology and information. > When you die, you stay dead When you die you may stay dead, probably will actually, but no law of physics would demand it. Me: >> You think if you had no thoughts at all it still wouldn't change what you >> are You: >Who said something about having no thoughts? You did: "I might also add for the millionth time that what *I think* has absolutely no influence on *what I am*" > Atoms don't matter! Then why did you spend about 6 posts talking about Original Atoms and going on and on about timelines and space time coordinates to make sure you could distinguish the High Holy Original hydrogen atoms from the imposters. > Any mind is a process A process is a series of actions and actions can be stopped, started up again, reversed and duplicated. John K Clark From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Nov 3 20:43:11 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:43:11 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061102124441.021ac220@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061102124441.021ac220@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2213.208.181.209.209.1162586591.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:46 AM 11/2/2006 -0800, Jef wrote: > >>My bottom-line and crude assessment is that postmodernism represents >>essentially a bottomless pit of navel-gazing, mental masturbation >>and academic in-fighting. > > The last-mentioned is crucial, especially when parsed as > "ladder-climbing" (into the professoriate). I'm at the 4S (Society for Social Studies of Science) conference in Vancouver right now, surrounded by amazing amounts of postmodern thought (and other styles I don't even know what to call). It is great fun, especially since I don't have a great stake in it. This morning the session about the military enhancement of human bodies was revealing. The speakers picked apart underlying assumptions of the improved soldier and the "militarized citizen". A woman held a talk in high postmodern that was beautiful poetry. The main thrust of it all was of course a deep suspicion of the military-industrial-academic machine producing all this normalization and enhancement to further its own agenda. But at the same time it was so clear that this was done from the perspective of *another* machine, this one producing analysis, concerns and criticism for a living. Just as the military industrial complex is a business so is academia. But admitting it is impossible for either, since both have to hide their essential self-servingness under the image of "protecting democracy" or "intellectual inquiry" (of course, some people in these respective machines actually strive for these goals, but to thrive you have think about the bottom line, whether it is counted in dollars or tenure probability). As for myself, I have given a little talk here picking apart narratives of the social effects of enhancement (be they transhuman or bioconservative). With some luck it will become a book chapter. More on that later. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Nov 3 19:27:46 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:27:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett Message-ID: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> Daniel C. Dennet wrote: "Two weeks ago, I was rushed by ambulance to a hospital where it was determined by c-t scan that I had a "dissection of the aorta"-the lining of the main output vessel carrying blood from my heart had been torn up, creating a two-channel pipe where there should only be one. Fortunately for me, the fact that I'd had a coronary artery bypass graft seven years ago probably saved my life...." THANK GOODNESS! by Daniel C. Dennett But isn't this awfully harsh? Surely it does the world no harm if those who can honestly do so pray for me! No, I'm not at all sure about that. For one thing, if they REALLY wanted to do something useful, they could devote their prayer time and energy to some pressing project that they CAN do something about. For another, we now have quite solid grounds (e.g., the recently released Benson study at Harvard) for believing that intercessory prayer simply doesn't work. Anybody whose practice shrugs off that research is subtly undermining respect for the very goodness I am thanking. If you insist on keeping the myth of the effectiveness of prayer alive, you owe the rest of us a justification in the face of the evidence. Pending such a justification, I will excuse you for indulging in your tradition; I know how comforting tradition can be. But I want you to recognize that what you are doing is morally problematic at best." This EDGE edition is available online at: http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge195.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From user at dhp.com Fri Nov 3 21:47:34 2006 From: user at dhp.com (Ensel Sharon) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:47:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> Message-ID: (FYI, I am agnostic on the subject of God / religion) On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > But isn't this awfully harsh? Surely it does the world no harm if those who > can honestly do so pray for me! No, I'm not at all sure about that. For one > thing, if they REALLY wanted to do something useful, they could devote > their prayer time and energy to some pressing project that they CAN do > something about. For another, we now have quite solid grounds (e.g., the > recently released Benson study at Harvard) for believing that intercessory > prayer simply doesn't work. Anybody whose practice shrugs off that research > is subtly undermining respect for the very goodness I am thanking. If you > insist on keeping the myth of the effectiveness of prayer alive, you owe > the rest of us a justification in the face of the evidence. Pending such a Wrong. They owe you NOTHING. If they wish to think about hooters girls and sports cars, so be it. If they want to direct their time and thought energy to their hamster, so be it. If they want to pray for your well-being[1] (or perhaps for you to mind your own business), so be it. > justification, I will excuse you for indulging in your tradition; I know > how comforting tradition can be. But I want you to recognize that what you > are doing is morally problematic at best." Wrong. No thought whatever is morally problematic. The time, energy and will that I expend are my own and require no justification - from me or anyone else. If Dennett is such a fucking genius, why doesn't he recognize the problem of labeling things "thoughtcrime" ? Further, how dare he suggest that I do anything with my time and kilowatts, or dispose of my own property in any way, other than exactly as i see fit ? The notion that he would impose upon others some kind of minimum acceptable level of function and efficiency in their thoughts and actions is absurd. If certain time, energy and kilowatts belong to me, I will dissipate them in any way I see fit, and as efficiently as I see fit. [1] Or encourage others, possibly with non-scientific, non refutable evidence to do the same. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 22:39:22 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 22:39:22 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> On 11/3/06, Ensel Sharon wrote: > > If Dennett is such a fucking genius, why doesn't he recognize the problem > of labeling things "thoughtcrime" ? Further, how dare he suggest that I > do anything with my time and kilowatts, or dispose of my own property in > any way, other than exactly as i see fit ? The notion that he would > impose upon others some kind of minimum acceptable level of function and > efficiency in their thoughts and actions is absurd. If certain time, > energy and kilowatts belong to me, I will dissipate them in any way I see > fit, and as efficiently as I see fit. > Seconded. This sort of junk from people like Dennett is exactly isomorphic to "it's a mortal sin to deny the existence of God" from religious fundamentalists, only the labels have been switched around. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 22:44:08 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 22:44:08 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: References: <20061102082308.30427.qmail@web37204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> On 11/2/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > (2) Some people have "moved up" beyond the common-sense description of > personal identity to embrace the broader "patternist" definition but > have yet to embrace an even more general description based on agency > rather than physical/functional similarity. I'm curious, what's your definition of identity based on agency? (I remember your general "wider contexts" philosophy and there's some validity in it, but not sure how it bears on the question of identity.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Nov 3 22:58:27 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 23:58:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox 2 [was: The End of Science] In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610311328v15381f51k4701ec66fccc13f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <4542BBDB.40704@surriel.com> <8d71341e0610271923j1d06b614t5fdf463cf9382ad0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0610311328v15381f51k4701ec66fccc13f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061103225826.GD6974@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:28:37PM +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: > > Installed Firefox 2 last night on the promise of the "restore session" > feature, and _very_ well worth it for that alone! No more having to Firefox is absolutely useless without extensions, and SessionSaver/SessionManager are an item on a pretty short list of essentials. > try to manually recover tens of tabs on every reboot. (If you install > it, make sure to set the option for restore session on regular > shutdown as well as crash.) > It's a nice example of a general point: Technological progress isn't > just about making things possible that weren't before; Firefox 2 can't > do anything earlier web browsers couldn't do in principle. It's also, > very much, about increasing the range of things you can _take for > granted_ so you don't have to worry about them anymore and you can use > them as building blocks. I'm personally pretty much disgusted with Firefox. But then, all alternatives but Safari (Saft/PithHelment) suck even more. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sentience at pobox.com Fri Nov 3 23:39:55 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:39:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> Russell Wallace wrote: > On 11/3/06, *Ensel Sharon* > > wrote: > > "If Dennett is such a fucking genius, why doesn't he recognize the > problem of labeling things "thoughtcrime" ? Further, how dare he > suggest that I do anything with my time and kilowatts, or dispose of > my own property in any way, other than exactly as i see fit ? The > notion that he would impose upon others some kind of minimum > acceptable level of function and efficiency in their thoughts and > actions is absurd. If certain time, energy and kilowatts belong to > me, I will dissipate them in any way I see fit, and as efficiently as > I see fit." > > Seconded. This sort of junk from people like Dennett is exactly > isomorphic to "it's a mortal sin to deny the existence of God" from > religious fundamentalists, only the labels have been switched around. http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge195.html#dd No. Isomorphism would be "You prayed to God so now I'm going to kill you / put you in jail / fine you, for your thoughtcrime." As for Dennett suggesting that people are doing something wrong by praying instead of helping - that they are thereby committing a moral sin, in need of forgiveness - why, yes, you're right, that is somewhat like a theologian who *peacefully argues with you*, for what he conceives to be your own benefit, that you are committing a mortal sin by denying the existence of God. Of course, Dennett lives by a higher standard of rationality than a theologian - it would be going much too far to say that the theologian is simply committing an innocent mistake. It is not innocent. The theologian could and should know better, and others are harmed by the laxity. Like my grandparents, who will die without being frozen. As is shown easily enough by Dennett's example of the medical industry, you don't need to use violence to promote your beliefs, in order to harm people with wrong beliefs. Yes, you *can* hurt other people by being lax with yourself, forgiving yourself your nonsense, holding yourself to too low a standard. It is this understanding of strictness that makes modern medicine effective. But that Dennett is allowed to peacefully argue that people *should not* pray, that they harm others by praying, that they harm themselves by praying, that it's a stupid idea and humanity should get the hell over it already - no, it's not so different from a theologian being allowed to peacefully argue to you that you are committing a mortal sin by denying God. The support justifying the two beliefs are very different, and it so happens that the first is right and the second is wrong. But how would we know that if people were not allowed to publicly debate their reasons? It happens to be true that the Earth goes around the Sun, and false that the Sun goes around the Earth. But the sin of Galileo's inquisitors was not that they happened to pick the wrong side of the factual dispute - everyone makes mistakes. Their lesser and forgiveable sin was that they chose their side irrationally (rather than making the mistake because of e.g. experimental error). Their greater and unforgiveable sin was that they enforced their beliefs with a sword. To compare Dennett to a religious fundamentalist is silly; if you wish to insult him with some trace of plausibility, compare him to an academic theologian. And to suggest that they are automatically on the same level, or committing the same mistake, because they dare to air their views and advise others on what to think - that is foolish. (It is written: "The fifth virtue is argument.") The theologian has chosen his belief irrationally, and yes, others are harmed by that, and yes, he is responsible for the results, just as a doctor would be. But that he and Dennett should both put forth their views openly, and argue about them, is only right and proper. A doctor must, in the end, treat a patient based on whatever diagnosis seems most probable. If he chooses wrongly and based on sloppy thinking, then he is at fault, and his sin is very grave. But a doctor cannot do better in general by treating patients based on diagnoses that seem less probable, or by refusing to treat patients. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 00:03:44 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 00:03:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> On 11/3/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > As for Dennett suggesting that people are doing something wrong by > praying instead of helping - that they are thereby committing a moral > sin, in need of forgiveness - why, yes, you're right, that is somewhat > like a theologian who *peacefully argues with you*, for what he > conceives to be your own benefit, that you are committing a mortal sin > by denying the existence of God. Yes, that's what I was referring to. The equivalent of the religious fundamentalists who kill infidels for not believing in God would be those who did the same thing in the name of the atheist ideology of communism. As for who's being more irrational, whatever your opinion of religion, it worked. Look at the results once religion is gone: the prime examples of evolution in action are precisely those who believe in evolution. If I believed in God I'd say He had a wicked sense of humor. As for who's doing harm by ill-considered words, consider _why_ so many people are rejecting evolutionary biology (in a way that they don't reject, say, physics or chemistry). It's because they've been taught they _have_ to reject it or give up everything they hold dear and find themselves in an empty universe with empty lives. What fanatical religious preachers taught them this, you may wonder? Why, some of the names are quite familiar. Gould, Dawkins, Dennett. Now if people want to preach atheism, that's their right; and if they want to preach nihilism, well I suppose even that's their right. It's when they do so _with their scientist hats on_, when they abuse their reputation as scientists to advance those personal philosophies, that the rest of us in the scientific community should speak up and disown them. Because if we fail to do so, then their words reflect on us and blacken our names. They tarnish our enterprise of science, technology, rationality itself. A world where science and reason are dirty words has a bleak future indeed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Sat Nov 4 02:23:30 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 18:23:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity Message-ID: <20061104022331.83850.qmail@web52614.mail.yahoo.com> Michael M. Butler wrote: > For some reason, I feel obliged to reminisce: > > "We may note that in these experiments the symbol > = > stands for > 'is confused with'." > > G. Spencer Brown, "Laws of Form" (quote is only > approximate: I sold my copy years ago). There are generally two semantic interpretations of '=', one being 'is similar to'. In that case the left- and right- hand symbols in 'a = b' point to two different referents and '=' denotes some important set of similarities between the two referents. The strong interpretation of '=' asserts that the left- and right-hand symbols point to the *same* referent. So given the statement 'a = b', the interpretation of 'a' is the thing it points to, which is often denoted by 'I(a)' and the referent of 'b' by 'I(b)'. So in the strong interpretation of '=', the statement 'a = b' is true just in case I(a) is the same thing as I(b). 'I' is an interpretation function mapping symbols in a language to objects in a domain of discourse such as: I 'cat' -------> (an actual cat) = I(cat) 'c' -------> I(c) 'e' -------> I(e) . . . A semantic interpretation of strong '=' runs as follows, [*] where 'I' maps symbols to a domain of discourse 'D' (note that uses of '=' in the following indented metalanguage expressions switch from object- to meta-language, and are as presented in the cited text [*]): I(=) = { in D^2 | d = e} That means: the interpretation of '=' is a set of ordered pairs in D^2 (the cross product of D) such that d = e. So I(=) is a subset of D^2. Now, taking the simpler of two explanatory routes in the text: V[M](a = b) = 1 iff is in I(=) iff I(a) = I(b) That means: a valuation function (V) on a given model (M) maps the statement 'a = b' to 'true' (ie, to '1') iff the ordered pair containing the interpretation of 'a' and the interpretation of 'b' (denoted as an ordered pair by '' ) is in the set of identical pairs (ie, is in I(=)), which is the case iff I(a) is the same object as I(b), ie: I(a) = I(b). Short n simple: the statement 'The King = Elvis Presley' is true just in case I(The King) is the same entity as I(Elvis Presley) in some domain of discourse. ~Ian _____________________________________________________ [*] Gamut, LTF. "Logic, Language, and Meaning, Volume 1: Introduction to Logic." University of Chicago Press, 1991. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/7087.ctl ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com/preview) From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Nov 4 03:57:33 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:57:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.co m> References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:39 PM 11/3/2006 +0000, Russell wrote: snip >Seconded. This sort of junk from people like Dennett is exactly isomorphic >to "it's a mortal sin to deny the existence of God" from religious >fundamentalists, only the labels have been switched around. Besides, it's the wrong way to approach the problem. Ranting against epidemic disease didn't save a single life. What was needed was to understand what causes infectious diseases. People have religions like they have chicken pox. But unlike diseases, we don't understand why people have religions at all. Rants against them are no more helpful than ranting against chicken pox. Evolutionary psychology makes the case that every psychological trait was either directly selected or is a side effect of something that was selected. I have a tentative origin for humans having religions at all, but it's awful paranoid. Keith From mmbutler at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:15:36 2006 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:15:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything (2ndtry) In-Reply-To: References: <7d79ed890611022038s743cac9j2cb647ee9a432ac4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890611032115t5baa537fh3aae376349754832@mail.gmail.com> Jef: Sorry to hear about your SO's experience. Indeed, "why all this sewage?" The funniest part is of course that Harry, in a not very veiled allusion to the OT stuff about recapitulating a personal "past life memory" of the big nukes-in-volcanoes/Xenu-Xemu thingy... more or less mentions the same question: To paraphrase: "Is this [head-]trip really necessary?" (I could probably find the page in ReSurfacing but why bother?) I'll take it as true based on your say-so that they turn up the heat once you start delivering the courses. It makes sense. And it's too bad. All best, always, Mike -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m 'Piss off, you son of a bitch. Everything above where that plane hit is going to collapse, and it's going to take the whole building with it. I'm getting my people the fuck out of here." -- Rick Rescorla (R.I.P.), cell phone call, 9/11/2001 From mmbutler at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:28:41 2006 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:28:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything - the selfidentity quest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7d79ed890611032128s29669b02ka486338d83893270@mail.gmail.com> On 11/3/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > For me personally, it would help if you > would use a format that doesn't come across as a sales pitch. For example, > if you were to make some statement (preferably something novel, insightful > or controversial within the context of the extropy list), and follow it will > some concise supporting statements and perhaps a statement as to why others > might see it as significant. > > By doing so, I think you would be very likely to get a meaningful response. > > - Jef I agree with the above, and add to it that all the HTML formatting and yellow highlighting makes it very hard for me to bring my attention to bear. It's rather like flashing text on a web page. My first several impulses are to do away with the visual clutter -- by not reading it. I recommend that you find your voice, speak simply and boldly -- and perhaps more people will hear. -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m 'Piss off, you son of a bitch. Everything above where that plane hit is going to collapse, and it's going to take the whole building with it. I'm getting my people the fuck out of here." -- Rick Rescorla (R.I.P.), cell phone call, 9/11/2001 From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Nov 4 06:21:31 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 22:21:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Juicy Classical Physics Problem InvolvingGravitational Potential References: <20061103052332.13505.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <050a01c6ffd9$b5bf0a20$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart, our Avantguardian writes > Now I have a puzzle for you guys: What is the maximum > value of g, the acceleration of earth's gravitational > field, and where is this maximum g located? What a fine question, thanks! Since I am totally unable to think about anything else since having read this a while ago (and I've tried), then attend to it first I must. I also appreciate your crafty > Hint: Don't get stuck in two dimensions. :) Not to spoil this for anyone, I'll give my answer at the very bottom of this reply. > --- Lee wrote: >> Newton---but not I---was able to > > calculate the spherical oblateness of >> the Earth by carefully regarding this >> notion of gravitational potential. >> >> But my Newtonian calculation...is off >> by a factor of two! Perhaps someone >> here who really likes classical physics >> can see what is going wrong. > I did not actually do the calculation myself however > there are two possible errors which may have led to > the discrepancy. > > 1. Did you remember the factor (1/2) in your kinetic > energy term? i.e. KE = (1/2)mv^2 for your particle. Well, I think so. Writing "w" for omega, I used the value (wr)^2 divided by two, as you can check in my original post. > 2. The mass of the earth that contributes to the > gravitational field at the poles is LESS than the mass > contributing to the field at the equator. The reason > for this is Gauss' Law in gravitation. Maybe I can understand how this could be true if by "gravitational field" you mean something involving potential. Because insofar as the *force* is concerned, that surely cannot be right. At the poles, the force on you is the perfect sphere beneath your feet plus the "winged" material at the equatorial bulge, that also contributes to a "downward" pull. > In other words, the mass of the earth that is included > as M in GM/R should be the portion of the mass that is > contained within a perfect sphere of radius R. If R is > the polar radius this will be the total mass of the > earth minus the mass of those parts of the earth that > bulge out past the polar radius at the equator. Remarkable. Your term, "GM/R" is gravitational potential, and I can only presume that I was in error to think about the *force* in my previous paragraph. [For God's sake I hope no one thinks that I'm being sarcastic. I've been in trouble writing like this before.] Hmm, so Gauss's Law applies to the non-spherical Earth? I suppose. But I can't say I understand it. > At any point, a given distance from the barycenter of > an extended body, the only mass that contributes to > the gravitational field at that point is that portion > of the mass that is closer to the barycenter. Well, that's a nice result about gravitational *potential*, I suppose. I can't credit it for a statement about forces though. I'll have to think about Gauss' Law some more. Now for your puzzle: > Now I have a puzzle for you guys: What is the maximum > value of g, the acceleration of earth's gravitational > field, and where is this maximum g located? > Hint: Don't get stuck in two dimensions. :) Well, Stuart, I was going to write that it was maximal at the poles, but then I thought of a neat way to prove it to myself: I would find out the value of g at the equator, then subtract off the centrifugal force. So I tried to look up the two values of g, but instead ran into http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-1104.html (page down to Iconoclast's contribution) : Iconoclast 18th February 2003, 02:46 AM OK, here's (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-02/thrd3.html#0014 446) a thread on the subject from the sci.physics.research newsgroup from a few years ago, the thread in question is entitled "Baltimore Sun Says Gravity Inside Sphere is Uncalculable" (the thread title is misleading, that's not what the article was implying). From this discussion it appears that: - For a homogeneous sphere, gravity is always at a maximum at a point on the surface, it falls off above and below that point. Gravity falls off faster as we move outwards from the surface than than it does as we move inwards. - It is believed that the earth has a much higher density at the core than at the surface, thus gravity on earth will increase for quite a few hundred miles as we descend. I didn't know either of those things. So that wrecks it for me; I wouldn't have thought of the variable density factor. It says elsewhere on that page that someone heard in high school that it's maybe a thousand miles beneath the pole. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Nov 4 06:38:56 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 22:38:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) References: <20061102235019.83835.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <052901c6ffdc$3e3eaa20$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Heartland writes > [Jeffrey wrote] >> Lee writes: >> "But people can be in two places at once, even though it seems uncanny >> to our evolutionarily derived notions of self. Nonetheless, once forking >> is a possibility (either after uploading or, less plausibly, via teleporters >> and copying machines), people will have to accustom themselves to the >> idea." > > Jeffrey [wrote]: > "Personally, I'm not ready to reject Slawomir's ideas and conceptions. But, in this > particular example, I agree with you Lee. That the intricate weave of > *consciousness* of a person can effectively "exist" at two places simultaneously. Right, Jeffrey, but we'll still have to convince Heartland :-) I love pincer attacks. John Clark is coming at him from the north while we hammer away from the west > An easy and tangible example is the binocular vision of humans; where the two > spatially separated eyes recieve separate data streams from different locations, > are processed, and "emerge" in the same "conscious moment" as standard vision, > complete with parralax and depth perception." Yes, Slawomir, that's an interesting observation, but I don't think pertinent. > But these two streams of data are merely components in a single instance of mind. I > suspect that when Lee says that, "people can be in two places at once," he means > that, "people can *see* two places at once" which is certainly possible, as you > say. No---I did mean *being*. Now, first, please understand that these are two totally and completely separate physical processes with absolutely no knowledge of each other. Think of one of them, you, here on Earth and the other on a very similar Earth that lies 10^10^29 light-years from here (much, much further away than light has had time to travel since the BB). But you do happen to have the same memories. (By the way, I did not pull 10^10^29 out of my nether regions---it is a figure presented by Tegmark in the April 2003 Scientific American, where he points out that one will expect an identical person at about that range in an infinite universe.) > However, *seeing* two places at the same time and *being* in two > places at the same time are two different things. Right. > What is also important to point out is that each stream of visual > data is not equivalent to a complete mind just like a single neuron firing is not > equivalent to a full mind. In the end, all these different subprocesses that happen > inside a brain still add up to a single instance of mind. So two streams of visual > data don't produce two minds. There's still only one mind there. But I'm claiming (along with several other people here) that while there are two instances, two minds, two brains, there is only one person. What is a person? I'm going to be arguing against Jef Albright shortly, but to me it's values, beliefs, and memories, which someone began to call VBM or something here not long ago. > Incidentally, that 2 things cannot be at the same place and time has nothing to do > with "evolutionarily derived notions of self" (what I'm saying just happens to > apply to notions of "self" as well) but everything to do with the law of > conservation of mass/energy. Two brains weighing 1.4kg cannot share the same > spatiotemporal location and still weigh 1.4kg. Two unconnected instances of mind > cannot be a single instance of mind. Yes, but the concept of *person* that you dispute includes the proposition that you are the same person you were ten years ago even though we are speaking of two minds, two brains, two spatial locations, and two temporal locations. But still *one* person. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Nov 4 06:59:50 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 22:59:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) References: <20061102082308.30427.qmail@web37204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <057501c6ffdf$33394920$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > On 11/2/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > (2) Some people have "moved up" beyond the common-sense > > description of personal identity to embrace the broader > > "patternist" definition but have yet to embrace an even more > > general description based on agency rather than > > physical/functional similarity. > I'm curious, what's your definition of identity based on agency? > (I remember your general "wider contexts" philosophy and there's > some validity in it, but not sure how it bears on the question of identity.) I second the motion. Lee P.S. Okay, overcome with guilt, I'll add some substance to my post here. Jef earlier wrote: "I don't in fact believe that a person is fully and effectively defined by their values, beliefs and memories." All right then, provide an example. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 4 06:50:40 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 22:50:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] 2-party-system = 1-dimensional politics (was polls again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061104065040.6836.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > Having voted outside of the box in several national > elections I can only > beat my shoe on the table in agreement. High praise from you Robert. > > The reality, unfortunately, and one which "we" may > not adapt to easily is > that while many people on the list are adept at > balancing N-dimensional > spaces, the "public" (which is buying those > newspapers) is not. That is because there are those that profit immensely by the current state of affairs at our expense. They resist allowing a serious third party because they have the current system completely hacked. "All your economy is belong to us.", as you and Eugen are fond of saying. To allow a third party into serious contention is like the three-body problem. It would throw off their tried and true calculations. > Now, this leads to an interesting question -- is the > destiny of humanity > multispatial? Do you believe in destiny? I will tell you one thing. If American politics does not become at least a little more multidimensional soon, the Great Experiment will have failed. Having burned itself out in just over 200 years. The reasons I think this are several fold: 1. The quickly growing wealth gap in the United States poses a grave danger to the life, liberty, and happiness of millions of Americans. This growing divide between the rich and the poor is due to the middle class shrinking. If the middle-class does react soon, it will no longer be a significant demographic in politics. 2. This decline of the middle class is the direct result of a rigid two-party system. A system where one political party heavily taxes the middle class to give the money to the wealthy. The other political party similarly taxes the hell out of the middle class in order to give the money, (after skimming some off the top of course) to the poor. Obviously this state of affirs hangs the middle-class out to dry of course no matter which way they vote. I bet I don't have to tell you which party is which do I? 3. In a more general sense, the two party system is one-dimensional politics. It leads to less adaptability than a three party system which would at least be two-dimensional. From the evolutionary standpoint this is a serious problem. If you are stuck walking back and forth along the same line all the time, there are a lot of places you can't go. Rewalking all the same old tired ground is annoying enough by itself. But if there is a truck headed your way, you are REALLY screwed. > Does the direction and politics and > news of Smartski > (Deepski?), CA differ significantly from the > direction and politics of > Slowski (Shallowski), CA? [1] I don't think so. I doubt one's choice of Internet connection is correlated to the politics of the individual, unless one is appreciably more expensive than the other. Unless you mean something else, in which case elaborate. Then again I may not be getting your gist. > A second interesting question is > whether the power brokers can > afford to allow humanity to become multispatial? [2] No they can't, not if they don't care to deserve their power. If they did deserve their power, they would try to lead us somewhere and not just back and forth, tax and spend, war and peace. Since the percieve the greatest threat to their privelaged position come not from the poor whom they distract with bread and circuses but from the middle-class wherein fall most professionals and intellectuals. Thus they seek to widen the gap to secure their own position. The short-sightedness of their plan is that they won't realize that they NEED the techies to figure stuff out for them, fix their fancy cars, and give them new heart valves until it is too late. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta) From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Nov 4 08:39:34 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 00:39:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] polls again In-Reply-To: <20061103071522.41697.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061103071522.41697.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F693F8F-C5DC-4349-BBC8-604DC7B1F981@ceruleansystems.com> On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:15 PM, Al Brooks wrote: > Does anyone understand the tax propositions on > ballots? don't you have to be an accountant to grasp > them? Why doesn't a state empanel twelve economists as > a jury to arbitrate decisions on taxes rather than let > less educated or uneducated voters do so? > That's why I like gay issues; sex-related issues > aren't really important, but at least anyone can > comprehend them. Some states have good proxies for tax policy, and a few states essentially have no tax policy to speak of. It is a regional issue. In California, one of the sanest voices with respect to tax propositions is Tom McClintock. Also one of the most respected and liked politicians in California, perhaps ironically because he is basically an old school conservative in a liberal state but is arguably one of the most intelligent and well-educated politicians out there when it comes to fiscal policy. If I'm lazy, I assume McClintock has a rational perspective of tax propositions, regardless of what I think of his other policy positions. I would note that he is not reflexively anti-tax despite being of the small government persuasion. He will grudgingly support new tax initiatives if they are clearly efficient or the only way to accomplish something critical (i.e. the existing problem does not stem from gross waste and corruption in the use of current funds). His position is always sufficiently nuanced and thoughtful that it is hard to criticize it without being overtly ideological. There are a number of tax foundations throughout the country. Places like taxfoundation.org are among the best, covering both Federal and State issues and having no obvious party bent. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From benboc at lineone.net Sat Nov 4 10:27:53 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 10:27:53 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454C6B29.3060305@lineone.net> Anna said: > I feel using the word "marriage" as a symbol of the > union between 2 men or 2 women violates my right as a > heterosexual female. This is interesting. Are you sure you mean what you say here? You actually feel that somebody's use of a word in a way that you disagree with, is a violation of your rights? If this is true, i don't understand it. What rights are you talking about? I mean, i feel that the American use of the word 'tire' to mean 'tyre' is a number of things - stupid, confusing, unnecessary, even ignorant (I'm no fan of Webster, you can guess), but one thing it isn't, is a violation of any of my rights. Now, if there was a proposal to change the law and make me use the word 'tire' to mean the thing that goes round the outside of a wheel, as well as (or even instead of) what happens when i use up all my energy, that would be different. I don't know if i could say that 'my rights were being violated', but i would certainly object to any attempt to criminalise my use of 'proper english'. What i can't object to, though (although i can certainly dislike it), is the American use of the word. They can mangle their language any way they like, it doesn't violate any of my rights. I think the point of the gay marriage thing is that 'marriage' has a legal status, and gay people want to be able to have a legally sanctioned relationship with exactly the same status as a marriage. So why confuse things by having a different name for it? What about transgender people? Does a couple consisting of an XY male who is anatomically female (with an official sex of female) and another XY male who is anatomically male, need a different term for their marriage? What about some future couple who are both hermaphrodites, or both neuters, who want to live together as a married couple with all the same legal rights? Would you propose creating yet more new terms for them? What about a couple where one is human and the other a machine? A neuter and a male? Two people who can change their sex at will? etc., etc. (And that's without even thinking about relationships involving more than 2 people!) ben zaiboc From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Nov 4 11:26:18 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 03:26:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity In-Reply-To: <057501c6ffdf$33394920$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: > Russell writes > > > On 11/2/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > (2) Some people have "moved up" beyond the common-sense > description > > > of personal identity to embrace the broader "patternist" > definition > > > but have yet to embrace an even more general description based on > > > agency rather than physical/functional similarity. > > > I'm curious, what's your definition of identity based on agency? > > (I remember your general "wider contexts" philosophy and > there's some > > validity in it, but not sure how it bears on the question of > > identity.) > > I second the motion. > > Lee > > P.S. Okay, overcome with guilt, I'll add some substance to > my post here. Jef earlier wrote: "I don't in fact believe > that a person is fully and effectively defined by their > values, beliefs and memories." All right then, provide an example. Alrighty then. Here's an example intended to show that values, beliefs and memories don't necessarily or sufficiently define a person. -------------------- Alice at the age of six loved playing with dolls but boys were icky. She wasn't sure whether she believed in Santa Claus, and her memories were like those of most little girls, revolving around events in her home and with the neighbor kids, and she especially remembered her fourth birthday party (birthdays are great!) when grandma came to visit all the way from... someplace far away. When Alice turned sixteen, playing with dolls was long since pass? and boys were the most important focus of her life. She didn't believe in Santa Claus, but she believed very strongly that anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else, and she really really really wished people would leave her alone! Her memories were mostly of friends and social events over the last several years, but she didn't remember a lot about her early childhood years. When Alice was twenty-six, she was very active in her local chapter of United World, and it frustrated her to no end how people were so blind to the importance, rather the necessity, of being involved and working together for a common cause. Her memories were full of momentous world events and she could hardly remember being the sixteen year old who so often said "leave me alone" when people offered to help. At thirty-six, Alice couldn't understand how people could find time for idealistic dreams like "saving the world" when she and her husband had their hands more than full with two jobs, two mortgages and two kids. She believed strongly that family (especially the children) comes first, and that free time was among the most valuable things in the universe. She had fond memories of being sixteen, when life was so simple and free. At eighty-six, Alice and her partner stayed almost entirely at home due to the ongoing bioterrorist threats. It wasn't so bad though, and in fact she was more active and involved than ever before using the latest telepresence technology. It allowed her to be in more than one place at the same time, and while her multiple projects were very important to her, even with mental augmentation she sometimes felt she might explode from all the in-rushing information. Being so plugged into the net it was often hard to discern where "Alice" ended and the rest of the world began, and she could "remember" almost anything instantly. On their one hundred thirty-sixth birthday Alice's variants and doubles noted their anniversary in passing but were much too engaged with multiples of projects to choose to allocate an attentional resource branch for a dedicated celebration. AlicePrime would have wanted it that way, and it's not like anyone's going to forget anything these days. ------------- I'll follow up later with the next part, about how threads of agency (single or multiple) are a more general basis for determination of personal identity. - Jef From velvethum at hotmail.com Sat Nov 4 13:22:39 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 08:22:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (Survival tangent) References: <20061102082308.30427.qmail@web37204.mail.mud.yahoo.com><8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> <057501c6ffdf$33394920$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: S: >> What you describe is, of course, Leibniz's law. "1" >> and "1" are different instances of "1" since the >> first "1" has a property of being to the left >> of "and" while the other "1" has a property of >> being to the right of "and". Multiple instances of >> anything are "automatically" different. Ian: > Right, the definition of 'identity' in logic matches > Leibniz's Identity of Indiscernibles. And if we're > talking about 'identity', our conclusions should > derive from its logical definition. Doing so shows > that if x and y are identical, then all the properties > of x and of y are identical and all the relations of x > to z and of y to z are identical. *nods* Ian: > But as I believe > I've shown, due to physical reality, all the > properties and relations of copies (be they copies of > brains or computer files) are not identical. Indeed, > the fact that 'copies' is as a plural term denotes > that there are differences between them. ~Ian Correct! That this is so is indeed "due to physical reality" as Leibniz's law is basically a necessary consequence of the law of conservation of mass/energy. In the above I would only replace "all the properties" with "some properties." Obviously, it would be sufficient to point to a single inconsistent property to show that two things were not identical. Slawomir P.S. For some reason only 1 out of your last 5 messages found its way to my inbox. I could find the other four only in the archives. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Nov 4 13:50:36 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 08:50:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything - the selfidentity quest In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890611032128s29669b02ka486338d83893270@mail.gmail.com> References: <7d79ed890611032128s29669b02ka486338d83893270@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <32906.72.236.103.114.1162648236.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > I agree with the above, and add to it that all the HTML formatting and > yellow highlighting makes it very hard for me to bring my attention to > bear. > ... and if you use, for safety's sake, a plain text email reader, that stuff doesn't even show up so there's no clue who said what or what might be emphasized. Big nuisance and posts like that get deleted as soon as I realize I can't "get" the flow. Regards, MB From eugen at leitl.org Sat Nov 4 14:44:28 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 15:44:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything - the selfidentity quest In-Reply-To: <32906.72.236.103.114.1162648236.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <7d79ed890611032128s29669b02ka486338d83893270@mail.gmail.com> <32906.72.236.103.114.1162648236.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <20061104144428.GI6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:50:36AM -0500, MB wrote: > ... and if you use, for safety's sake, a plain text email reader, that stuff doesn't > even show up so there's no clue who said what or what might be emphasized. Big > nuisance and posts like that get deleted as soon as I realize I can't "get" the > flow. As periodic plug of http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html can't hurt. (If you don't follow these rules, not only are you risking looking illiterate, you're guaranteed to have a considerable comprehension handicap). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sat Nov 4 14:46:19 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 15:46:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: References: <057501c6ffdf$33394920$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061104144619.GJ6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:22:39AM -0500, Heartland wrote: > P.S. For some reason only 1 out of your last 5 messages found its way to my inbox. > I could find the other four only in the archives. I suspect (but can't prove) that the reason is hotmail. Try resubbing using a different email provider, and see whether the missed messages will wind up there. If they do, it's a yet another reason to ditch hotmail. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 15:05:32 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 10:05:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: list delivery [was: Identity (Survival tangent)] Message-ID: On 11/4/06, Heartland wrote: > P.S. For some reason only 1 out of your last 5 messages found its way to > my inbox. I could find the other four only in the archives. > This concerns me. I too have noticed from time to time threads which I can't find the start of or seem to have lost the middle of. Now, I assume since I'm using gmail that Google's end of things doesn't drop stuff. But I don't regularly go through my SPAM folder to look for "pseudo-drops". In nearly a year of using gmail I am only aware of one instance where a post from Keith got mislabeled. The question *is* -- are statistics kept on non-delivered or dropped emails? Or is there some way of putting a trace on messages or threads? One would wonder why in this day and age there are not active web pages which report in real time "list state", i.e. daily or hourly -- "messages received, messages delivered, messages pending delivery, messages failed delivery, etc." Providers like gmail or hotmail or AOL must have this stuff for internal problem analysis. Couldn't we get something like that for the ExI list but have it be "public" so people can to some extent do "self-diagnosis" when they are having a problem? I ask this because this problem comes up from time to time and there doesn't appear to be any way to determine whether we should be blaming the "sending" machine(s) or the "receiving" machine(s) (or perhaps the recipient). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Nov 4 15:06:28 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 07:06:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity References: Message-ID: <059501c70023$17c091a0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes to provide the best description I've ever seen of the danger to one's personal identity posed by simply becoming different over time. > Here's an example intended to show that values, beliefs and > memories don't necessarily or sufficiently define a person. There follows an extremely good example of how a single legal person can change rather dramatically over decades into who I'd call "someone else" (see Jef's *full* explication below). > Alice at the age of six loved playing with dolls but boys > were icky. She wasn't sure whether she believed in Santa > Claus, and her memories were like those of most little girls, > revolving around events in her home and with the neighbor > kids, and she especially remembered her fourth birthday > party (birthdays are great!) when grandma came to visit > all the way from... someplace far away. > At eighty-six, Alice and her partner stayed almost entirely > at home due to the ongoing bioterrorist threats. It wasn't so > bad though, and in fact she was more active and involved > than ever before using the latest telepresence technology. > It allowed her to be in more than one place at the same > time, and while her multiple projects were very important > to her, even with mental augmentation she sometimes felt > she might explode from all the in-rushing information. Being > so plugged into the net it was often hard to discern where > "Alice" ended and the rest of the world began, and she could > "remember" almost anything instantly. So why the devil do you think that the person who the six year old was is still alive, or can still be said to exist? Just what is it that they have in common that justifies saying so? (What if, though, we *each* project our own histories into this question? And derive our assumptions and doctrines therefrom? At age 6 I did a few things that are exactly the kind of thing that distinguishes me from everyone I know; also I am able to still very strongly identify with who I was at age 16. But those are the *only* reasons that I think I'm still the same person. I.e., I haven't been changing as quickly as your Alice.) As so many do and have done, you appear here to be placing a lot of emphasis on simple continuity. Maybe not; we'll wait for your explication of "agency". But I've always been against simple continuity as a determinant of personal identity. In 1991 I wrote an article for the cryonics magazine "The Immortalist" in which one gradually grows and ages and turns into a frog. Now it is clear at the end of this process YOU are dead, and there is a new frog in the world. Likewise if you gradually changed into Lee Corbin, then Jef would be dead: there would be 2 Lee Corbins in the world and 0 Jefs. The title of my piece was: "Continuity, the Last Refuge of the Soul". But, as you know, souls do not exist. Lee > Alice at the age of six loved playing with dolls but boys were icky. She wasn't sure whether she believed in Santa Claus, and her > memories were like those of most little girls, revolving around events in her home and with the neighbor kids, and she especially > remembered her fourth birthday party (birthdays are great!) when grandma came to visit all the way from... someplace far away. > > When Alice turned sixteen, playing with dolls was long since pass? and boys were the most important focus of her life. She didn't > believe in Santa Claus, but she believed very strongly that anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they > don't hurt anyone else, and she really really really wished people would leave her alone! Her memories were mostly of friends and > social events over the last several years, but she didn't remember a lot about her early childhood years. > > When Alice was twenty-six, she was very active in her local chapter of United World, and it frustrated her to no end how people > were so blind to the importance, rather the necessity, of being involved and working together for a common cause. Her memories > were full of momentous world events and she could hardly remember being the sixteen year old who so often said "leave me alone" > when people offered to help. > > At thirty-six, Alice couldn't understand how people could find time for idealistic dreams like "saving the world" when she and her > husband had their hands more than full with two jobs, two mortgages and two kids. She believed strongly that family (especially > the children) comes first, and that free time was among the most valuable things in the universe. She had fond memories of being > sixteen, when life was so simple and free. > > > > At eighty-six, Alice and her partner stayed almost entirely at home due to the ongoing bioterrorist threats. It wasn't so bad > though, and in fact she was more active and involved than ever before using the latest telepresence technology. It allowed her to > be in more than one place at the same time, and while her multiple projects were very important to her, even with mental > augmentation she sometimes felt she might explode from all the in-rushing information. Being so plugged into the net it was often > hard to discern where "Alice" ended and the rest of the world began, and she could "remember" almost anything instantly. > > > > On their one hundred thirty-sixth birthday Alice's variants and doubles noted their anniversary in passing but were much too > engaged with multiples of projects to choose to allocate an attentional resource branch for a dedicated celebration. AlicePrime > would have wanted it that way, and it's not like anyone's going to forget anything these days. > > ------------- > > I'll follow up later with the next part, about how threads of agency (single or multiple) are a more general basis for > determination of personal identity. From velvethum at hotmail.com Sat Nov 4 16:03:07 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 11:03:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: list delivery References: Message-ID: Heartland: >> P.S. For some reason only 1 out of your last 5 messages found its way to >> my inbox. I could find the other four only in the archives. Robert: > This concerns me. I too have noticed from time to time threads which I > can't find the start of or seem to have lost the middle of. Looking at my inbox and the archives, the delivery rate seems to hover somewhere around 80% which is not good at all. The problem with these mailing lists is that they are so decentralized. The error could have occurred at any point along the delivery chain. I suspect that switching from mailing list to a message board format would have prevented this from happening. Besides, IMHO, message boards are a lot more convenient than mail-based fora. It's much easier to choose and track the threads you care about and you don't get "the whole list" in your inbox every time you open it. Finally, it would be nice to free up that precious inbox space for private communication only (and spam). Slawomir From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 16:17:20 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 11:17:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor: Gmail [was: Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity] Message-ID: On 11/4/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Jef writes to provide the best description I've ever seen > of the danger to one's personal identity posed by simply > becoming different over time. > ... > > Alice at the age of six loved playing with dolls but boys > > were icky. [assorted snips] I've noticed from time to time that the ads/links gmail provides can range from simply interesting to extremely humorous. But the email above generating a link to "Peter Potty" -- "The only flushable toddler urinal. Easiest way to train boys!" had me ROTFL. Immediately after that was "Personalized Potty Song" -- "Encourage toddlers to use the potty Put some fun into potty training!" This got connected in my mind to recent episodes from "Boston Legal" where the aggressive lawyer rakes a flagrant (gay?) "pervert" over the coals in court. The pervert subsequently labels the lawyer as a "potty mouth" and sues him for defamation. So my mind was connecting Google's link selection with Lee (or Jef) being "potty mouths" [1]. I'm assuming the potty links are being generated by the discussion of "Alice at the age of six", but one would presume that at six one is beyond potty training. So is Google's "best match" poor in this instance? The humor goes further when you consider that the lead in link which appears above the message is to "The McKnight Endowment Fund for Neuroscience" so Jef & Lee are "brainy potty mouths". Related to this might the question of what kind of "intelligence" Google is using to select links? One would presume with billions of dollars at stake that this is a very non-trivial question. I don't think I've ever seen any academic or public discussion of this but perhaps I've simply not been paying attention. People might want to follow up with their favorite Gmail "things that make you go hmmmm..." or perhaps "Intelligent advertising" (though that might want to be a different thread). And a third thread might be whether we can expect such corporate efforts to generate "intelligence" [2]. I do know that without gmail having been created and my choosing to use it I would not have these interesting views of reality from a different perspective. Robert P.S. I've still got a lot of gmail invites if anyone needs one. 1. No reason this association would have occured had Google not selected *those* links and the Boston Legal writers not come up with *that* particular phrase. Serendipity at work. 2. Perhaps this has been discussed at length on other lists and I'm just unaware of those discussions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Nov 4 16:37:37 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 10:37:37 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] World Future Society Presents - Extreme Democracy Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061104103319.04636d18@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Our good friend Jon Lebkowsky will be speaking at the WFS in Austin on December 5th. >Extreme Democracy >The World Future Society will hold it's next monthly meeting in Austin on >Tuesday, December 5, 2006. It will be held at the meeting room at 9503 >Research Blvd. # 400., Austin, TX 78759 (512.349.7151) at 6:00 p.m. > >Jon Lebkowsky will be speaking on "Extreme Democracy" > >"In the 1990s online activists experimented with the Internet and the >World Wide Web as a platform for a new kind of politics, leveraging >interactive "many-to-many" tools to support both advocacy and >deliberation. Early online activism focused on issues that were relevant >to the Internet's strong "geek" element,"cyber liberties" issues of free >speech and privacy. However in 2000, as Internet penetration was >mainstreaming and reaching critical mass, the web became relevant to >political campaigns. In the presidential campaign for election 2004, the >Internet became an essential part of the political process. Howard Dean's >short-lived front-runner status, a product of his campaign's effective use >of Internet tools, proved that the Internet could have an effect. Though >Dean was unsuccessful in his bid for the Democratic nomination, he >continued to use web-based tools effectively to take control of the >Democratic Party. Jon will answer the question, how is the Internet's role >in politics evolving, and what are the implications for 2008? > >Jon has been online since the 1980s, when he learned that computers could >form networks, and that computer networks are environments for >communication, group-forming, and community-building. Since then he's done >diverse work as a writer, publisher, consultant, community developer, >project manager, and technology director. He just ended five years as CEO >of Polycot Consulting, Inc., a company he co-founded in 2001. He is >currently writing, working as an independent consultant, and helping build >a nonprofit called AssistOrg, which will provide web development and >consulting services to NPOs. > >Jon Lebkowsky is an authority on, and evangelist for, computer-mediated >communications, social software, virtual communities, community >technology, and online social networks. He has served variously as a CEO, >technology director, project manager, systems analyst, and online >community developer. His current consulting practice focuses on web >usability and strategy and effective use of online social technologies. He >is knowledgeable of Internet policy and trends, and is a strong proponent >of universal broadband access to computer networks. > >He has written about technology and culture for publications such as Mondo >2000, 21C, boingboing, Whole Earth Review, FringeWare Review, Wired >Magazine, and the Austin Chronicle. > >His blog is at >www.weblogsky.com, >and he contributes to other blogs at >www.worldchanging.com, >www.smartmobs.com, and >www.austin.metblogs.com. > >A longtime proponent of online tools for civic engagement, he co-edited >Extreme Democracy, a book on technology, democracy, and advocacy, and >served on the organizing committee for O'Reilly's Digital Democracy Teach-In. > >Copies of Extreme Democracy will be available for sale at the meeting. > >Attendance fee is $20 per person, for members, $25 for nonmembers, cash or >checks only. (Make checks payable to CenTexWFS.) The fee includes a meal >but is charged for attendance. The meeting room is at the back of the >restaurant on the right. > >Seating is limited so please reserve your place >here. > >For more information about the Central Texas Chapter of the World Future >Society, visit >www.CenTexWFS.org. > > >For more information about the World Future Society, visit >www.wfs.org." Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Sat Nov 4 16:42:02 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 11:42:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity References: <059501c70023$17c091a0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Jef: > Here's an example intended to show that values, beliefs and > memories don't necessarily or sufficiently define a person. Lee: "There follows an extremely good example of how a single legal person can change rather dramatically over decades into who I'd call "someone else" (see Jef's *full* explication below)." Lee, wasn't that obvious? That's what you get for reducing your "self" to VMBs. Eventually you realize that almost none of your VMBs at 2 are the same as your VMBs at 80 which forces you to admit that someone has died sometime between 2 and 80. Then you either admit this or choose to give up the idea that "VMBs = Self." :) Lee: "So why the devil do you think that the person who the six year old was is still alive, or can still be said to exist? Just what is it that they have in common that justifies saying so?" Right. While I've had definite answers to these questions for a long time, let's see what Jef comes up with. So far so good. Slawomir From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 12:37:59 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 14:37:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - reply to Jef Message-ID: David, I've seen your writing, mainly on WTA-Talk,... For me personally, it would help if you would use a format that doesn't come across as a sales pitch. For example, if you were to make some statement (preferably something novel, insightful or controversial within the context of the extropy list), and follow it will some concise supporting statements and perhaps a statement as to why others might see it as significant. By doing so, I think you would be very likely to get a meaningful response. - Jef David reply to Jef Allbright: I think you, and most transhumanist, would agree that if we could capture reliably the identity critical information, than this information could be uploaded to future conscious artificial intelligence, or even to a clone of the same person that carry this identity, to the outcome that the future entity carrying the same self identity as the original person. To that second phase person I call the info-resurrected person and the claim is that A(original) is survived in B (his duplicate) as long as they both carry the same self identity and that they are not mutually existent. So the critical query here is whether one can really capture now the salient information regarding his self identity? According to most reductionist theories of the self including Max More The Diachronic Self, the self or the person just is connectedness, continuity and the right kind of cause. connectedness means the content that connect the different stages or phases of person's life ; continuity means the degree of change between consecutive phases of the same person and the right kind of cause leading from a phase to its consecutive phase. In this line of argumentation, the salient query that remains is whether we can preserve much connectedness between the original and his duplicate? since it is clear that we can never gather all the information about person's life, memories, intrinsic nuances and unconscious material. Yet as is clarifies in length in my work in the part on the transformation project see * http://davidishalom1.googlepages.com/home* the very desire and intention to transform, to enhance and ascend oneself in the transhuman future, is in itself a primary connectedness component that more than compensate for some reduction in connectedness, which is inevitable anyway if we want transformation. On this line of argumentation we can clearly understand that the salient information regarding our self identity, which holds much of our ideal self and transformation intention, can be personally captured through elaborate procedure that can soon be perfected and see for that W.S. Bainbridge work on personality capture. I do recommend to you Jef and others who really want to check this option of info survival to review carefully my work albeit its imperfection. I am sure you could gather something there. My motivation to spread this notion of info-resurrection comes from my realization that for this procedure to be practical and instrumental, it has to gather some social and memetic spreading. I will be thankful if you can issue more concrete remarks to be answered. David Ish-Shalom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Nov 4 16:38:43 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 08:38:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <454C6B29.3060305@lineone.net> Message-ID: <200611041647.kA4GlGvo010459@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ben > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! > > Anna said: > > > I feel using the word "marriage" as a symbol of the > > union between 2 men or 2 women violates my right as a > > heterosexual female. ... > Does a couple consisting of an XY male > who is anatomically female (with an official sex of female) and another > XY male who is anatomically male, need a different term for their > marriage? I know of an example of this, two XYs, both anatomically ambiguous, one raised male, the other raised female, the state of Oregon asked no questions. > What about some future couple who are both hermaphrodites, or both > neuters, who want to live together as a married couple with all the same > legal rights? Would you propose creating yet more new terms for them? > What about a couple where one is human and the other a machine? A neuter > and a male? Two people who can change their sex at will?... ben zaiboc Good questions all, ben. Since there has been talk of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, let us see what that amendment would actually look like. During the time my wife and I were doing fertility treatments, the medics had us study up on all the things that can go wrong with the spawning process, perhaps so we would not automatically blame IVF if something did go wrong. One such error is trisomy, where instead of getting the usual chromosome pairs, there are three. In some rare cases a single chromosome results in a survivable configuration, which is called a monosomy. In all the debates on same sex marriage, seldom is mentioned anything about those who have a trisomy on 23, resulting in something other than the two common arrangements, XX (female) and XY (male). Genetically there are five genders, with XXX (or monosomy X), XXY and XYY in addition to the common two. Granted the trisomies are rare; I do not expect to see public buildings with five restrooms any time soon. If one ignores the three trisomies, there are three possible pairings of two persons, XX and XX, XY and XY, XX and XY. We say the last of these three possibilities may marry, but not the other two. If we do not ignore the trisomies, then there are 15 possible pairings of two humans. Do we allow some of those possible pairs to marry? Actually current law does allow many of those pairs. The XXX trisomy is considered indistinguishable from the common female XX, and the XYY is considered unambiguously male. Those with the ambiguous gender XXY are generally ignored by current law. Let us list the possibilities. For simplicity, even if not rigorous accuracy, let us lump together the trisomy XXX and monosomy X and call that F*. The trisomy XYY let us call M*, and the XXY let us call K for Klinefelter syndrome. This reduces the alphabet soup a bit. There are fifteen possible combinations: 1. M F 2. M M 3. M M* 4. M K 5. M F* 6. F F 7. F M* 8. F K 9. F F* 10. M* M* 11. M* K 12. M* F* 13. K K 14. K F* 15. F* F* This is only the possible genetic combinations, still ignoring the many (possibly more common than genetic non bisome) gestational gender ambiguities. The genetic trisomy can prove he or she is the way he or she is because of nature, and so cannot ethically be the victim of discrimination. One would think the amendment would list the above and then claim that only combination 1 is legal, but that is not the case. Since neither F* nor M* are considered ambiguous gender, combinations 1, 5, 7, 12 are currently legal and presumably unchallenged. The anti-gay-marriage crowd would then presumably object to combinations 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 15 but not necessarily combinations 4, 8, 11, and 14 but possibly combination 13, since two ambiguous-gender persons would fit the definition of the dreaded "same sex." So the 13s status hangs on the wording of the marriage amendment. If it defines marriage between a man and a woman, the 13s are good to go since they can be defined as either. If it specifically bans same sex marriage, the 13s are out of luck. Since law must be defined, the amendment must also exactly define the status of gender-reassigned persons, before, during and after the actual surgeries. If all the necessary details are covered, including monosomies, trisomies, gestational ambiguous gender, transgender etc, that amendment would be longer than the rest of the US constitution with all the other amendments combined. Its teaching would appropriately be moved from the civics class to the biology class. I predict that the saner lawmakers will prevail and they will leave the constitution alone. Eventually society will accept a person as whatever gender that person says they are. spike From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Nov 4 00:18:52 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:18:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061104001852.48435.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> A high crime rate is understandable, in a free society criminals have freedom as well as law abiders. Trash culture & overcommercialization are understandable, too, because it is a matter of subjective taste. Even government corruption is understandable; though much more corruption overall exists in government than in business, government corruption is in part a reflection of corruption in business. But what doesn't make sense is a mediocre educational system-- why not let the children stay home and watch educational TV or use computers rather than send them to second or third rate schools? It's been widely known about the quality of schools for years, at least three decades, but here we are six years into the 21st century. Rafal Smigrodzki told me not to worry about education, the singularity negates the problem, yet what about in the meantime? would any of you like to be sent to a crummy, meaningless job six or seven hours a day with time off in a playground full of bullies? Everything else makes some sense however the current school system doesn't make ANY sense. None, unless for some hidden purpose, say, to make a certain number of young guys vicious so some of them will be more inclined to join a branch of the Service. --------------------------------- We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 16:54:12 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 16:54:12 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor: Gmail [was: Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/4/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I've noticed from time to time that the ads/links gmail provides can range > from simply interesting to extremely humorous. But the email above > generating a link to "Peter Potty" -- "The only flushable toddler urinal. > Easiest way to train boys!" had me ROTFL. Immediately after that was > "Personalized Potty Song" -- "Encourage toddlers to use the potty Put some > fun into potty training!" > Install the CustomizeGoogle extension to Firefox and tick the 'Remove ads' boxes. You won't see gmail ads any more. They can stick their 'intelligent advertising' so far as I'm concerned. (Also Adblock Plus and NoScript and Proxomitron / Privoxy really help to clean up the web environment). BillK From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Nov 4 16:46:47 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 08:46:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Juicy Classical Physics ProblemInvolvingGravitational Potential In-Reply-To: <050a01c6ffd9$b5bf0a20$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200611041655.kA4GtEmA008307@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Lee this is a terrific puzzle thanks. > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > > So that wrecks it for me; I wouldn't have thought of the > variable density factor. It says elsewhere on that page > that someone heard in high school that it's maybe a > thousand miles beneath the pole. > > Lee We had a discussion on this several years ago. Damien and I worked some calculations, and I think Eugen, Robert and some others chipped in, wherein I estimated the variable density factor. I kept getting wrong answers until I actually looked it up and found that the density gradient was much larger than I had assumed. Given sufficient pressure, one really can compress molten iron. I wouldn't have thought that either. Perhaps you recall that fifth force misadventure the physicists spoke of back in the 80s. As I recall the anomalous readings were eventually traced to inaccuracies in modeling the density gradient of the earth. Duty calls, more later. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 16:56:16 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 11:56:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] 2-party-system = 1-dimensional politics (was polls again) In-Reply-To: <20061104065040.6836.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061104065040.6836.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60611040856t51a97100kb8a8a6e3430351fe@mail.gmail.com> I have to take issue with most of what you said, Stuart. I think that the current two party system is the result not so much of one-dimensional thinking, or other causes you mention. It is better explained by economies of scale in a form of marketing that strongly relies on our tribal tendencies. As the history of the two major parties shows, their policies and image have been shifting over the landscape continuously, with the Republicans occupying at times the role of Democrats and vice versa, on questions of faith, foreign policy, and economy. The Democrats used to be the hawks, who embroiled the US in world wars, and presided over the greatest expansions of military spending ever. The Republicans are now in the midst of the greatest expansion of state spending and state power in the last 70 years, unrivaled since the Democratic takeover of the Supreme Court in the 1930's. Both parties have marketed themselves as champions of the poor, pacifists, hawks, small(er) government advocates, champions of progress and defenders of the faith, frequently at the same time. The need for marketing is paramount in a democratic system: you have to appeal to the largest number of voters and you do that by identifying how large constituencies would vote, both for (which is not really what they want but the analysis of the "irrational voter" is another issue), or against. You have to carefully balance your promises and image to attract the most and turn off the fewest at the same time. There are few solutions to the problem since tradeoffs abound and are quite multidimensional. A party has to balance the appearances of toughness, charity, frugality, generosity, piety, progressiveness, elitism, populism, all competing in various ways for attention, and not surprisingly, the final marketable products, the political platforms of mass-appeal parties, are likely to be remarkably homogeneous over time: I fail to see any substantive differences between the major parties on important issues, if averaged over periods of twenty years or more. And, of course, there are economies of scale in selling ideology: a large organization trying to maximize their appeal has an advantage over smaller sellers of exactly the same ideology. That's why there is only one party per large niche: there is no small Democratic party, since this large supplier outcompetes any comers. Now this leads to the second element: tribalism. The most important predictor of voting Rep vs. Dem is what your parents used to vote. It is all about belonging, and signaling allegiance to your kin, in a situation where nepotism is made difficult by institutions and traditions. But then, children are not quite like parents either, and the new members of a family have different opinions about specific issues than the old folks. This imposes seemingly impossible demands on political parties: being different while staying the same. The young Republican cubs want to be Republican like daddy but they want to be a different shade of Republican. Very importantly, for a tribe to exist, there has to be at least one out-group to identify yourself against. Without the outsider to rally against, the tribe is likely to splinter on its own, making outsiders out of its own flesh. Now combine the strictures of mass marketing in a democratic system that existed for a few generations with tribalism, and you get a solution: at least two, but not more than three major parties, that differ in minor details and shift their image over periods of twenty years or more. There are some countries with dozens of parties: this is where tribal affiliation goes not to the party of your parents, but to the extended family or clan. There are some countries with only one party but they are less likely to be true democracies. The two party system seems to be a common outcome in stable democracies due at least in part to the mechanisms that I described. Now, I admit that this is a rather boring explanation: there are no cliques scheming to keep new political vendors out, there is no connection between the two-party system and the fictional "decline of the middle class" (which actually enjoyed the largest ever increase in numbers and in political power in the last century), no relation to the "growing inequality" (which is yet another marketing gimmick used by every mass political party since time immemorial to appeal to the common envy). There is no master plan by power wielders to destroy the middle class and support the poor (in fact, no serious democratic politician ever cares about the poor, because hardly any voters care about the poor, and of course the middle class that votes does not want to destroy themselves either). It's the outcome of hundreds of millions of people making decisions, embedded in institutionalized tradition and guided by various inborn propensities. Rafal From user at dhp.com Sat Nov 4 16:57:21 2006 From: user at dhp.com (Ensel Sharon) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 11:57:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > without being frozen. As is shown easily enough by Dennett's example of > the medical industry, you don't need to use violence to promote your > beliefs, in order to harm people with wrong beliefs. Yes, you *can* > hurt other people by being lax with yourself, forgiving yourself your > nonsense, holding yourself to too low a standard. It is this > understanding of strictness that makes modern medicine effective. There's a big difference between hurting someone, and not helping them as much as you could. If I hit you with my car, you have reason to complain. If I fail to push you completely out of the way of the car that was going to hit you, too bad. Further, this notion that we are at the "end of history" or the "end of science" and therefore can make broad statements (as you did above) about "wrong beliefs" is absurd. Even a cursory study of history shows that every people attach the same importance to their current understanding of the world, and the next generation always looks back with a smile. Our generation will _not be any different_. > To compare Dennett to a religious fundamentalist is silly; if you wish > to insult him with some trace of plausibility, compare him to an > academic theologian. And to suggest that they are automatically on the > same level, or committing the same mistake, because they dare to air > their views and advise others on what to think - that is foolish. It's very ironic that Dennett would chastise others for wasting time and kilowatts on "foolish" pursuits - and label "inefficient" mental activities as morally negative ... yet he chooses to spend his time plucking _very low_ philosophical fruit. I've read Voltaire, I've read Diderot, I've read d'Alembert. I don't need someone from "edge.org" to give me some lame rehash 250 years later. From ben at goertzel.org Sat Nov 4 17:04:14 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 12:04:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <20061104001852.48435.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> <20061104001852.48435.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150611040904j2986029bw5c2f196bf5defac7@mail.gmail.com> > But what doesn't make sense is a mediocre educational system-- why not let > the children stay home and watch educational TV or use computers rather than > send them to second or third rate schools? It's been widely known about the > quality of schools for years, at least three decades, but here we are six > years into the 21st century. Home schooling is an option ... so, the parents' attitudes are the real issue, not just the school system.... If more parents recognized the relatively destructive nature of the US public school system, they'd just pull their kids out.. ;-) -- Ben From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 17:05:56 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 12:05:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SOC: Nano-santas and society [was: PHIL: Derrida and Deconstruction] Message-ID: On 11/3/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > I'm at the 4S (Society for Social Studies of Science) conference in > Vancouver right now, surrounded by amazing amounts of postmodern thought > (and other styles I don't even know what to call). It is great fun, > especially since I don't have a great stake in it. Some people get to have all the fun... :-( But at the same time it was so clear that this was done from the > perspective of *another* machine, this one producing analysis, concerns > and criticism for a living. Just as the military industrial complex is a > business so is academia. But admitting it is impossible for either, since > both have to hide their essential self-servingness under the image of > "protecting democracy" or "intellectual inquiry" (of course, some people in > these respective machines actually strive for these goals, but to thrive you > have think about the bottom line, whether it is counted in > dollars or tenure probability). This little paragraph says a lot! Because both machines can pay a lot for the "stars" one has to wonder how it will play out as the siege machines begin to disassemble the castles. One is seeing the start of this, as Spike and others have mentioned, with the disassembly of the traditional "media" (news & 3-channel TV) by (a) cable; (b) Satellite and/or Internet radio; (c) blogs; (d) consumer specific advertising (google & gmail). I haven't yet seen it creep into Academia -- MIT & Stanford seem to have some online courses but one has to wonder *why* I can't sit in a house in MA (or India) and have Nobel prize winning physicists or Pulitzer Prize winning writers teach me and in return I make a deposit via PayPal based on my perceived quality of the lecture [1]. This would take apart the *entire* structure of undergraduate education around the world. The only "real" work in academia seems to be at the edges (in the graduate world) where one is taking apart stuff which has yet to be understood or inventing stuff from scratch. Q: Much of academia seems ripe to have the rug pulled out from under it -- why doesn't this seem to be happening? The Military-Industrial Complex is a different can of worms. But its raison d'etre largely goes away once the nano-santas arrive (at least one can hope). Why does one want to "conquer" (or "destroy") anything if all of ones survival needs are easily met [2]. One can imagine certain individuals who have a mindset that seeks to "control" everything but if these are kept in check then everyone else simply gets to go "play". For example once I live in a relocatable "nano-home" in international waters with my own personal defense system (remember my discussion about "simple mass defense") I am (a) not paying taxes to support said complex; and (b) could care less about the survival of the U.S. Q: Will sufficient numbers of people buy into this that the MIC will decay from within (i.e. why would one work for them if one didn't have to?) or without (i.e. the market for ones services has evaporated?) One has to wonder about this given the tendency of the M.I.C. to take emotion out of the equation (remotely piloted planes, self-driving cars, etc.). Will it become something that keeps going and going and going due to its own inertia? (AIs managing AIs that do the "killing"?) Robert 1. I've had professors that were or would be Nobel prize winners, listened to some at conferences and actually had dinner with one. Some were impressive some were not. 2. This is a doubling time question. Once the technology for "meeting human needs" exists and it can produce itself faster than the rate at which humans can reproduce (assuming one doesn't enable unlimited uploading & copying) then one is effectively living in "paradise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Nov 4 17:12:21 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 09:12:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <20061104001852.48435.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200611041710.kA4HAUmN024627@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________________ bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Al Brooks [kerry_prez at yahoo.com] ... however?the current school system doesn't make ANY sense. None, unless for some hidden purpose, say, to make a certain number of young guys vicious so?some of them?will be more inclined to join a branch of the Service. ... Al, I notice your email address is kerry_prez. The irony here is that senator Kerry destroyed any remnants of his possiblity to become president with a single comment similar in spirit to this one. spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 18:00:23 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:00:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor: Gmail [was: Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/4/06, BillK wrote: > Install the CustomizeGoogle extension to Firefox and tick the 'Remove > ads' boxes. You won't see gmail ads any more. > > They can stick their 'intelligent advertising' so far as I'm concerned. Ones mileage may vary. I can cite numerous occasions where I've been doing medical research, corporate development research, etc. (Using Google vs. Gmail) and the ads have actually been useful. The cost is very low (I don't have to ask the question or type in the keywords) -- the value of the "answers" is of course open to debate. So for some the advertising is *always* noise. For others the advertising is semi-useful. I am surprised however that there has not sprung up, at least that I'm aware of, someplace a blog or equivalent on "wierd things google connects". Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 18:13:24 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:13:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] 2-party-system = 1-dimensional politics (was polls again) In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60611040856t51a97100kb8a8a6e3430351fe@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061104065040.6836.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60611040856t51a97100kb8a8a6e3430351fe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/4/06, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Now, I admit that this is a rather boring explanation... It doesn't have to read like a blockbuster movie script (at least on this list) if it demonstrates insight. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 18:18:16 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:18:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: References: <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 11/4/06, Ensel Sharon wrote: > Further, this notion that we are at the "end of history" or the "end of > science" and therefore can make broad statements (as you did above) about > "wrong beliefs" is absurd. Even a cursory study of history shows that > every people attach the same importance to their current understanding of > the world, and the next generation always looks back with a smile. Our > generation will _not be any different_. Yes, but for the first time in human history, the "next generation" may be us! We are potentially the first who will have to deal with self-criticism over and over and over again. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sat Nov 4 18:36:47 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:36:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. References: <20061102235019.83835.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006401c70040$3a1acb90$bb084e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > *seeing*two places at the same time and *being* in two places at the same > time are two different things. If the concept of "place" has any meaning at all when your talking about a mind it's where the sense organs are. In human beings that place is not far from the brain but that is just a historical accident. > Two brains weighing 1.4kg cannot share the same spatiotemporal > location and still weigh 1.4kg. Two unconnected instances of > mind cannot be a single instance of mind. So mind weighs 1.4kg, how much does green weigh? > that 2 things cannot be at the same place and time has nothing to do with > "evolutionarily derived notions of self" (what I'm saying just happens to > apply to notions of "self" as well) but everything to do with the law of > conservation of mass/energy. We've known for over 70 years, ever since the 2 slit experiment was done with electrons, that one thing can be in 2 places at once. And we know that 2 things can be in the same place and time, in fact it has been proven experimentally that 3600 can. And that was 3 years ago. http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/626-1.html John K Clark From pharos at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 18:58:49 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:58:49 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor: Gmail [was: Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/4/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Ones mileage may vary. I can cite numerous occasions where I've been doing > medical research, corporate development research, etc. (Using Google vs. > Gmail) and the ads have actually been useful. The cost is very low (I don't > have to ask the question or type in the keywords) -- the value of the > "answers" is of course open to debate. > Well that's worth a note in the history books. Someone actually found something useful in Google automated ads! I'm not even in the same country as their ads. See: Quote: Check out this site: search of eiqz2q.org ? depending which datacentre you hit, you will see between 3.8 and 5.5 BILLION RESULTS. Even worse? the domain is EIGHTEEN DAYS OLD. That's right, in under 3 weeks, one person has managed to get one domain 5 billion pages indexed in Google. And they are ranking, too. That particular domain has an Alexa ranking of under 7,000. Another domain owned by the same person, t1ps2see.com, has between 1.7 and 2.4 billion indexed pages and an Alexa ranking of under 2,000? after 4 weeks. Coincidentally, the sites also have 3 blocks of Adsense ads on each page. I wonder how much that one person is earning per day with billions and billions of pages indexed and ranking? ----------------- It's all a load of crap. I don't want to see any of it. BillK From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Nov 4 19:02:10 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 11:02:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David wrote: > I think you, and most transhumanist, By the way, I consider myself more a humanist than a transhumanist, but the difference is subtle. > would agree that if we could capture reliably the identity > critical information, than this information could be uploaded > to future conscious artificial intelligence, or even to a > clone of the same person that carry this identity, to the > outcome that the future entity carrying the same self identity > as the original person. To that second phase person I call > the info-resurrected person and the claim is that A(original) > is survived in B (his duplicate) as long as they both carry > the same self identity and that they are not mutually existent. > So the critical query here is whether one can really capture now > the salient information regarding his self identity? This idea is familiar within transhumanist and cryonics groups. It is mentioned in fiction; Joe Halpern, Greg Egan, Linda Nigata come to mind. There is also Tipler's version of the "Omega Point" where everyone who ever lived could be effectively reconstituted via latent information and near-infinite computational power. I recall Robert Bradbury (on this list) and John Smart in the last year talking about how personality capture might be valuable to the survivors, if not for the deceased. > According to most reductionist theories of the self including > Max More The Diachronic Self, the self or the person just is > connectedness, continuity and the right kind of cause. > connectedness means the content that connect the different > stages or phases of person's life ; continuity means the degree > of change between consecutive phases of the same person and the > right kind of cause leading from a phase to its consecutive > phase. In this line of argumentation, the salient query that > remains is whether we can preserve much connectedness between > the original and his duplicate? since it is clear that we can > never gather all the information about person's life, memories, > intrinsic nuances and unconscious material. I think many of us here would agree that incomplete information can be sufficient and that in any case complete information is never attainable. > Yet as is clarifies > in length in my work in the part on the transformation project > see http://davidishalom1.googlepages.com/home the very desire > and intention to transform, to enhance and ascend oneself in > the transhuman future, is in itself a primary connectedness > component that more than compensate for some reduction in > connectedness, which is inevitable anyway if we want > transformation. I read your web page some time ago, and again yesterday, but I don't see how such a "desire and intention" fills in any essential gaps in the information constituting personal identity. You seem to be saying that the "desire and intention" specifies a future identity and that it is that future identity which matter most, but that seems to imply a convergence of all individuals toward an imagined abstract future identity. It seems to me this constitutes less information rather than more. > On this line of argumentation we can clearly > understand that the salient information regarding our self > identity, which holds much of our ideal self and transformation > intention, can be personally captured through elaborate > procedure that can soon be perfected and see for that > W.S. Bainbridge work on personality capture. I looked at the description of the personality survey program and thought it might be very interesting to see it used to gather anonymous results from a large sample population for the purpose of understanding shared perceptions and values. As a means of extended survival I think it aims in the right direction but falls short. Are you sure you mean it will be "perfected" or do you mean "improved"? > I do recommend to you Jef and others who really want to check > this option of info survival to review carefully my work albeit > its imperfection. I am sure you could gather something there. > My motivation to spread this notion of info-resurrection comes > from my realization that for this procedure to be practical and > instrumental, it has to gather some social and memetic spreading. > I will be thankful if you can issue more concrete remarks to be > answered. Thanks David for resubmitting your thoughts here. Now if you could switch to plain text...? ;-) - Jef From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 19:16:11 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 14:16:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? Message-ID: Ok, I will freely admit that I'm potentially abusing the list, causing discomfort to some individuals, being "bad", etc. Live with it (unless the list "gods" censor this...). I happen to know Anders and I have an extremely deep respect for him and his work and so I hope he will not view this thread negatively. But it has struck me that with the demise of the Extropy Institute there will be no more Extropy conferences, there is no more Extropy "Board of Directors" that one might look to for guidance (as ill-defined as that might be) and no more opportunities to discuss the "details" of personal lives of the players and S.O.s. The last point being the key one (given recent discussion of "tribalism"). Tribes to at least some extent coalesce around the key players and what they are doing or seem to be doing. Watching from a distance the lives of Spike and Eugen which are "partnered" and having been through experiences over the last several years where one could debate endlessly how things might have been different had their been a partner involved the topic of "two as one" comes to mind. (Particularly given the potential problems of these syntheses.) One may ask under what conditions are survival probabilities enhanced by partnering? The list is obviously male biased, and so one has to ask why? Why are there not more XX people on the list? Setting aside that fact -- should we seek to correct it? Returning to the "gossip" part of this. I know nothing about Anders' preferences (my "conventional wisdom" is that people from Sweden may be notoriously lax in these areas.) But in observing Anders, the world, the Internet, etc. the question of *whom* would be the best partner(s) with Anders does arise [1]. Should "we" make it a mission to find one for Anders? [2, 3] Robert 1. Given that this is written from a distance it may be the case that Anders is already partnered and I don't know about it. In which case the discussion merely shifts from him to the next person on the list. 2. If one makes the assumptions that (a) Anders is useful for the future intelligent direction of humanity (which on my good days I would subscribe to) and (b) that being partnered increases ones survival probabilities (iffy I'll admit if one is watching prime time television) then it is logical to conclude we need to partner Anders. (Side note to Anders -- humanity trumps your feelings -- maybe.) 3. For those that object -- assume that I've already spent some time thinking about this message (I have). Assume that I've balanced it from my perspective (I have). Also assume it is written from the framework of considering "What is the greater good?". "Do no harm" or "Do no evil" don't cut it in my book. One has to think in a forward perspective and be dealing with sustainability and the minds which can support that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 19:31:02 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 14:31:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor: Gmail [was: Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/4/06, BillK wrote: > > Well that's worth a note in the history books. > Someone actually found something useful in Google automated ads! > I'm not even in the same country as their ads. Then one is dealing with the question of targeting, not "ads" per se. Have you told Google where you live? [I would expect the targeting to have a destination specific component -- if not then they need to implement this.] Quote: > Check out this site: search of eiqz2q.org ? depending which datacentre > you hit, you will see between 3.8 and 5.5 BILLION RESULTS. Even worse? > the domain is EIGHTEEN DAYS OLD. So all your are arguing is that its possible to "play" google. One can "play" *any* reality -- its a question of what the reality values at a point in time. One can play google and get statistics on it faster than they can adapt. That does *not* negate the question of when Google Ads are relevant and/or useful? (I'm not exactly typing in Brittney Spears and getting what one would expect as sales pitches). Picking extreme examples of the system falling apart are not useful from an ExICh reader list perspective because we are somewhat (significantly) outside of the standard box. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Sat Nov 4 22:38:29 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 14:38:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <1162679909.4912.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 22:57 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Besides, it's the wrong way to approach the problem. > Ranting against epidemic disease didn't save a single life. > What was needed was to understand what causes infectious diseases. > People have religions like they have chicken pox. There are several different ways of viewing religion. If one views religion as being infected by a set of bad memes then ranting can make a difference if the ranting has an impact on the bad memes. Consider the decline of infectious disease with the advent of better sanitation. Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and others are hopefully causing a more critical focus on the memes associated with religion. Fred From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Nov 4 19:52:57 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:52:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <200611041710.kA4HAUmN024627@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20061104001852.48435.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> <200611041710.kA4HAUmN024627@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061104133527.0219d988@satx.rr.com> At 09:12 AM 11/4/2006 -0800, spike wrote: >________________________________________ > Al Brooks [kerry_prez at yahoo.com]: > >... however the current school system doesn't make ANY sense. None, unless >for some hidden purpose, say, to make a certain number of young guys vicious >so some of them will be more inclined to join a branch of the Service. >... > >Al, I notice your email address is kerry_prez. The irony here is that >senator Kerry destroyed any remnants of his possiblity to become president >with a single comment similar in spirit to this one. Careful, Spike. What you should have written is "with a single ironic comment at Bush's expense that was maliciously and misleadingly spun by his opponents as a comment similar in spirit to this one." This is not a party-political observation (I don't get a vote in the States). It's a matter of comprehending the context. Of course, maybe I'm wrong about this and Kerry just happened to utter a remark in public equivalent to Bush or Cheney, say, blurting out in public that Halliburton is corrupt and all elected politicians are morons. Seems unlikely. Nor am I even convinced that he "told the joke wrong"--I suspect he assumed his audience was smart enough to make the leap to his ironic intent: "Hey, guess who's got himself mired in Iran... it's that booze-sucking brainless frat boy in the White House!" (I keep making that kind of mistake myself, assuming people will understand and laugh at my ironic quips when all too often they tend to stare open-mouthed and aghast.) Damien Broderick From moulton at moulton.com Sat Nov 4 22:34:12 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 14:34:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> <8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1162679652.4912.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 00:03 +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: > Yes, that's what I was referring to. The equivalent of the religious > fundamentalists who kill infidels for not believing in God would be > those who did the same thing in the name of the atheist ideology of > communism. Communism is not necessarily an atheist ideology. Historically there have been Communists of religious conviction; for example Catholic Communists during the early part of the 20th Century. Atheism refers to the absence of belief in a deity. Communism refers to a political/economic system. Let us not sully the fine term "atheism" by improperly linking it with the term "communism". Fred From James.Hughes at trincoll.edu Sat Nov 4 20:45:06 2006 From: James.Hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 15:45:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? Message-ID: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E01@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Perhaps, Robert, to get the ball rolling, you should tell us your sexual preference, mating behavior and breeding pattern just to get the ball rolling. For myself I'm a Kinsey 2, married once and with this wife for the last 26 years, with two children 10 and 13. I plan to have more after rejuvenation but will gladly offer my genome to anyone interested in using it in the meantime. More seriously, I wrote about marriage and longevity a while ago in Betterhumans: http://archives.betterhumans.com/Columns/Column/tabid/79/Column/229/Defa ult.aspx The broader issue of the relative fertility rates of seculars (low) versus the highly religious (high) should concern all transhumanists. As a culture and movement, however, I suspect we should prioritize memetic reproduction over genetic - more bang for the buck. After all reproduction also reduces longevity. As to finding places to gossip, bring it to the Transvision conferences. Next one will be in Chicago July 26-28, 2007, with Kurzweil and de Grey as keynotes. ------------------------ James Hughes Ph.D. Secretary, World Transhumanist Association http://transhumanism.org 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 asa at nada.kth.se Sat Nov 4 20:49:39 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:49:39 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3803.208.181.209.230.1162673379.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> LOL! As some of you have seen, I actually do wear a kind of marriage ring. It is my doctoral ring, and actually symbolizes being married to Science. I guess that shows just how liberated we Swedes are - it is not an opposite-sex, same-species or even same ontology marriage. :-) As for reproduction, I'm more into memes than genes. Hmm, maybe that reveals my real preferences :-) Robert Bradbury wrote: > 2. If one makes the assumptions that (a) Anders is useful for the future > intelligent direction of humanity (which on my good days I would subscribe > to) and (b) that being partnered increases ones survival probabilities > (iffy > I'll admit if one is watching prime time television) I'm writing a paper right now about chemically improving marriage and love, and the data seems to support that marriage or long term stable relationships are indeed healthy (and divorces/breakups unhealthy). > then it is logical to > conclude we need to partner Anders. (Side note to Anders -- humanity > trumps > your feelings -- maybe.) Ha! I'm a selfish, atomistic libertarian! Just try! :-) > 3. For those that object -- assume that I've already spent some time > thinking about this message (I have). Assume that I've balanced it from > my > perspective (I have). Also assume it is written from the framework of > considering "What is the greater good?". "Do no harm" or "Do no evil" > don't > cut it in my book. One has to think in a forward perspective and be > dealing > with sustainability and the minds which can support that. Actually, creating familial ties is likely to stabilize and cement any social group. Lots of precendent. A risk that personal and group agendas hijack the the intellectual agenda, of course. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Nov 4 20:50:00 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 12:50:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Bradbury wrote: > One may ask under what conditions are survival probabilities enhanced by partnering? ago I posted what I thought was a provocative and insightful idea, but didn't get much feedback. I'd like to try again here: Might it be that the most effective relationship structure in terms of cost/benefit might be the triad? I'm not talking about polyamory or m?nage ? trois but rather a stable, committed triadic relationship between three individuals in any combination of genders. I recognize that this would require individuals of greater than average self-awareness to avoid destructive two-against-one dynamics. I also recognize that nature settled on binary relationships in most cases, but I think human culture represents a more highly developed phase that may support and reward more highly developed relationship structures at various scales. The advantages I see are significantly increased synergies, built-in tie-breaking, and possibly an inherent 3D structural stability similar to that of a tetrahedron over a planar object. Comments? - Jef From ben at goertzel.org Sat Nov 4 21:07:41 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 16:07:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <638d4e150611041307hfa88d4ia61be18a52953a44@mail.gmail.com> > The advantages I see are significantly increased synergies, built-in tie-breaking, and possibly an inherent 3D structural stability similar to that of a tetrahedron over a planar object. > > Comments? As any good Buckminster Fuller fan should know, to get the famed tetrahedral stability, you'd need *four*, not three... ;-) Regarding your main point.... In terms of pragmatic and intellectual synergies, I agree that long-term interpersonal partnerships involving more than two individuals might well be optimal.... However, this doesn't really matter much, because human emotional tendencies are strong, and due to the nature of human emotions interpersonal partnerships with >2 members are just not very stable.... Ben From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Nov 4 21:06:22 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:06:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships [Resend] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Bradbury wrote: > One may ask under what conditions are survival probabilities enhanced by partnering? Some time ago I posted what I thought was a provocative and insightful idea, but didn't get much feedback. I'd like to try again here: Might it be that the most effective relationship structure in terms of cost/benefit might be the triad? I'm not talking about polyamory or m?nage ? trois but rather a stable, committed triadic relationship between three individuals in any combination of genders. I recognize that this would require individuals of greater than average self-awareness to avoid destructive two-against-one dynamics. I also recognize that nature settled on diadic relationships in most cases, but I think human culture represents a more highly developed phase that may support and reward more highly developed relationship structures at various scales. The advantages I see are significantly increased synergies, built-in tie-breaking, and possibly an inherent 3D structural stability similar to that of a tetrahedron over a planar object. Comments? - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Nov 4 21:18:20 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:18:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: <638d4e150611041307hfa88d4ia61be18a52953a44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Ben Goertzel wrote: > As any good Buckminster Fuller fan should know, to get the > famed tetrahedral stability, you'd need *four*, not three... ;-) Ouch. Major embarrassment. Of course, I should have said the inherent stability of a triangle over a two dimensional string, but a tetrahedron is sooo cool. > Regarding your main point.... In terms of pragmatic and > intellectual synergies, I agree that long-term interpersonal > partnerships involving more than two individuals might well > be optimal.... However, this doesn't really matter much, > because human emotional tendencies are strong, and due to the > nature of human emotions interpersonal partnerships with >2 > members are just not very stable.... Speaking pragmatically, I think you're right. Now, how to justify a tetrahedral 4-way relationship... - Jef From user at dhp.com Sat Nov 4 21:40:18 2006 From: user at dhp.com (Ensel Sharon) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 16:40:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <1162679909.4912.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Fred C. Moulton wrote: > On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 22:57 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > > Besides, it's the wrong way to approach the problem. > > Ranting against epidemic disease didn't save a single life. > > What was needed was to understand what causes infectious diseases. > > People have religions like they have chicken pox. > > There are several different ways of viewing religion. If one views > religion as being infected by a set of bad memes then ranting can make a > difference if the ranting has an impact on the bad memes. Consider the > decline of infectious disease with the advent of better sanitation. > Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and others are hopefully causing a more > critical focus on the memes associated with religion. I agree. I have no problem with the ranting - as I mentioned above, I am agnostic on the subject of religion, and my feelings certainly aren't hurt. The problem is Dennett claiming that harboring X meme is morally negative, and that one "owes" it to some third party or parties to either justify ones beliefs or change them. And that is incorrect. It's just as incorrect as the inquisition or The Terror or McCarthyism. Not to mention my previous point that this is all extremely low hanging philosophical fruit that was beaten to death 250 years ago. I can't believe Dennett has nothing better to do ... [1] [1] But I'll fight to the death to allow him to do it blah blah blah... From randall at randallsquared.com Sat Nov 4 18:09:07 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:09:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) Message-ID: Lee Corbin wrote: > Heartland writes > > > [Jeffrey wrote] > >> Lee writes: > >> "But people can be in two places at once, even though it seems > uncanny > >> to our evolutionarily derived notions of self. Nonetheless, once > forking > >> is a possibility (either after uploading or, less plausibly, via > teleporters > >> and copying machines), people will have to accustom themselves > to the > >> idea." > > > > Jeffrey [wrote]: > > "Personally, I'm not ready to reject Slawomir's ideas and > conceptions. But, in this > > particular example, I agree with you Lee. That the intricate > weave of > > *consciousness* of a person can effectively "exist" at two places > simultaneously. > > Right, Jeffrey, but we'll still have to convince Heartland :-) > I love pincer > attacks. John Clark is coming at him from the north while we hammer > away from the west Well, Mr. Clark isn't so much debating or arguing as ridiculing, which may be fun for those who already agree with him, but doesn't do much to explain his position to those who don't. There is no phrasing of an idea so clear that no separate stupid idea cannot be assumed to have been meant by it. > > But these two streams of data are merely components in a single > instance of mind. I > > suspect that when Lee says that, "people can be in two places at > once," he means > > that, "people can *see* two places at once" which is certainly > possible, as you > > say. > > No---I did mean *being*. Now, first, please understand that these are > two totally and completely separate physical processes with absolutely > no knowledge of each other. In which case, you appear to have conceded the point to Heartland. ;) Of course, you're arguing that two distinct and completely separate processes can nevertheless be the same "person", but that's just a matter of definition, really. I don't think that Heartland would argue (and *I* certainly wouldn't) against the point that two copies of him would each be *a* Heartland, but only the idea that they're somehow the same process. > > Two unconnected instances of mind > > cannot be a single instance of mind. > > Yes, but the concept of *person* that you dispute includes the > proposition that you are the same person you were ten years ago > even though we are speaking of two minds, two brains, two > spatial locations, and two temporal locations. But still *one* person. If and only if one process. In the view that the process is the person, other processes with bit-for-bit similar values, beliefs, memories, habits, and so forth, are simply instances of a very restricted *type* of person. Since we only have one person of each type (in this sense) to date, the distinction between the type of person and the person themselves is often lost in these discussions. -- Randall Randall "You don't help someone by looking at their list of options and eliminating the one they chose!" -- David Henderson From randall at randallsquared.com Sat Nov 4 21:47:43 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 16:47:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: <638d4e150611041307hfa88d4ia61be18a52953a44@mail.gmail.com> References: <638d4e150611041307hfa88d4ia61be18a52953a44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 4, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote: >> The advantages I see are significantly increased synergies, built- >> in tie-breaking, and possibly an inherent 3D structural stability >> similar to that of a tetrahedron over a planar object. >> >> Comments? > > As any good Buckminster Fuller fan should know, to get the famed > tetrahedral stability, you'd need *four*, not three... ;-) That depends on the dimensionality of human relationships, doesn't it? The reason a tetrahedron is maximally stable is that our world has three dimensions. A triangle is maximally stable in two dimensions, and (I guess?) a pair in one. So are social relationships three dimensional? I don't see any reason to think so, but I do see an argument for one dimensional, in that a person can only interact with one other person at any single time... or since that person can either be talking or listening, perhaps human relationships are really "half" a dimension, and the maximally stable "group" is one? :) -- Randall Randall "This is a fascinating question, right up there with whether rocks fall because of gravity or being dropped, and whether 3+5=5+3 because addition is commutative or because they both equal 8." - Scott Aaronson From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 20:49:47 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 22:49:47 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - another reply to Jef Allbright Message-ID: Thank you Jef for your detailed reply. you say: "but I don't see how such a "desire and intention" fills in any essential gaps in the information constituting personal identity." my reply: Suppose I am now timid and introverted person, my scientific capabilities are limited yet my ideal self which I seek very seriously is of a warm and friendly person, extrovert and outgoing, even charismatic person, very fluent in English and with huge scientific knowledge and acumen etc. now for me personally who I am? The answer is, my identity is not determined by what I am now with my limitations and faulty nature, but my identity is mainly determined by what I am going to be in the future, enhanced human being or even post human being. Yet I will always remember from within who I was, the salient information regarding my former existence, my past limited abilities etc. so naturally in the capturing of my personal identity I will place more importance to my future enhanced self than to my far from perfect present self. That means apparently much reduction in connectedness, yet, it is not so much reduction since my enhanced self already constitute great deal of my present self identity, thus compensating for this apparent reduction in connectedness. the self identity is the most dynamic component of the personality and enable us to go through much change in our life without loosing our self identity. This by no means "imply a convergence of all individuals toward an imagined abstract future identity" since firstly much of my older self will be preserved and remembered and experienced from within, thus differentiating myself from any other person; but yes in the future, when we will all be connected to super intelligence and to all knowledge and information of humanity and machines together and synchronously connected to each other at will, there will certainly be some convergence of all intelligent beings of the future. I call this future Self/s as me keeping my complete individuality, but at the same time being connected to the whole and to others, achieving convergence and my personal uniqueness at the same time. "gather anonymous results from a large sample population for the purpose of understanding shared perceptions and values." Bainbridge Personality Capture is just the contrary, to gather individual information from a large number of questioner questions, to gather the salient information about that unique personality. "Are you sure you mean it will be "perfected" or do you mean "improved"? I mean it will be much improved to comply with reliable identity capture procedure. After all, Bainbridge did not meant to capture the self identity but the capture of the personality and understanding the difference in these two different albeit resembling notions itself can lay the base for this improvement to be achieved quite soon, if enough resources will be diverted to that matter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 21:26:38 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:26:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Book Launch Invitation- First Oakland Travel Guide Message-ID: <9b9887c80611041326q3fb2e170vcdf2fb4e38d67965@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Book Launch Invitation- Oakland Travel > Guide > > COME JOIN US! November 9th For the EXCLUSIVE Launch > Party of... > GrassRoutes Travel?s first book, Oakland: The Soul > of the City Next Door > > > > > > FREE Food from great local restaurants, LIVE DJ > and lots of Oakland love! > > GrassRoutes Travel promotes Urban Eco-Travel, > featuring > > environmentally, economically and socially > sustainable > > businesses in their travel guides. > > > > Join local residents, business owners and > politicians to celebrate > > Oakland?s many wonders! > > > > EXTRAORDINARY RAFFLE GIVEAWAY! > > Win NUMEROUS GIFTS and PRIZES from local > businesses featured in the guide. > > Raffle tickets are INCLUDED with the purchase of a > personally signed > > commemorative > > edition of GrassRoutes Guide to Oakland - only > available at the launch. > > Extra raffle tickets available for $2 > > > > > > When: Thursday, November 9th from 6pm on... > > Where: Oakland?s Air Lounge, 492 9th Street, down > the sidewalk staircase > > Who: GrassRoutes Travel Publishing, Oakland?s > sustainable businesses, > > residents, and politicians > > What: Party, DJ, mixer, finger food and the best > raffle Oakland could offer! > > > > Come one, come all, bring your friends and fellow > Oakland-lovers and join > > us for an evening of fun and Oakland pride, > celebrating Urban Eco-Travel! > > RSVP sbartlett at grassroutestravel.com > > > > Serena Bartlett, Founder > > GrassRoutes Travel Publishing > > Oakland: The Soul of the City Next Door is in > stores and online now! > > www.GrassRoutesTravel.com > > sbartlett at grassroutestravel.com > .com/angel.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Nov 4 21:33:07 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:33:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: <3803.208.181.209.230.1162673379.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.s e> References: <3803.208.181.209.230.1162673379.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061104153149.04519ef0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 02:49 PM 11/4/2006, you wrote: >LOL! > >As some of you have seen, I actually do wear a kind of marriage ring. It >is my doctoral ring, and actually symbolizes being married to Science. I >guess that shows just how liberated we Swedes are - it is not an >opposite-sex, same-species or even same ontology marriage. :-) LOLing! Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Nov 4 22:39:18 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 14:39:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200611042257.kA4MvX53004233@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 11:16 AM To: ExICh Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? Ok, I will freely admit that I'm potentially abusing the list, causing discomfort to some individuals, being "bad", etc.? Live with it (unless the list "gods" censor this...). Ja, consider it censored. list god. ...The list is obviously male biased, and so one has to ask why?? Why are there not more XX people on the list?? Setting aside that fact -- should we seek to correct it?... Noted. Open to suggestion sir. ...? But in observing Anders, the world, the Internet, etc. the question of *whom* would be the best partner(s) with Anders does arise [1].? Should "we" make it a mission to find one for Anders? [2, 3] Robert "We" should not. Inappropriate, desist forthwith, thanks. ...1. Given that this is written from a distance it may be the case that Anders is already partnered and I don't know about it.? In which case the discussion merely shifts from him to the next person on the list... Or not. Desist forthwith thanks. ...2.? (Side note to Anders -- humanity trumps your feelings -- maybe.)... Or maybe not. Like Huck Finn's former slave Jim, Anders owns himself. As much as humanity would like to own him, Anders still owns himself. ... 3. For those that object -- assume that I've already spent some time thinking about this message (I have).? Assume that I've balanced it from my perspective (I have).? Also assume it is written from the framework of considering "What is the greater good?"... In Anders' case, he is the one who decides the greater good where his partnering is concerned. ? ..."Do no harm" or "Do no evil" don't cut it in my book... They cut it in my book. ? ...One has to think in a forward perspective and be dealing with sustainability and the minds which can support that... Minds like those of Anders are a cheerful accident of evolution. We cannot legitimately urge him to spawn or clone himself, regardless of how much we love the man. spike From eugen at leitl.org Sat Nov 4 23:28:22 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:28:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: list delivery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20061104232822.GL6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 11:03:07AM -0500, Heartland wrote: > Looking at my inbox and the archives, the delivery rate seems to hover somewhere > around 80% which is not good at all. The problem with these mailing lists is that Yeah, hotmail really sucks mossy rocks. You should ditch it. > they are so decentralized. The error could have occurred at any point along the That's not a bug, it's a feetchur. > delivery chain. I suspect that switching from mailing list to a message board > format would have prevented this from happening. Besides, IMHO, message boards are Ugh. Not a good idea. BBSses are a single point of failure (they don't automatically result in distributed archiving), and they encourage the cancer of rich content. > a lot more convenient than mail-based fora. It's much easier to choose and track > the threads you care about and you don't get "the whole list" in your inbox every Don't blame the medium if your mail client can't handle threads. > time you open it. Finally, it would be nice to free up that precious inbox space > for private communication only (and spam). We've been through this before. Yes, email is dying, but only because the new kids don't use it. There is no reason for a seasoned user to blame the limitations of their personal environment on the medium. The medium is really rich and mature, but the implementation quality varies widely. If it hurts, you're almost certainly doing it wrong. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From velvethum at hotmail.com Sat Nov 4 23:37:16 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:37:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. References: <20061102235019.83835.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006401c70040$3a1acb90$bb084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: S: >> that 2 things cannot be at the same place and time has nothing to do with >> "evolutionarily derived notions of self" (what I'm saying just happens to >> apply to notions of "self" as well) but everything to do with the law of >> conservation of mass/energy. John Clark: > We've known for over 70 years, ever since the 2 slit experiment was done > with electrons, that one thing can be in 2 places at once. And we know that > 2 things can be in the same place and time, in fact it has been proven > experimentally that 3600 can. And that was 3 years ago. > > http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/626-1.html I believe we've gone over this before and my response is still the same. Yes, but so what? Would you be able to implement 2 working minds with these ultracold atoms? No, you say? Well, then why should I care about these atoms? Besides, does BEC cause these 3600 atoms to collapse in such a way that when you return the energy to a normal level the closed system contains only a single atom at 1/3600th of the initial mass of 3600 atoms? Of course it doesn't. It can't. Slawomir From eugen at leitl.org Sat Nov 4 23:43:01 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:43:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <638d4e150611040904j2986029bw5c2f196bf5defac7@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> <20061104001852.48435.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611040904j2986029bw5c2f196bf5defac7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061104234301.GM6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 12:04:14PM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > Home schooling is an option ... so, the parents' attitudes are the > real issue, not just the school system.... If more parents recognized > the relatively destructive nature of the US public school system, > they'd just pull their kids out.. ;-) Homeschooling is an excellent idea, in theory. In practice, there's the problem of wingnuts, who tend to homeschool in order to protect the poor young'n's from nefarious indoctrination (and fluoridization, which corrupts their precious body fluids). Paying decent wages tends to draw quality personnel, and gets rid of the problem quite naturally. Education is about the most important item there is, so there's no point in getting cheapskate on that. Allright, I agree that current peer climate is poisonous, but it is above practice that got it there where it is. Hiring private tutors for everbody until the memetic pool eventually detoxes is not really an option. Also, most of the problems are in poor parenting, which is firmly an issue of the modern job market. Schools can't moderate toxic children dumped into the system by a slave-driving job market (which in no way takes away the burden of the parental units to actually make parenting a priority in their lives, of course). -- 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 ben at goertzel.org Sat Nov 4 23:59:08 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:59:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <20061104234301.GM6974@leitl.org> References: <8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> <20061104001852.48435.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611040904j2986029bw5c2f196bf5defac7@mail.gmail.com> <20061104234301.GM6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <638d4e150611041559y7720c38dyfdbed659f65021f5@mail.gmail.com> > Homeschooling is an excellent idea, in theory. In practice, there's > the problem of wingnuts, who tend to homeschool in order to protect > the poor young'n's from nefarious indoctrination (and fluoridization, > which corrupts their precious body fluids). Homeschooling worked well for my kids for a few years... Unfortunately, I can't do it anymore due to having gotten divorced and having only 50% custody of the kids ... these day, homeschooling would require cooperation of my ex, which is unlikely to happen.... But while it lasted, it was pretty good. The kids learned more, and had more fun, and most critically their spirit of creativity and independent exploration was encouraged rather than discouraged... Now, my oldest son is at a good college; my middle child is in a middle school that he really hates and learns litlte from; and my daughter is in a magnet elementary school that is pretty academically intensive but does little to allow let alone encourage independent thought.... Of course, my kids will all grow up as creative and independent thinkers anyway -- they spend a fair bit of their non-school time reading, and doing creative projects.... But I still think it sucks that they have to spend such a significant fraction of their time in such a boring, mind-numbing environment. I did it too, during my childhood, and I thought it sucked at the time. It is survivable of course ... but why should this sort of ordeal be necessary? BTW, David Deutsch, the quantum computing pioneer, is a very radical advocate of home schooling and children's liberation in general... -- Ben G From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 00:18:04 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:18:04 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - reply to Jef In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0611041618y5a6dd9a3n2f57056c71a8a34d@mail.gmail.com> On 11/4/06, david ish shalom wrote: > I do recommend to you Jef and others who really want to check this option > of info survival to review carefully my work albeit its imperfection. I am > sure you could gather something there. My motivation to spread this notion > of info-resurrection comes from my realization that for this procedure to be > practical and instrumental, it has to gather some social and memetic > spreading. I will be thankful if you can issue more concrete remarks to > be answered. > Why does it have to gather any such thing? You're just talking about text, pictures, sound and video, which we already have the technology to store. Just get a nice big chunk of web space and start uploading everything about yourself (and whoever you want to preserve who will consent to such) that you can get hold of. Lead by example. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 00:22:41 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:22:41 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - reply to Jef In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0611041622k6b3a467nc851d27b8a4ba9f6@mail.gmail.com> I'll add: if you haven't got a single person on extropy-chat of all places to believe this literally constitutes personal survival, you won't get anyone anywhere to believe it :) You're better off to put the spin that it's metaphorical immortality through one's works - that's a familiar enough concept. Sort of the digital equivalent of getting a statue of yourself. But the thing about statues is, they get done because people think they look cool. So go ahead and create a digital monument to yourself, and do it in such a way that it looks cool - nice site layout and suchlike. Then point people to it and say "wouldn't you like one of these for yourself?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Nov 5 00:27:25 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 01:27:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <638d4e150611041559y7720c38dyfdbed659f65021f5@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> <20061104001852.48435.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611040904j2986029bw5c2f196bf5defac7@mail.gmail.com> <20061104234301.GM6974@leitl.org> <638d4e150611041559y7720c38dyfdbed659f65021f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061105002725.GR6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 06:59:08PM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > Homeschooling worked well for my kids for a few years... I believe you readily. Unfortunately, you're not representative, as far as I can tell (which is admittedly, not much). > But while it lasted, it was pretty good. The kids learned more, and > had more fun, and most critically their spirit of creativity and > independent exploration was encouraged rather than discouraged... I understand most public schools in USia are in a really bad shape. There's no problem with public education e.g. in Finland, though, so it doesn't seem an intrinsic issue. Even the best system can't shine if it's not being managed right. We need to figure out how to manage things right. Actually, we already know, it's just that that knowledge hasn't percolated into the right political motorics cortex, or that rotten site is cheerfully ignoring that information because it has to deal with really important things (like, which pork barrel to open up next). So if the system is failing, it should not penalize homeschoolers who're providing good care (as periodically measured with unbiased benchmarks). If the benchmarks are good, they will weed out the wingnuts, because they can't deliver a rounded, high quality education -- not because of their wingnut biases. > during my childhood, and I thought it sucked at the time. It is > survivable of course ... but why should this sort of ordeal be > necessary? It shouldn't, absolutely. Good education isn't that hard, but in practice it's crippled by anorexic budgets and systemic idiocy (as about anything in the current downfall of democracies, which actually used to work for a surprisingly long while). It would be so ironic if demographics and education would shoot down our chance for Singularity within the narrow launch horizon. If we mess it up real good this time, our grandchildren might not have an opportunity for another shot. That sucks so much, it is our duty to get this done right. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Nov 5 00:41:51 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:41:51 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611041618y5a6dd9a3n2f57056c71a8a34d@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0611041618y5a6dd9a3n2f57056c71a8a34d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061104184013.022a0148@satx.rr.com> >My motivation to spread this notion of info-resurrection comes from >my realization that for this procedure to be practical and >instrumental, it has to gather some social and memetic spreading. Haven't been reading this (I don't want to see HTML on exichat), but has anyone noticed yet that this just recapitulates Rudy Rucker's Lifebox proposal? Damien Broderick From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Nov 5 00:26:39 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:26:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <638d4e150611041559y7720c38dyfdbed659f65021f5@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> <20061104001852.48435.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611040904j2986029bw5c2f196bf5defac7@mail.gmail.com> <20061104234301.GM6974@leitl.org> <638d4e150611041559y7720c38dyfdbed659f65021f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <454D2FBF.8070009@goldenfuture.net> My wife (a professional teacher) and I (who have experience as an adult educator) have discussed homeschooling our daughter. We'd do it, if the economics work out right, and I can pretty much guarantee that there'd be no "young Earth creationism" or other such whackjobbery in that particular curriculum... People do mention the socialization factor, and it is something to consider. But socialization can take place in lots of venues (martial arts, dance, non-school-sponsored-sports), and we've already got her involved in such things. Although I must say that I, personally, choose to avoid fluoride. The damn stuff's toxic if ingested, and over the course of decades, I'd rather not risk it if I have a choice. I avoid alumnium-based deodorants for the same reason. There're enough toxins out there that I can't choose to avoid, I might as well choose to avoid the ones I can. If it's good enough for Ray Kurzweil, it's good enough for me. Joseph Ben Goertzel wrote: >>Homeschooling is an excellent idea, in theory. In practice, there's >>the problem of wingnuts, who tend to homeschool in order to protect >>the poor young'n's from nefarious indoctrination (and fluoridization, >>which corrupts their precious body fluids). >> >> > >Homeschooling worked well for my kids for a few years... > >Unfortunately, I can't do it anymore due to having gotten divorced and >having only 50% custody of the kids ... these day, homeschooling would >require cooperation of my ex, which is unlikely to happen.... > >But while it lasted, it was pretty good. The kids learned more, and >had more fun, and most critically their spirit of creativity and >independent exploration was encouraged rather than discouraged... > >Now, my oldest son is at a good college; my middle child is in a >middle school that he really hates and learns litlte from; and my >daughter is in a magnet elementary school that is pretty academically >intensive but does little to allow let alone encourage independent >thought.... Of course, my kids will all grow up as creative and >independent thinkers anyway -- they spend a fair bit of their >non-school time reading, and doing creative projects.... But I still >think it sucks that they have to spend such a significant fraction of >their time in such a boring, mind-numbing environment. I did it too, >during my childhood, and I thought it sucked at the time. It is >survivable of course ... but why should this sort of ordeal be >necessary? > >BTW, David Deutsch, the quantum computing pioneer, is a very radical >advocate of home schooling and children's liberation in general... > >-- Ben G >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > From ben at goertzel.org Sun Nov 5 00:54:35 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:54:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <20061105002725.GR6974@leitl.org> References: <8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> <20061104001852.48435.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611040904j2986029bw5c2f196bf5defac7@mail.gmail.com> <20061104234301.GM6974@leitl.org> <638d4e150611041559y7720c38dyfdbed659f65021f5@mail.gmail.com> <20061105002725.GR6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > I understand most public schools in USia are in a really bad shape. > There's no problem with public education e.g. in Finland, though, > so it doesn't seem an intrinsic issue. Even the best system can't shine > if it's not being managed right. We need to figure out how to > manage things right. Actually, we already know, it's just that > that knowledge hasn't percolated into the right political motorics cortex, The US public education system is highly erratic. There is very little centralization.... So, some public school systems are great, some are miserable, most are OK. Where I live, in Montgomery County Maryland, the schools are pretty strong in terms of the quantity of information transmitted, but pretty weak in terms of encouraging individual investigation or creation. There is a rigorous tracking system, so that bright kids who perform well are tracked into various "magnet" or "gifted" programs and get taught a lot of information. In this sense the schools where I live are way better than the vast majority of US school systems. However, rapidly cramming a bunch of mostly useful knowledge into kids' brains is still not the best way of shaping their minds for future productive achievements... Home schooling allowed my kids to learn self-motivatedly according to their own tastes and interests, with guidance from me, and in my view this sort of approach is far better preparation for e.g. a career in research or creative arts... -- Ben From velvethum at hotmail.com Sun Nov 5 01:42:02 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 20:42:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - reply to Jef References: <8d71341e0611041618y5a6dd9a3n2f57056c71a8a34d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > On 11/4/06, david ish shalom wrote: >> I do recommend to you Jef and others who really want to check this option >> of info survival to review carefully my work albeit its imperfection. I am >> sure you could gather something there. My motivation to spread this notion >> of info-resurrection comes from my realization that for this procedure to be >> practical and instrumental, it has to gather some social and memetic >> spreading. I will be thankful if you can issue more concrete remarks to >> be answered. Russell Wallace: > Why does it have to gather any such thing? You're just talking about text, > pictures, sound and video, which we already have the technology to store. > Just get a nice big chunk of web space and start uploading everything about > yourself (and whoever you want to preserve who will consent to such) that > you can get hold of. Lead by example. I usually file these kinds of "info-ressurection" ideas under "SBA" (suicide by abstraction). Just take a picture of yourself and keep a diary - it's the true essence of immortality! :-) Slawomir From ben at goertzel.org Sun Nov 5 01:49:16 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 20:49:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> References: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com> <20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> The main problem with the US school system is that most US parents are anti-intellectual --- they don't encourage their kids to learn intellectual things, and don't encourage the teachers to encourage their kids to learn such things.... This problem is indeed more rampant in some ethic groups than others, but for sure no ethnic group has a monopoly on it... The school system has adapted itself to uncreative, anti-intellectual parents and their spawn, to an excessive degree.... So that even when it's presented with parents and kids who do favor and encourage intellect and learning, in many cases the system is incapable to adapt to this situation.... I can see that the Montgomery County school system genuinely tries really hard to provide a high quality education -- and it does succeed to a reasonable degree ... kids coming out of the advanced tracks in high school know a lot of stuff ... e.g. in math they do calculus, linear algebra, statistics, basic differential equations, bla bla bla, which is more than they did in high school in the US back in my day... However, they seem to draw the line at offering advanced content, they have no idea how to really foster creativity. Every now and then they give open-ended assignments -- say, letting the students choose their own paper topics for National History Day papers or some such ... but the scope is still pretty restricted, and such occasions where freedom of choice is permitted are fairly rare. My middle child spends most of his nonschool waking hours studying and doing animation, which is his particular passion -- learning to use various software, writing scripts, drawing on his graphics tablet, etc. -- and the amount of enthusiasm he has for this sooooo vastly exceeds his joy in what he does in school, it's ridiculous. If I were home schooling him now, I would teach him more serious computer programming in an animation context; I would encourage him to write more polished scripts for his animations (thus improving his writing, which is pretty good already); I would teach him how algebra is used to calculate various quantities for computer graphics, which would interest him more in math, which he hates.... It's amazing how much more kids enjoy learning things when presented in the context of something they are passionate about. But the school system just does not work this way at all -- information is presented impersonally and homogeneously, so as to make it seem as uninteresting as possible ;-) .... As it is I try to show him how various subjects of study tie in with his passion, but given how many hours school takes, he wants to spend most of his free time actually making animations rather than doing extra study of other topics... [BTW, his work is still childish, but creative nonetheless. If you want a sample check out RoboTurtle II, which is about an evil AI that I create. Search Goertzel, or roboturtle, on Google Video ;-) ] Does the Singularity obsolete the need to improve education? Sure, in a grand sense.... But looking more deeply, the reason the Singularity hasn't occurred already is because our society actively discourages creativity and learning to such an extent -- which is the same essential reason our school system is not better than it is.... As usual, a problem that looks like an institutional problem ultimately boils down to a problem of the idiocy and patheticness of individual and cultural human nature... -- Ben G On 11/4/06, Al Brooks wrote: > Yes, and it could be America is too large for the > problem to be solved, it can only perhaps be lessened. > What I wonder is: can it be one reason student > performance is overall pretty low is because teachers > and administrators not only inflate grades but also > don't want to flunk ethnic students? One hesitates to > write this, however if too many ethnics washed out of > the system it would not only look extremely bad, but > also the students, families, and activists would > deeply resent all the flunking and seek revenge. > Let's be frank-- America is a complicated, overheated > ethnic stew-pot, and such undoubtedly affects the > school system. > > > > > The US public education system is highly erratic. > > There is very > > little centralization.... So, some public school > > systems are great, > > some are miserable, most are OK. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business > (http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com) > > From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Nov 5 01:43:21 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 17:43:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: <3803.208.181.209.230.1162673379.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200611050149.kA51nvNN006535@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? > > > LOL! > > As some of you have seen, I actually do wear a kind of marriage ring. It > is my doctoral ring, and actually symbolizes being married to Science... > Anders Sandberg, Anders, thanks for being such a cool guy, man! {8-] spike From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Nov 5 00:45:08 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 16:45:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <638d4e150611040904j2986029bw5c2f196bf5defac7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061105004508.67552.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> You got it, this is probably the inner core of the problem-- how can we have a smart educational system with 'dumb' parents? Ben Goertzel wrote: Home schooling is an option ... so, the parents' attitudes are the real issue, not just the school system.... If more parents recognized the relatively destructive nature of the US public school system, they'd just pull their kids out.. ;-) -- Ben --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Nov 5 00:18:50 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 16:18:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] all that concerns me is the future of education In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061104133527.0219d988@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20061105001850.59776.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> It was a foolish remark on Kerry's part, an aborted attempt to gain a higher percentage of anti-war votes for Tuesday's election, however there is some validity in what he said, having to more with below-the-threshold pressures than education. Certain clueless young men (do you remember clearly how you felt at age 18?) are strongly pressured in many ways including via school, a certain number of male youths are if not manipulated then at least severely pressured into proving their old-fashioned manhood by joining the Service. When you think about it, unless someone is subliminally pressured why would they risk not only being shot and blown up in combat, but also risk getting third degree burns on large areas of them? Such is not the everyday risk we incur by driving a car, but is a radical risk, and as you know much of our behavior is influenced by what we are barely aware of or unaware of-- traditions, remnants of the past, peer & family pressures, and so forth. But to take off the amateur psychology hat, all that really concerns me is the future of education, can it be substantially improved? Now, there is one if not *good* then maybe excusable reason for having a lesser school system, and this is not a reference to higher ed, which is acceptable. As regards K-12, there could possibly be a fear of de-linking the races, if students were held more accountable for improving their performance the gap in performance between the races/ethnicities might become more pronounced. This might sound as far out a theory as severe pressures, including lack of education, causing youths to join the Service, yet there are many personal and societal threads, conscious or not, in inexperienced adolescents lives that influence their behaviors. What I want to discover is can mass education be improved or are demographics against it? If I find out the latter is the case then I will forget about it and switch to some other obsession. If we don't worry about one thing then it is something else. >Al, I notice your email address is kerry_prez. The irony here is that >senator Kerry destroyed any remnants of his possiblity to become president >with a single comment similar in spirit to this one. >Careful, Spike. What you should have written is "with a single ironic >comment at Bush's expense that was maliciously and misleadingly spun >by his opponents as a comment similar in spirit to this one." >This is not a party-political observation (I don't get a vote in the >States). It's a matter of comprehending the context. Of course, maybe >I'm wrong about this and Kerry just happened to utter a remark in >public equivalent to Bush or Cheney, say, blurting out in public >that Halliburton is corrupt and all elected politicians are morons. >Seems unlikely. Nor am I even convinced that he "told the joke >wrong"--I suspect he assumed his audience was smart enough to make >the leap to his ironic intent: "Hey, guess who's got himself mired in >Iran... it's that booze-sucking brainless frat boy in the White >House!" (I keep making that kind of mistake myself, assuming people >will understand and laugh at my ironic quips when all too often they >tend to stare open-mouthed and aghast.) >Damien Broderick --------------------------------- Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Nov 5 01:32:19 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 17:32:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Yes, and it could be America is too large for the problem to be solved, it can only perhaps be lessened. What I wonder is: can it be one reason student performance is overall pretty low is because teachers and administrators not only inflate grades but also don't want to flunk ethnic students? One hesitates to write this, however if too many ethnics washed out of the system it would not only look extremely bad, but also the students, families, and activists would deeply resent all the flunking and seek revenge. Let's be frank-- America is a complicated, overheated ethnic stew-pot, and such undoubtedly affects the school system. > The US public education system is highly erratic. > There is very > little centralization.... So, some public school > systems are great, > some are miserable, most are OK. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business (http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com) From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Nov 5 01:49:06 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 17:49:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the choice to get out of a bad situation In-Reply-To: <454D2FBF.8070009@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20061105014906.19553.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> :) that is correct. "you see, Mandrake, it was during the physical act of love-- I was seized with a feeling of fatigue; at first I could not ascertain the source of my inability but, fortunately, I discovered the cause was the sapping of my pure natural vital essence, Purity Of Essence [POE] due to the fluoridation of my precious bodily fluids" --Jack D. Ripper, 'Dr. Strangelove'. Seriously, I don't know what to do concerning education, no one does. But we can safely say those parents sending their children to shall we say lesser schools in bad neighborhoods have to receive the choice about how to remove the students from their situations; they need the ability to get out by way of vouchers, charter schools, homeschooling-- whatever it takes-- and fast. A 'lesser' school in a bad neighborhood is no place to be. > Ben Goertzel wrote: > > >>Homeschooling is an excellent idea, in theory. In > practice, there's > >>the problem of wingnuts, who tend to homeschool in > order to protect > >>the poor young'n's from nefarious indoctrination > (and fluoridization, > >>which corrupts their precious body fluids). ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com/preview) From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Nov 5 01:29:50 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:29:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <638d4e150611041559y7720c38dyfdbed659f65021f5@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> <20061104001852.48435.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611040904j2986029bw5c2f196bf5defac7@mail.gmail.com> <20061104234301.GM6974@leitl.org> <638d4e150611041559y7720c38dyfdbed659f65021f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0J8800IEXHHQ2910@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 06:59 PM 11/4/2006, Ben Goertzel wrote: >my daughter is in a magnet elementary school that is pretty >academically intensive but does little to allow let alone encourage >independent thought.... Of course, my kids will all grow up as >creative and independent thinkers anyway -- they spend a fair bit >of their non-school time reading, and doing creative projects.... >But I still think it sucks that they have to spend such a significant >fraction of their time in such a boring, mind-numbing environment. >I did it too, during my childhood, and I thought it sucked at the time. >It is survivable of course ... but why should this sort of ordeal be >necessary? Schools perform many functions, and the function of promoting creative independent thinkers may have a pretty low priority. It seems to me that most jobs in our economy require a bit less creativity and independence than most humans would naturally exercise without schooling. So perhaps schools train and select people for the mostly boring and mind-numbing world of work. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From moulton at moulton.com Sun Nov 5 05:37:14 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:37:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1162705034.4932.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 16:40 -0500, Ensel Sharon wrote: > The problem is Dennett claiming that harboring X meme is morally negative, > and that one "owes" it to some third party or parties to either justify > ones beliefs or change them. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the point(s) that Dennett is making. As I read the passage covering this in http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html I think that Dennett is actually making several points and ran them together in a single paragraph which might be the source of some of the confusion. As I read Dennett the points are briefly as follows. The first point is that persons who advocate a position need to provide a justification if they want to be taken seriously and be part of an intellectual dialog. Thus Dennett has the following sentence: "If you insist on keeping the myth of the effectiveness of prayer alive, you owe the rest of us a justification in the face of the evidence." Note that the evidence that Dennett refers to is the Benson study at Harvard to which he had just referred. Consider what would happen if I started a new thread with a message that I was convinced that eating a diet high in salt, fat and sugar would lead to a long and healthy life; I expect that there would be a call for me to justify my statement particularly since it flies in the face of current evidence. That is; the list members would feel that I owed them a justification for my assertion. Note that if you do not want to use the phrase "that I owed them a justification" then you can easily construct an alternative wording, but the use of the term "owing a justification" is commonly used in this context. Thus the first point Dennett is making is about intelligent discourse. The second point Dennett is making is that propagating a false idea can undermine the respect for what Dennett calls "the very goodness I am thanking"; that is all of the medical staff, those who developed the medical tools, etc. A moral problem of hypocrisy arises when an individual wants to hold one standard for themselves and a different standard for someone else. That is why Dennett has the discussion about suing when there is an adverse outcome in a medical setting. Note also Dennett's example of the drug company whose response to a problem with their drugs is that they prayed really hard. I think that perhaps Dennett might have constructed his examples a little more clearly and with more explanation so that they would be more readily grasped. Also implied but not as explicitly stated is that undermining the rational approach to medicine could cause persons to avoid proper medical treatment for a disease such as cancer. Thus this second point is about the practical implications of promoting a false idea and the possible moral problems that can arise. A third point that Dennett is making is that prayer for the purpose of causing a deity improve his health is a waste of time and effort and Dennett is criticizing wasting time and effort. Now there are those that would claim that prayer is actually for the benefit of the person offering the prayer rather than the object of the prayer. But this is a bait and switch because as far as the object of the prayer is concerned either prayer works and is useful or it is a waste of time. [Note that for the moment we are not considering the case when the object of the prayer actually believes that prayer works; that would lead us into a long discussion of everything from faith healing to Voodoo.] [Also note that any possible benefit (or harm) to the person offering the prayer are a different discussion.] Thus this third point is about being frugal with our resources and not wasting them praying for Dennett. I hope I have read Dennett correctly and have clearly explained my interpretation. My feeling is that the services of a good editor would have helped with Dennett's essay. But I will cut Dennett some slack since he has been through a tough medical situation. At least he did not try to denounce those who believe in prayer by referring to the http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ website which often comes up in these discussions. Fred From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Sun Nov 5 03:03:22 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:03:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. Message-ID: <20061105030322.68246.qmail@web52611.mail.yahoo.com> John K Clark wrote: >> that 2 things cannot be at the same place and time >> has nothing to do with "evolutionarily derived >> notions of self" (what I'm saying just happens to >> apply to notions of "self" as well) but everything >> to do with the law of conservation of mass/energy. > > We've known for over 70 years, ever since the 2 > slit experiment was done with electrons, that one > thing can be in 2 places at once. It's a big leap from that to the view that one mind/self can be in two locations at once. When an electron passes through two slits, its behavior is wave-like, and a wave can be in two places at once. But macroscopic analogies like 'particle' and 'wave' don't lend themselves to the subatomic. You need to justify that leap... Why should properties of a mind/self resemble quantum properties of electrons? I suspect one day a copy of a brain could be made, containing a synthetic sentient being. And it's likely that for the copy, it recalls the life of the original as if it where its own. But I see no reason to assume that the self of the original brain would be somehow connected to its copy. The copy brain would just be someone else out there. So if 'I' was uploaded just before I died, it would only ensure that there'd be someone else who accesses a database (ie, memory) that implies they were me. But for me, I'd be as dead as I'd be without the upload. ~Ian ____________________________________________________________________________________ Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited (http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited) From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Nov 5 02:52:18 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:52:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] kerry remark In-Reply-To: <20061105001850.59776.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200611050304.kA534vn1019337@andromeda.ziaspace.com> >Al, I notice your email address is kerry_prez. The irony here is that >senator Kerry destroyed any remnants of his possiblity to become president >with a single comment similar in spirit to this one. >Careful, Spike. What you should have written is "with a single ironic >comment at Bush's expense that was maliciously and misleadingly spun >by his opponents as a comment similar in spirit to this one." ... >Damien Broderick Damien you may very well be right on this one. Here is why I think Kerry's comment is significant. We have seen cases where the mainstream news media decide to dogpile on some otherwise insignificant incident. Two such incidents come to mind instantly. The first is when Dan Quayle misspelled potato while playing spelling bee with the school kids. He read it off the card, which said "potatoe". The press used this to show he was the biggest idiot in history, when in fact it was a minor error that any one of us could have made. He is merely the biggest idiot in *recent* history. The second incident which pops into my mind is Howard Dean's screaming into the microphone at a rally. Again a rather minor gaffe, but the press had a field day with it. Again, Dean is not the craziest politician in history, merely the craziest in recent history. In both cases, the press decided they would no longer take those politicians seriously. In both cases future historians may record those days as the high water mark for each, the beginning of a steady decline thereafter. Quayle faded into obscurity, Dean is still around but no one takes seriously his chances for even maintaining leadership of the DNC. Perhaps the mainstream press has now decided to retire Kerry as it did with the other two. Time will tell, but I expect he will begin a slide starting 31 October 2006, and little will come of his bid for the white house in 2008. It worries me that the mainstream media have this much influence on history. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Nov 5 03:31:26 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 22:31:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships [Resend] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061104222011.03d8dd30@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:06 PM 11/4/2006 -0800, you wrote: >Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > One may ask under what conditions are survival probabilities enhanced > by partnering? > >Some time ago I posted what I thought was a provocative and insightful >idea, but didn't get much feedback. I'd like to try again here: > >Might it be that the most effective relationship structure in terms of >cost/benefit might be the triad? I'm not talking about polyamory or m?nage >? trois but rather a stable, committed triadic relationship between three >individuals in any combination of genders. > >I recognize that this would require individuals of greater than average >self-awareness to avoid destructive two-against-one dynamics. I also >recognize that nature settled on diadic relationships in most cases, but I >think human culture represents a more highly developed phase that may >support and reward more highly developed relationship structures at >various scales. > >The advantages I see are significantly increased synergies, built-in >tie-breaking, and possibly an inherent 3D structural stability similar to >that of a tetrahedron over a planar object. > >Comments? Geometry is the wrong place to look. The combination of 2 (or even more) women with a man of high status is fairly common and often stable. The only place where more than one man (2 and sometimes more brothers) entered into a marriage contract with one woman was in Tibet, where it was a population limitation in a place where the farming plots could be reduced no further--and for some reason they didn't use the more normal mechanism of killing each other off in wars. The natural organization at levels higher than family is the band or tribe. Those usually top out at 100 people. And a high fraction of what goes on in relations happens well below the conscious level. Read up on evolutionary psychology to get the background. Keith Henson From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 03:29:41 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:29:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except References: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com><20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Ben writes > The main problem with the US school system is that most US parents > are anti-intellectual --- they don't encourage their kids to learn > intellectual things, and don't encourage the teachers to encourage > their kids to learn such things.... Actually, the real and horrible problem is that most kids really just aren't bright enough to learn advanced material or to fill the jobs that will need filling or to profit from the educational opportunities that really do exist now. > I can see that the Montgomery County school system genuinely tries > really hard to provide a high quality education -- and it does succeed > to a reasonable degree ... kids coming out of the advanced tracks in > high school know a lot of stuff ... e.g. in math they do calculus, Yes! Exactly. I've been working with extremely bright kids since the 1960s, and the kids---some kids!---are even smarter than their exact opposite numbers from one, two, or three decades ago. But there are too few of them. The schools in the Santa Clara Valley and Fremont here in northern California, I do know from personal experience are doing excellent jobs with the brightest kids. (There are some unfortunate counter- examples: the Palo Alto high school district has been taken over by some levellers who have taken the pressure off the brightest kids to such an extent that parents I know have withdrawn their kids and are sending them to private schools. One teaching math spot remains open because the primary job qualification is that the teacher be black. The main focus (goal) in that high school district now---I kid you not ---to have everyone perform at the same level insofar as it is possible.) But even in botched districts, the kids are amazing. Controlling for IQ, they're doing work a year ahead of the 1980s and two years ahead of the 1960s (very roughly). Their enthusiasm for math, computers, and physics is nothing less than RED HOT. But there are too few of them. And the problem will only get worse. > Does the Singularity obsolete the need to improve education? Sure, in > a grand sense.... But looking more deeply, the reason the Singularity > hasn't occurred already is because our society actively discourages > creativity and learning to such an extent -- which is the same > essential reason our school system is not better than it is.... It's possible---as your anecdotes relate---that in a number of instances our educational systems do discourage creativity and learning. But even if that's true (and I have seen no evidence of it myself), it doesn't matter. The bright kids and the creative kids go far anyway. There is just---yes, again---too few of them relative to the vast, vast numbers of kids who aren't so bright and really couldn't care less about the things we would like them to care about. The Singularity (or its preceding technological innovations) need above all to get people smarter, especially the great hordes of children today who simply are incapable of difficult technical work, and who will (because of IQ limitations) perform rather poorly whatever they try to do that is of any use. Lee > On 11/4/06, Al Brooks wrote: >> Yes, and it could be America is too large for the >> problem to be solved, it can only perhaps be lessened. >> What I wonder is: can it be one reason student >> performance is overall pretty low is because teachers >> and administrators not only inflate grades but also >> don't want to flunk ethnic students? One hesitates to >> write this, however if too many ethnics washed out of >> the system it would not only look extremely bad, but >> also the students, families, and activists would >> deeply resent all the flunking and seek revenge. >> Let's be frank-- America is a complicated, overheated >> ethnic stew-pot, and such undoubtedly affects the >> school system. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 03:33:57 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:33:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity References: <059501c70023$17c091a0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <05f901c7008b$848bff50$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Heartland writes > Lee: > "There follows an extremely good example [in Jef's post] of how > a single legal person can change rather dramatically over decades > into who I'd call "someone else" (see Jef's *full* explication below)." > > Lee, wasn't that obvious? That's what you get for reducing your "self" to VMBs. What!? You're not understanding. What is *different* between the nine year old and the ninety year old in Jef's example is that the VMBs *did* change. It fits perfectly with the fact that we are so tempted (and rightfully so) to question whether they are the same person. > Eventually you realize that almost none of your VMBs at 2 are the same as your VMBs > at 80 which forces you to admit that someone has died sometime between 2 and 80. > Then you either admit this or choose to give up the idea that "VMBs = Self." :) I *admit* that! Too much change kills one. It changes you into someone else. Lee From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Nov 5 03:28:00 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:28:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Computer animation Message-ID: <01e701c7008a$76d9a390$0200a8c0@Nano> This piece was the most sequential animation that I have done. It was generated for the film2music competition in which registrants are asked to select a track from the composers cd and create a video to accompany it. Previous to this competition I had been busy producing "The Mark" for the aniboom contest. This meant that I had only a couple weeks to create and complete this one. As elaborate as a concept this piece was, the time line wasn't feasible but I crunched through nights without sleep to get it in on time. I just barely made it, but I made it! So the prize for this one is not only money but meetings with a famous producer and agent! And this time, it's no sweat to vote, you don't have to sign up or register for anything, no typing at all, it's just one click and "send", okay so technically that's two clicks, but that's all just clicks! So please come vote for me friends. Come watch dandelion here - an animation about hope and faith in ones future dreams. Thank you all! 'animator for hire' Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 03:49:44 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:49:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - another reply to JefAllbright References: Message-ID: <061801c7008d$a17a6410$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> David ish shalom writes > Thank you Jef for your detailed reply.... my reply: Suppose I am now timid and > introverted person, my scientific capabilities are limited yet my ideal self [is] > The answer is, my identity is not determined by what I am now with my limitations > and faulty nature, but my identity is mainly determined by what I am going to be > in the future, enhanced human being or even post human being. Again, my caution is that if you change enough, you won't be yourself. > Yet I will always remember from within who I was, the salient information regarding > my former existence, my past limited abilities etc. Yes, that's necessary, but it may not be sufficient. My solution, which I've said quite a few times on this list but which you probably have not heard, is to give previous versions of yourself ample runtime. This requires above all that one understand that duplicates are self. But there is also a strong psychological motivation: just why will future versions of you bother running such an ancient and decrepit fetal version of themselves? The answer is, as I call it, "the logic of cryonics". Namely, we reanimate those who are frozen so that when the time comes we are ourselves reanimated. It proceeds by (mathematical) induction. Your vast future self (who hardly resembles you but who has the most power) will see this logic, and if he (it) evilly denies you runtime, then by the same logic he'll be denied runtime by even more advanced versions. So we must vigorously push this meme: All previous versions---that we can fix or capture---are to get runtime so long into the future as we or our future versions shall live. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 03:58:57 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:58:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - reply to Jef References: <8d71341e0611041618y5a6dd9a3n2f57056c71a8a34d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <061f01c7008e$e6388bd0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Heartland and Russell write > [Russell wrote] >> On 11/4/06, david ish shalom wrote: >>> I do recommend to you Jef and others who really want to check this option >>> of info survival to review carefully my work albeit its imperfection. I am >>> sure you could gather something there. My motivation to spread this notion >>> of info-resurrection comes from my realization that for this procedure to be >>> practical and instrumental, it has to gather some social and memetic >>> spreading. I will be thankful if you can issue more concrete remarks to >>> be answered. > > Russell Wallace: >> Why does it have to gather any such thing? You're just talking about text, >> pictures, sound and video, which we already have the technology to store. But all these things will help fix who you are now. This problem has been discussed in cryonics circles for decades. Fred and Linda Chamberlain used to offer a service in which one is interviewed at length on camera. When you're revived---or uploaded---all this information can be extremely important in getting "you" right. >> Just get a nice big chunk of web space and start uploading everything about >> yourself (and whoever you want to preserve who will consent to such) that >> you can get hold of. Lead by example. Yes, it's a start. And for all I know David is going beyond this somehow. But certainly all the records that you can leave behind that help specify your identity are useful. Slawomir (Heartland) writes > I usually file these kinds of "info-ressurection" ideas under "SBA" (suicide by > abstraction). Just take a picture of yourself and keep a diary - it's the true > essence of immortality! :-) Yes, it *is* just suicide unless an actual causal process is reconstituted and given runtime. The pictures and data alone (of course) experience nothing. We don't differ with you about the importance of *process*. Our only difference with you appears to be that any interruption of process or any duplication destroys (so far as you see it) your identity. As for me, I want to be *both* unfrozen and uploaded. The more places I run the better. Lee From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Nov 5 03:44:42 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:44:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except References: <20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20ef01c7008c$baa95730$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Al Brooks" Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 5:32 PM > Yes, and it could be America is too large for the > problem to be solved, it can only perhaps be lessened. > What I wonder is: can it be one reason student > performance is overall pretty low is because teachers > and administrators not only inflate grades but also > don't want to flunk ethnic students? I don't know how relevant this is in 2006 - but when I was an "ethnic" student back in the late 1950s (I was an immigrant, and had just spent my first two school years in Rio de Janeiro, only knowing how to speak Portuguese and Russian when I arrived in the USA), I was surprised at how everyone in our American grammar school classes simply went on to the next grade - whether or not they could read, spell, do arithmetic, or behave - and as I remember it, there was nothing "ethnic" about the students in my class who were the laggards (I have a visual memory of them to this day ...). The school I attended in Rio was much stricter, and much, much more advanced in terms of scholastics - I was doing long division and multiplication, until I came to America ... when kids my age had barely gotten into long addition. I was also surprised that schools in America taught art - to me, it was "playtime" not school (I wasn't - and am not - complaining about this - just pointing out the differences in my early school experiences). For all I know, schools in Rio have become more like North American schools now ... but when I went, it was like "military school" time - we wore uniforms, and unambiguous class rankings ... and the #1 student had to give up his or her "#1 medal" to another student if they got bested by another student in the class during the school year - the report cards we got several times during the year showed one's ranking, and that was that. In Rio, it seemed like almost half my first grade class had to repeat that class - and I remember seeing rather tall boys in some of the classes (indicating to me they were put back once or twice or ...?). Olga (ahem ... to this day, possessor of two #1 medals with Brazilian flag colors ...(lol!)) From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 04:14:19 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 20:14:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] all that concerns me is the future of education References: <20061105001850.59776.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <062801c70091$02bb8490$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Al Brooks writes > Certain clueless young men (do you remember clearly how you felt at age 18?) > are strongly pressured in many ways including via school, a certain number of > male youths are if not manipulated then at least severely pressured into proving > their old-fashioned manhood by joining the Service. Without such idealism, sacrifice, and patriotism there would not be free, western nations for you to express such unappreciative sentiments! Would it have been "foolisth" to have followed Washington at Valley Forge? Foolish to have landed on the shores of Guadalcanal? From the perspective of a majority on this list---alas---the answer is probably "yes". They're interested in saving their own skins (which is highly commendable) but not interested in doing anything whatsoever for the survival of their group or tribe. > When you think about it, unless someone is subliminally pressured why > would they risk not only being shot and blown up in combat, but also risk ... Why would they? Because groups that did not contain such individuals, cultures that could not or did not foster such attitudes, didn't survive. Oh, sure, you can point to modern Scandinavia and find any sort of example. But they won't be around for very much longer, as has been well-discussed here. > But to take off the amateur psychology hat, all that really concerns me is > the future of education, can it be substantially improved? I'm telling you that it won't matter if it is or not! You could spend a million dollars per year educating someone with an IQ of 90 and you still end up with someone with an IQ of 95 or so. > As regards K-12, there could possibly be a fear of de-linking the races, > if students were held more accountable for improving their performance > the gap in performance between the races/ethnicities might become more > pronounced. Sure, that's part of it, but only part of it. Even in Minnesota the average IQ of white people is only 105. But when it's 95 in a few decades, the situation will simply be worse. > This might sound as far out a theory as severe pressures, including lack > of education, causing youths to join the Service, The services simply don't accept people with IQs less that 80. And for each of us who is above 120, remember, there is one who is less than 80. Moreover, the services are much more racially integrated than society at large; young men and women there mix freely while their counterparts on college campuses self-segregate. Just visit your local college or university and go into commons or cafeteria room to see what I mean. Lee From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 04:26:13 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:26:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E01@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> References: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E01@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Message-ID: On 11/4/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > Perhaps, Robert, to get the ball rolling, you should tell us your sexual > preference, mating behavior and breeding pattern just to get the ball > rolling. Ok, to lay it all out my background is hetero, am oriented towards someone who would accept me for who I am and support that. My best experiences to date seem to indicate that a feminine complement for my perspective has merit. I have rarely had men come "on to me" and been uninterested relative to partnerships with women. To the best of my knowledge I am XY. But I did live in NYC for a number of years in such a time when being "in the closet" vs."out of the closet" were hot topics. So one could presume I have more awareness of or sensitivity to such topics. One could also ask from a transhumanist perspective.. Who can Anders trust? (Science may not be the universal answer and one should know when it is failing) Who would contribute to "post-Anders"? (And how should one do so?) There are various lines upon which one would take this apart. My hat is off to Anders (seriously) for potentially being a subject of the experiment. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 04:43:09 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 04:43:09 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - reply to Jef In-Reply-To: <061f01c7008e$e6388bd0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0611041618y5a6dd9a3n2f57056c71a8a34d@mail.gmail.com> <061f01c7008e$e6388bd0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0611042043k39f677b0yce03ab55f9907055@mail.gmail.com> I'll add that while I still don't believe you'll get enough detail to constitute personal immortality, this idea does have the virtue that you can do it incrementally. Start now with all the text, video, audio etc you can create. Add information as it becomes available. When personal DNA sequencing becomes affordable, do that and add the sequence. Get a brain scan at highest available resolution (even if not close to uploading-grade) and put that on the site. When higher resolution becomes available, get another one. Etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Nov 5 04:50:32 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:50:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061104235018.03c06b10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:02 AM 11/4/2006 -0800, you wrote: >David wrote: > > > I think you, and most transhumanist, > >By the way, I consider myself more a humanist than a transhumanist, but >the difference is subtle. Perhaps it is today, but I can remember back in the mid 1980s when Alcor had a presence at a Humanist convention in San Jose. We were tossed out at the request of the main speaker. Snip Re the rest of this post, I discussed "info-resurrection" with (or in the context of) Hans Moravec and cryonics. The quality control problem is so bad that I expressed extreme doubt anyone would attempt such a thing. I looked for it, but no luck. Perhaps it was on the old Extropy mailing list. As I recall, I talked about using all the available information to simulate Hans Moravec and the world around him to the point he wrote _Mind Children_--discarding the versions that did not generate the manuscript word for word. I proposed that you would have to discard a lot of versions, and expressed hope that the discard process would not be painful. The conclusion was that cryonics was much less trouble. Keith Henson From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Nov 5 04:35:41 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:35:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <1162679909.4912.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061104231911.03f35940@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:38 PM 11/4/2006 -0800, you wrote: >On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 22:57 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > > Besides, it's the wrong way to approach the problem. > > Ranting against epidemic disease didn't save a single life. > > What was needed was to understand what causes infectious diseases. > > People have religions like they have chicken pox. > >There are several different ways of viewing religion. If one views >religion as being infected by a set of bad memes then ranting can make a >difference if the ranting has an impact on the bad memes. For reasons I don't completely understand, but are rooted in the stone age, I don't expect ranting against religions to have a positive effect and it might well be counter productive, switching off rational thought by mechanisms that originated in wars between hunter gatherer bands. >Consider the >decline of infectious disease with the advent of better sanitation. >Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and others are hopefully causing a more >critical focus on the memes associated with religion. You might note that better sanitation memes are an outgrowth of *understanding* infectious disease, particularly what *causes* it. Ranting against religions might be really effective if religions were understood to the level we understand infectious disease. As it is, what this crew is doing is like ranting against fevers without the least understanding of what causes fevers. I have been doing a bit of ranting on this subject myself on the Harris page. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060916_sam_harris_rottweiler_barks/ I can transplant it here if you want. Frankly I suspect that if people understood the origin of the human capacity for religions they would be horrified. Best wishes and give my best to the Silicon Valley crew. Keith From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Sun Nov 5 04:34:08 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 20:34:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Post-Carbon Survival? Message-ID: <20061105043408.32971.qmail@web52606.mail.yahoo.com> Earlier today I was at a figure-drawing session and noticed someone's sketch of the model's face that bore a stunning resemblance to her! It was so good that at some abstract level not only did it seem as if the artist had captured her likeness, but that he'd captured 'her' -- There *she* is! The neural substrates of that sense of artistic 'capture' may be output of a pattern-recognition function that maps perceived patterns to conceived identities. In other words, we naturally associate pattern with identity, perhaps even more than we associate raw physical matter with identity. As such, even charcoal smeared on paper can suddenly 'capture' a flesh-and-blood human identity... but *only* if the charcoal has been placed in the right pattern. This then raises the question: In what sense is 'pattern' real? That question seems to underlie questions arising from the hypothesis of post-carbon survival. Would a copy of me merely capture my identity in the way a charcoal sketch captures a model? It's my sense that both forms of 'capture' are just the output of neural pattern-recognition functions mapping patterns to identities *in the minds of those thinking about self-copies*. Likewise, I suspect that recognition of one's own identity is also nothing more than such output. In short, I suspect that the illusion of 'self' underlies an illusion of 'self-copy'. ~Ian http://iangoddard.net "Our greatest illusion is to believe that we are what we think ourselves to be." -- Henri Amiel ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com/preview) __________________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta) From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Nov 5 05:58:43 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:58:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is Message-ID: <20061105055843.98856.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Lee, your pessimism is probably justified. Here's how complicated it is: when minority students are flunked, their families and activists often blame not students and schools but the larger society for oppressing the students into flunking classes/sometimes dropping out. So the dilemma is: if academic standards are raised and grade inflation is reduced then not infrequently the students in question, their families, and demogogic activists blame society; But if the status quo is retained many students, many families, and all taxpayers bear the consequences. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/) From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 07:38:07 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:38:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is References: <20061105055843.98856.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <065101c700ad$61831030$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Al writes > Here's how > complicated it is: when minority students are flunked, > their families and activists often blame not students > and schools but the larger society for oppressing the > students into flunking classes/sometimes dropping out. > So the dilemma is: if academic standards are raised > and grade inflation is reduced then not infrequently > the students in question, their families, and > demogogic activists blame society; Here is my solution: segregation. Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. Right now in California, everyone needs segregating: because the white kids can't keep up with the Asians, and many of them conclude that math, English, and science are for smart kids, not them. As the whites can't keep up with the Asians, the Hispanics can't keep up with the whites, and the blacks can't keep up with the hispanics, so we ought to go back to... yes, segregation. Segregation of the sexes would also keep more girls going in math and science. But last time someone suggested the "today, tomorrow, and forever" formula, he ended up getting shot and spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair! Lee From sentience at pobox.com Sun Nov 5 07:43:08 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:43:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com><20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <454D960C.2020504@pobox.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > > The schools in the Santa Clara Valley and Fremont here in northern > California, I do know from personal experience are doing excellent > jobs with the brightest kids. (There are some unfortunate counter- > examples: the Palo Alto high school district has been taken over by > some levellers who have taken the pressure off the brightest kids to > such an extent that parents I know have withdrawn their kids and are > sending them to private schools. One teaching math spot remains > open because the primary job qualification is that the teacher be black. > The main focus (goal) in that high school district now---I kid you not > ---to have everyone perform at the same level insofar as it is possible.) Current in-house SIAI research personnel: Marcello Herreshoff - recently graduated from Gunn high school, in the Palo Alto district. If they took any pressure off him to perform, it sure doesn't show. Eliezer Yudkowsky - gave up on the dying American educational system after completing eighth grade. Went to a private religious school for K-8. Would things have gone differently if I'd been in Palo Alto with decently atheist parents? Maybe, but in that case I probably wouldn't be me. Sometimes the System works. Sometimes it doesn't. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 08:36:38 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:36:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships and self identity Message-ID: Jef Allbright" wrote: Might it be that the most effective relationship structure in terms of cost/benefit might be the triad? I'm not talking about polyamory or mriage ? trois but rather a stable, committed triadic relationship between three individuals in any combination of genders. Jef Allbright write: "I recognize that this would require individuals of greater than average self-awareness to avoid destructive two-against-one dynamics. I also recognize that nature settled on binary relationships in most cases, but I think human culture represents a more highly developed phase that may support and reward more highly developed relationship structures at various scales. The advantages I see are significantly increased synergies, built-in tie-breaking, and possibly an inherent 3D structural stability similar to that of a tetrahedron over a planar object. Comments?" Amazing what you say Jef, i am married to an Indian woman, I love here,a few months ago i came to live in Israel and have new lover, my wife is supposed to come soon to live with me, and i intend and hope to maintain a trio, which i "naturally" there are some personal and social difficulties, especially in conservative Jerusalem, yet some personal advantages, but your claim is encouraging, will you elaborate please ? secondly to the issue of self identity: who wrote this text about Alice changing life? i find it very illuminating to the issue of huge changes in the self connectedness component, yet keeping the self identity intact to the effect that young Alice survive in old Alice, which strongly support our ability to capture the identity critical information now, while our attention is mainly diverted to our self transformation content. i will with your permission integrate that text in my website http://davidishalom1.googlepages.com/home -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 09:34:37 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:34:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E01@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> References: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E01@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Message-ID: <470a3c520611050134x1584793byf871bd54e84c60c2@mail.gmail.com> So let's plan a special session at Chicago dedicated to finding a girlfriend, boyfriend, aifriend, vrfriend or whateverfriend for Anders! But on second thought, I believe he is quite able to manage on his own. G. On 11/4/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > As to finding places to gossip, bring it to the Transvision conferences. > Next one will be in Chicago July 26-28, 2007, with Kurzweil and de Grey > as keynotes. > > ------------------------ > James Hughes Ph.D From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 09:53:11 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 11:53:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - reply to Russel Wallace Message-ID: ** **Russel Wallace write: "*Why does it have to gather any such thing? You're just talking about text, pictures, sound and video, which we already have the technology to store. Just get a nice big chunk of web space and start uploading everything about yourself (and whoever you want to preserve who will consent to such) that you can get hold of. Lead by example. * * **Thank you Russell Wallace, "Lead by example" is very good advice Yet, for info-resurrection to actually happen, remembering the gap between now and emergence of conscious artificial intelligence, i may in the meantime disintegrate physically, I need the cooperation of future conscious artificial intelligences, and this can be achieved if we establish say an ongoing organization or installation, like cryonics installations but for info-reanimation. we need institutionalized project for that, we need some format acceptance, at least among transhumanist, we need to widespread the meme for effective future implementation; and we need good inspirations like yours, Jef Albright and Lee Corbin to begin with, that already contributed to this issue, mind storming, inspiration, support, long term responsibility, we are still social creatures aren't we? and even the info-resurrected person's rights. and this is the logic behind the info-Resurrection project, it's a job that can't be achieved alone*. *Now as for your "if you haven't got a single person on extropy-chat of all places to believe this literally constitutes personal survival, you won't get anyone anywhere to believe it :)" frankly, I have got some positive personal messages in the last two days, after posting here, which is encouraging* *enough. Now as for your advice to* "*You're better off to put the spin that it's metaphorical immortality through one's works - that's a familiar enough concept. Sort of the digital equivalent of getting a statue of yourself. But the thing about statues is, they get done because people think they look cool. **So go ahead and create a digital monument to yourself, and do it in such a way that it looks cool - nice site layout and suchlike. Then point people to it and say "wouldn't you like one of these for yourself?" I find this a inspirative idea, and it surely encourages me and hopefully others to implement your advice, yet with some delays due to my incapability in web-building, but I am going to improve my technical skills in that respect and personally invest in this idea. Nevertheless, when more mature digital simulation of persons will be achieved in the cyberspace, due to more advanced GAI, next decade or so, it will be easy for everyone to digitally simulate himself/herself with so many enhancement, like me appearing there and being there in the cyberspace ? not yet conscious but very convincing and vivid and young, still me but so much more loving and charismatic and handsome and more intelligent simulation of myself. This vivid simulation tech will immensely contribute to this info-resurrection meme and strategy, I can't wait, but we need patience for the GAI to emerge.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 10:17:54 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:17:54 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - reply to Russel Wallace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0611050217g4cbea713k9e1bd0666d52cd3f@mail.gmail.com> On 11/5/06, david ish shalom wrote: > *Now as for your " if you haven't got a single person on extropy-chat of > all places > to believe this literally constitutes personal survival, you won't get > anyone anywhere to believe it :)" frankly, I have got some positive > personal messages in the last two days, after posting here, which is > encouraging* *enough.* > Great! Good luck with progress on your idea, then. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 10:32:19 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 05:32:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. In-Reply-To: <20061105030322.68246.qmail@web52611.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061105030322.68246.qmail@web52611.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 11/4/06, Ian Goddard wrote: > I suspect one day a copy of a brain could be made, > containing a synthetic sentient being. And it's likely > that for the copy, it recalls the life of the original > as if it where its own. But I see no reason to assume > that the self of the original brain would be somehow > connected to its copy. The copy brain would just be > someone else out there. So if 'I' was uploaded just > before I died, it would only ensure that there'd be > someone else who accesses a database (ie, memory) that > implies they were me. But for me, I'd be as dead as > I'd be without the upload. ~Ian > Interesting. Someone maintaining nonidentity. Of course I'll fall into the camp that 1 = 1 = 1 = 1... at least for the instant that the copies are activated. I would be interested in whether there are others who are operating within this framework. (An interesting "aside" question might be whether such a view would dictate a different agenda in the current "real" world -- given that copying is only a potential and not a reality. And taking this in a completely different direction given recent points -- *how* do I explain this to my nephews (who are currently < 6 y.o). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 11:02:31 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 11:02:31 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Computer animation In-Reply-To: <01e701c7008a$76d9a390$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <01e701c7008a$76d9a390$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <8d71341e0611050302p320e5d37p3a152efb0a65d944@mail.gmail.com> I like it! Vote sent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 11:12:28 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 06:12:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - reply to Russel Wallace In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611050217g4cbea713k9e1bd0666d52cd3f@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0611050217g4cbea713k9e1bd0666d52cd3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/5/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 11/5/06, david ish shalom wrote: > > > *Now as for your " if you haven't got a single person on extropy-chat > > of all places to believe this literally constitutes personal survival, you > > won't get anyone anywhere to believe it :)" frankly, I have got some > > positive personal messages in the last two days, after posting here, > > which is encouraging* *enough.* > > > Now, now, now.. At the risk of opening myself up to lord knows what objections I am willing to go on record as stating that info-identity is a legitimate process of preserving oneself. Most people considering "identity" are doing so in an information constrained world (i.e. it is impossible to copy oneself). But this will not always be the case. A copy of information imprinted on 3 lbs of wet matter will not always be "unique". So David's choice of selling point aside one has to deal with 1 = 1 = 1... and you can apply it to the left of or to the right of as selling points but you still have to get back to "is it identical". I have no problem with people treating copies of Robert as if they were Robert. I would like to hear comments from those who would object to Robert surrogates (copies) filling in for me. In particular I would like to know *who* would be so presumptuous as to claim knowing when I have been replaced by one of my copies and how they would know such. 1 = 1 = 1 = 1 (be it on the left or the right) R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Sun Nov 5 12:40:28 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 07:40:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. References: <20061102235019.83835.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006401c70040$3a1acb90$bb084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 11/4/06, Ian Goddard wrote: > I suspect one day a copy of a brain could be made, > containing a synthetic sentient being. And it's likely > that for the copy, it recalls the life of the original > as if it where its own. But I see no reason to assume > that the self of the original brain would be somehow > connected to its copy. The copy brain would just be > someone else out there. So if 'I' was uploaded just > before I died, it would only ensure that there'd be > someone else who accesses a database (ie, memory) that > implies they were me. But for me, I'd be as dead as > I'd be without the upload. ~Ian Robert Bradbury: "Interesting. Someone maintaining nonidentity. Of course I'll fall into the camp that 1 = 1 = 1 = 1... at least for the instant that the copies are activated. I would be interested in whether there are others who are operating within this framework." Ian is 100% correct. Slawomir From James.Hughes at trincoll.edu Sun Nov 5 13:48:41 2006 From: James.Hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 08:48:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? Message-ID: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E23@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> > So let's plan a special session at Chicago dedicated to > finding a girlfriend, boyfriend, aifriend, vrfriend or > whateverfriend for Anders! Since he's a fan of market-based solutions perhaps we could auction him off? Surely the person willing to pay the most for him is the person who loves him the most, and what more can a man want than the love of a devoted consumer? J. From amara at amara.com Sun Nov 5 13:52:49 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 05:52:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's all understandable, except) Message-ID: Eugene: >It would be so ironic if demographics and education would shoot down our >chance for Singularity within the narrow launch horizon. If we mess it >up real good this time, our grandchildren might not have an opportunity >for another shot. If I may interject ... And Eugene is interested indeed in children's education and his grandchildren. His baby boy, Laurin Leitl, was born 2 November. Mother Kiki and little Laurin are happy and healthy. Amara (godmother) From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Nov 5 14:41:54 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 09:41:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's all understandable, except) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33593.72.236.103.23.1162737714.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > And Eugene is interested indeed in children's education and his grandchildren. > His baby boy, Laurin Leitl, was born 2 November. Mother Kiki and little > Laurin are happy and healthy. > Very good news! Congratulations all 'round. Amara, you will be a *fine* godmother! :) Regards, MB From brentn at freeshell.org Sun Nov 5 14:54:16 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 09:54:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's all understandable, except) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 5, 2006, at 8:52, Amara Graps wrote: > Eugene: >> It would be so ironic if demographics and education would shoot >> down our >> chance for Singularity within the narrow launch horizon. If we >> mess it >> up real good this time, our grandchildren might not have an >> opportunity >> for another shot. > > If I may interject ... > > And Eugene is interested indeed in children's education and his > grandchildren. > His baby boy, Laurin Leitl, was born 2 November. Mother Kiki and > little > Laurin are happy and healthy. > Congratulations and well-wishes to the whole family! Brent -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 14:57:50 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 06:57:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except References: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com><20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com><05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454D960C.2020504@pobox.com> Message-ID: <066001c700ea$fb396b60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eliezer writes > Lee Corbin wrote: >> >> The schools in the Santa Clara Valley and Fremont here in northern >> California, I do know from personal experience are doing excellent >> jobs with the brightest kids. (There are some unfortunate counter- >> examples: the Palo Alto high school district has been taken over by >> some levellers who have taken the pressure off the brightest kids to >> such an extent that parents I know have withdrawn their kids and are >> sending them to private schools. One teaching math spot remains >> open because the primary job qualification is that the teacher be black. >> The main focus (goal) in that high school district now---I kid you not >> ---to have everyone perform at the same level insofar as it is possible.) > > Current in-house SIAI research personnel: > > Marcello Herreshoff - recently graduated from Gunn high school, in the > Palo Alto district. If they took any pressure off him to perform, it > sure doesn't show. I would not expect it to! Not at all, even if when he was at Gunn standards had fallen. (And it's not Gunn I was talking about; my data is from another one.) You missed my point, which was my fault: I should have stressed this: the very brightest (the ones that I complain are too few) make out well NO MATTER WHAT. You can't wreck them. It's just sad when they can coast their last few years in the school system, and the parents (of these very few) often won't stand for it. > Eliezer Yudkowsky - gave up on the dying American educational system > after completing eighth grade. Went to a private religious school for > K-8. Would things have gone differently if I'd been in Palo Alto with > decently atheist parents? I don't think that it would have made any big difference; you'd be slightly ahead of where you are or very slightly behind, that's all. Lee From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 15:50:08 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:50:08 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The self-identity quest reply to Wallace, Corbin .. Message-ID: "Russell Wallace write: I'll add that while I still don't believe you'll get enough detail to constitute personal immortality, this idea does have the virtue that you can do it incrementally. Start now with all the text, video, audio etc you can create. Add information as it becomes available. When personal DNAn sequencing becomes affordable, do that and add the sequence. Get a brain scan at highest available resolution (even if not close to uploading-grade)and put that on the site. When higher resolution becomes available, get another one. Etc" David reply: Russel what you say is important and also remember that in ten years +- vivid and convincing simulation of real people in the cyber space will be available and people will tend to simulate themselves and to improve that simulations with time, until when conscious personalized AI will emerge, that high fidelity simulations, enhanced virtual humans, and at the same time retain all the relevant information of their past self, these people will wake up, even if their original has already demised, to be the first info-survived personalities, the first info-resurrected ones. I argue that these persons with their unimaginable capabilities and powers will have to exercise high moral code, much higher than in our present Darwinian stage, for the safety and wellbeing of old humanity and the imminent singularity. more about it in http://davidishalom1.googlepages.com/home Lee Corbin write in his article Duplicates are Self , 1988 http://www.leecorbin.com/dupproof.html "Why is it easy to believe that someone could be at the same place at two different times, but very hard to believe that someone could be at the same time in two different places? ..... So why do they always find "being in two places at the same time" extraordinarily counter-intuitive? ? "They will claim, for example, that minor differences accumulated in the last minute are crucial, conveniently forgetting that the remote duplicate is "closer" to them than is the person they were yesterday."?"but that night a merging process copies 'your' memories of the day into 'his' brain and 'his' memories into 'yours' David Ish-Shalom reply: the reductionist theories of the self assume that If A is the original person and B is his duplicate, A's survival in B is maintained as long as they are not mutually existent! Yet, this condition of not being mutually existent for survival to take place, will not necessarily be required in the future, since then, various manifestations of the same person at the same time, like cyborg entities, virtual forms, forglet forms, and nano-engineered manifestation and other forms, does not impede these selves being one and the same person, as long as these various manifestations are synchronously info-connected and thus keeping the same diachronic identity. Synchronous connection is achieved when human and machines *are online broad band, connected such as all the various experiences are online recalled and merged to all of them at the same time or even once a day as you mention. This support your view, in the future we will be able to be one and many at the same time, as long as we are synchronously connected*. Lee writes: "Yes, that's necessary, but it may not be sufficient. My solution, which I've said quite a few times on this list but which you probably have not heard, is to give previous versions of yourself ample runtime. ?..But there is also a strong psychological motivation: just why will future versions of you bother running such an ancient and decrepit fetal version of themselves? The answer is, as I call it, "the logic of cryonics". Namely, we reanimate those who are frozen so that when the time comes we are ourselves reanimated. It proceeds by (mathematical) induction. Your vast future self (who hardly resembles you but who has the most power) will see this logic, and if he (it) evilly denies you runtime, then by the same logic he'll be denied runtime by even more advanced versions. So we must vigorously push this meme: All previous versions---that we can fix or capture---are to get runtime so long into the future as we or our future versions shall live." David reply: Basically I agree with you about that point and even suggest something similar in my methodology of reanimation, to firstly reanimate the old selfhood ? enough runtime - but with built-in drive to shortly after second wake-up to launch the transformation project thus retaining securely most of the past experience, abilities and limitation, but as well strongly facilitating the most important augmentation project to turn into post humans.** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Nov 5 16:03:04 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 08:03:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships and self identity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200611051601.kA5G1BWi019467@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of david ish shalom Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships and self identity . ... i am married to an Indian woman, I love here,a few months ago i came to live in Israel and have new lover, my wife is supposed to come soon to live with me, and i intend and hope to maintain a trio... David are your wife and your sweetheart as enthusiastic about this arrangement as you are? Often when presented with the proposed arrangement, the Mrs. Davids of this world counter-propose bringing in another man for your sweetheart, and still another man to entertain Mrs David during the day while you go off to work to support the five of you. ... "naturally" there are some personal and social difficulties... Ja "naturally", but your wife will surely help with these. She will have surprisingly little difficulty finding two additional men, and a second job for you to cover the increased expenses. Honest to jahweh, David, I would be very surprised if the ladies go for this notion. Even really rich guys can seldom pull it off. But if you work it out, congratulations. Do report back. Even if not, do report back anyway. We want to hear what your Indian wife hit you with when you suggested it. spike From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 16:35:23 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:35:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's all understandable, except) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520611050835j5264a3d1v78fc00dcaf1d9832@mail.gmail.com> CONGRATULATIONS EUGEN!!!!! G. On 11/5/06, Amara Graps wrote: > Eugene: > >It would be so ironic if demographics and education would shoot down our > >chance for Singularity within the narrow launch horizon. If we mess it > >up real good this time, our grandchildren might not have an opportunity > >for another shot. > > If I may interject ... > > And Eugene is interested indeed in children's education and his grandchildren. > His baby boy, Laurin Leitl, was born 2 November. Mother Kiki and little > Laurin are happy and healthy. > > Amara > (godmother) From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Nov 5 17:07:03 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 09:07:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships and self identity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: david ish shalom wrote: > Jef Allbright" wrote: >> Might it be that the most effective >> relationship structure in terms of cost/benefit might be the triad? >> I'm not talking about polyamory or mriage ? trois but rather a >> stable, committed triadic relationship between three individuals >> in any combination of genders. > > Amazing what you say Jef, i am married to an Indian woman, I love > here,a few months ago i came to live in Israel and have new lover, > my wife is supposed to come soon to live with me, and i intend and > hope to maintain a trio, which i "naturally" there are some personal > and social difficulties, especially in conservative Jerusalem, yet > some personal advantages, but your claim is encouraging, will you > elaborate please ? David, when I suggested that triadic relationships might provide inherent advantages, I hinted (strongly, I thought), but did not make fully make explicit, that I thought this form might rise to predominance within a more highly developed (and more highly competitive) culture with individuals possessing a higher degree of awareness than the present situation. As Keith Henson mentioned, evolutionary psychology provides a good basis for understanding much of the dynamics of human relationships at the individual and group level. There are strong reasons why such relationships are not stable within the social context. [Note to Keith: I studied Cosmidies and Toobey and others several years ago, but thanks anyway for the suggestion. ;-)] In your particular case, I wish you luck maintaining your relationship(s). Perhaps you and your partners should read Heinlein for inspiration. Note that a high degree of openess and honesty is recommended, but rarely achieved over the course. > secondly to the issue of self identity: who wrote this text about > Alice changing life? i find it very illuminating to the issue of > huge changes in the self connectedness component, yet keeping the > self identity intact to the effect that young Alice survive in old > Alice, which strongly support our ability to capture the identity > critical information now, while our attention is mainly diverted to > our self transformation content. i will with your permission > integrate that text in my website http://davidishalom1.googlepages.com/home I wrote that little series of vignettes to highlight an internal contradiction in a certain mode of thinking about self-identity, and to prepare the way for a more encompassing understanding that provides a coherent basis for thinking about new personal freedoms and new issues of moral and legal responsibility with the arrival of radical new technological capabilities. Since this project is not yet complete, it might be best if you hold off on quoting the first part of my argument since you may not agree with the next part. In general, I support your right to refer to my writing or anyone else's writing on the web as long as authorship and original context remain clearly intact. - Jef From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 17:08:23 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 12:08:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <065101c700ad$61831030$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061105055843.98856.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> <065101c700ad$61831030$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240611050908i5032dca3n78c18badec3aaabb@mail.gmail.com> On 11/5/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Here is my solution: segregation. Segregation today, > segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. > > Right now in California, everyone needs segregating: > because the white kids can't keep up with the Asians, > and many of them conclude that math, English, and > science are for smart kids, not them. As the whites can't > keep up with the Asians, the Hispanics can't keep up > with the whites, and the blacks can't keep up with the > hispanics, so we ought to go back to... yes, segregation. > Why does it have to be racist and sexist? Why can't we 'segregate' (to use your negatively overloaded term) along dimension of performance capability? There ARE white kids who are smarter than the "average" asian, so why hold them to a lower standard due to genetics? Even within a demographic, there will be natural tendencies toward excellence within specific subjects - capitalize on and enhance them. Do we really need a people to be so "well rounded" that they don't appear to be 'sharp' in any subject? Or would fostering specialization be the right course in our increasingly specialized fields of expertise? Why does a CS/Math major need X credits of history from a liberal arts school? Unless you are suggesting that someone's ethnic background or gender defines their potential.... but you wouldn't be saying that, right? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Nov 5 17:18:10 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 09:18:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's all understandable, except) In-Reply-To: <33593.72.236.103.23.1162737714.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200611051716.kA5HGSNE006105@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of MB > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's all > understandable, except) > > > > > > And Eugene ... > > His baby boy, Laurin Leitl, was born 2 November. Mother Kiki and little > > Laurin are happy and healthy. > > Wooohooo! A most happy thing is this. Congrats Eugene and Kiki, and congratulations Laurin! For some odd reason, society has developed the habit of failing to congratulate the infant. But it is he who has successfully accomplished the hazardous transition from embryo to fetus to infant. > Amara, you will be a *fine* godmother! :) Regards, MB Wholeheartedly I agree, but we need to derive a new atheist-friendly term which eliminates the whole god thing. Nothing-mother doesn't work, nor does Evolution-parent or Nada-Nana. Backup-guardian sounds like something you would use for surge protection on your hard disk. Suggestions? spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 17:22:53 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 12:22:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's all understandable, except) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/5/06, Amara Graps wrote: > > Eugene: > >It would be so ironic if demographics and education would shoot down our > chance for Singularity within the narrow launch horizon. If we mess it up > real good this time, our grandchildren might not have an opportunity for > another shot. We would *really* have to mess it up if this were to be a probable future tangent. If I may interject ... > > And Eugene is interested indeed in children's education and his > grandchildren. His baby boy, Laurin Leitl, was born 2 November. Mother Kiki > and little Laurin are happy and healthy. Nods of respect and acknowledgement all around. I am struck by my reaction to this information. Gee Amara gets to godmother (very cool (my godmother wasn't a dust astrophysicist) but that isn't the right word to contain my complex mixture of admiration and perhaps jealousy), Gee, Spike and now Eugen are making babies (one way or another). Shit, I'm going to have to teach these children and they are going to be stuck right in the middle of the singularity ramp (is this bad timing or what?). And of course if Spike is making babies and Eugen is making babies then one has to put the possibility of Eliezer or Anders making babies on the table. There are a lot of "Oh no Mr. Bill" humor lines that fall out of this but I will not go there. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 17:26:58 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 12:26:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] all that concerns me is the future of education In-Reply-To: <062801c70091$02bb8490$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061105001850.59776.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> <062801c70091$02bb8490$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240611050926l6a87c935p582c1dfe61c34f81@mail.gmail.com> On 11/4/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Moreover, the services are much more racially integrated than society at > large; young men and women there mix freely while their counterparts > on college campuses self-segregate. Just visit your local college or > university and go into commons or cafeteria room to see what I mean. > It may be that you are seeing what you want to see based on your own bias. The same could be said about a homogeneous group of white European-descendant Americans - they are likely to segregate themselves into groups of Irish, German, French, etc. Is the Caucasian element the issue? Try a large population of Indian-Americans, they'll probably self-segregate along cultural lines dependant on what district their family originated from in India. The same is probably true with a statistically valid sample of African Americans segregating themselves along regional ancestry. (for example, the cultural ideology of a South African is probably as different to an Egyptian as Mexican would be to Canadian) We learn first from our families. The concept of community can be as inclusive or divisive as you learn it to be. I have been raised with diversity and appreciate it; perhaps you have not. Even with a family, there are groups with common interests (Old/young, male/female, cousins you see frequently/those you don't, Drinkers/non, etc.) Does that make those members of your family who you choose to associate with less often at your family reunion are (in your opinion) worth less than those you do? We may actually be in agreement, but I am having difficulty with the terms you are using and how you are presenting your ideas. I hope I am misreading your intentions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 17:35:06 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 12:35:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - reply to Russel Wallace In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0611050217g4cbea713k9e1bd0666d52cd3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240611050935g58297fc4xd6671a16ac9dea6e@mail.gmail.com> On 11/5/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I would like to hear comments from those who would object to Robert > surrogates (copies) filling in for me. In particular I would like to know > *who* would be so presumptuous as to claim knowing when I have been replaced > by one of my copies and how they would know such. > I have no idea how many copies of you have already had the audacity to post messages here. I have little interest in investigating this, so I will statistically average all the behaviors exhibited to date and assume the composite of all the posts under your email address to constitute "Robert Bradbury" - If/when I have a sufficiently detailed model to detect sufficiently non-normative posts, I may question their authenticity. Until then I will have to assume you are capable of mood swings or otherwise possess an acceptable/tolerable variance in identity model. This doesn't take any advanced technology for uploading or copy simulation - I make this analysis of posts every day :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Nov 5 17:29:50 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 09:29:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's allunderstandable, except) References: <200611051716.kA5HGSNE006105@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001101c70100$004702b0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "spike" Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 9:18 AM >> Amara, you will be a *fine* godmother! :) Regards, MB > > Wholeheartedly I agree, but we need to derive a new atheist-friendly term > which eliminates the whole god thing. Nothing-mother doesn't work, nor > does Evolution-parent or Nada-Nana. Backup-guardian sounds like something > you would use for surge protection on your hard disk. Suggestions? Er ... Nanatech? :) ... and congratulations to Eugen, Kiki and Laurin! (big welcome to the world, Kid). Olga From george at betterhumans.com Sun Nov 5 17:53:49 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 12:53:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E23@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> References: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E23@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Message-ID: On 11/5/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > Since he's a fan of market-based solutions perhaps we could auction him > off? Surely the person willing to pay the most for him is the person who > loves him the most, and what more can a man want than the love of a > devoted consumer? I'll start the bidding at US$10.00 ;-) Cheers, George From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 17:55:34 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 12:55:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <62c14240611050908i5032dca3n78c18badec3aaabb@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061105055843.98856.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> <065101c700ad$61831030$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240611050908i5032dca3n78c18badec3aaabb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/5/06, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On 11/5/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > > > Here is my solution: segregation. Segregation today, > > segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. > > Lee has a point. Witness recent performance in schools segregated by sex. Yep, remove the boy-girl part of the equation and both do better. Why does it have to be racist and sexist? Because it *works* -- if one removes the disparities of the playing field then it is "level". No discussion at to whether it should be perceived to be level -- it is simply level. Why can't we 'segregate' (to use your negatively overloaded term) along > dimension of performance capability? There ARE white kids who are smarter > than the "average" asian, so why hold them to a lower standard due to > genetics? [yes] And as a sweeping genealization it is derived from in the Asian culture where one *will* learn that which is inside of the box. And learn it very very well. We "westerners" do not have a good understanding of the extent to which they will master things we consider to be "fluff". Whether that will play out on top remains an open question. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Sun Nov 5 18:00:12 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:00:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: References: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E23@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Message-ID: <638d4e150611051000l99be97s604ffc807c8face0@mail.gmail.com> I bid $100.00 in Novamente LLC stock ;-) On 11/5/06, George Dvorsky wrote: > On 11/5/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > Since he's a fan of market-based solutions perhaps we could auction him > > off? Surely the person willing to pay the most for him is the person who > > loves him the most, and what more can a man want than the love of a > > devoted consumer? > > I'll start the bidding at US$10.00 ;-) > > Cheers, > George > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jonkc at att.net Sun Nov 5 18:02:25 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:02:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. References: <20061102235019.83835.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com><006401c70040$3a1acb90$bb084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <001901c70104$9b7bd770$450a4e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > I believe we've gone over this before and my response is still the same. Atoms. > Would you be able to implement 2 working minds with these ultracold atoms? Possibly, there is talk of using something like that in a Quantum Computer, but at any rate you could certainly use a BEC to erase the history of the atoms journey through space time that you think is so very very very important. So if atoms have no individuality they can't confer individuality to us. And you can certainly use electrons to make a mind and they can be in two places at once too, the 2 slit experiment proves it. But that was 75 years ago, just recently someone did the two-slit experiment with buckminsterfullerene and that is made of 60 carbon atoms. > does BEC cause these 3600 atoms to collapse in such a way that when you > return the energy to a normal level the closed system contains only a > single atom at 1/3600th of the initial mass of 3600 atoms? Huh, is that a Zen Koan or something? John K Clark From nlbarna at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 18:17:58 2006 From: nlbarna at gmail.com (Nathan Barna) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 12:17:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: References: <638d4e150611041307hfa88d4ia61be18a52953a44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <761b6df90611051017y5628e19bm3c1fe9c71fba9be3@mail.gmail.com> This is reminiscent of the Pythagoreans, who also identified basic mathematical structures with elaborately qualitative ones. Jef Allbright wrote: > Speaking pragmatically, I think you're right. Now, how to justify a > tetrahedral 4-way relationship... An n-way relationship is perhaps best justified with any well-represented game that recognizes each of n participants. Unless you're really searching for something deeper. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 18:19:16 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:19:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: References: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E23@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Message-ID: On 11/5/06, George Dvorsky wrote: > I'll start the bidding at US$10.00 ;-) Oh now come on -- Anders is worth at least 1000x perhaps 10,000x that much on the open market. (provided one can enroll him in ones perspective). Anders' children would be a much different discussion vector. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Nov 5 18:44:15 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:44:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> "Ian Goddard" Wrote: > the definition of 'identity' in logic matches > Leibniz's Identity of Indiscernibles. Leibniz's Identity Of Indiscernibles is the idea that if you exchange the position of two things and there is no change in the system then the two things are the same. If I place you (the copy) and the original an equal distance from the center of a symmetrical room so you see the same things and then instantly swap your bodies position with the original then neither you nor the original nor any outside observer could detect the slightest change. There was no change because although there were 2 bodies in the room there was only one person. John K Clark From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 18:42:45 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:42:45 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Racism (was: here's how complicated it is) References: <20061105075947.28211.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <06a301c7010a$37647660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Al writes, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Brooks" To: "Lee Corbin" ; "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 11:59 PM > We just have to make the distinction between between > overt and covert racism-- nearly everyone has covert > racist tendencies, but not to be militant about it. > Only blockheaded Marxists think we can end racism. > Academic segregation? Let's give it a try. I disagree. True racism can be eliminated, (and with sufficient rationality it is absent). True racism involves stereotypic thinking and prejudice to the extent that one cannot see the individual behind his color or ethnicity. The *truth* is very simple: one's race is an extremely small part of one's actual individuality. For example, Hirohito was Japanese all right, but he was a vast and complex human individual. There were a huge and very specific number of items that demarked him as an *individual*. Anyone who'd guess at most of this information solely based on race is simply ignorant, or blinded by prejudice ("dirty Japs"). The blockheaded Marxists you refer to, and their allies, have unfortunately had great success in redefining "racism" to include any honest notice or acknowledgment of real statistical differences between groups, alas. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 18:56:47 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:56:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is References: <20061105055843.98856.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> <065101c700ad$61831030$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240611050908i5032dca3n78c18badec3aaabb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <06ab01c7010c$5bfa8ad0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > On 11/5/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Here is my solution: segregation. Segregation today, > > segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. > > Right now in California, everyone needs segregating: > > because the white kids can't keep up with the Asians, > > and many of them conclude that math, English, and > > science are for smart kids, not them. As the whites can't > > keep up with the Asians, the Hispanics can't keep up > > with the whites, and the blacks can't keep up with the > > hispanics, so we ought to go back to... yes, segregation. > > Why does it have to be racist and sexist? Why can't we > 'segregate' (to use your negatively overloaded term) along > dimension of performance capability? Oh, I agree. I was being a bit flippant, but as Robert has just said, there is a point at least insofar as gender is concerned. As for racial segregation, it really isn't practical anymore. For one thing, it would just be politically (and probably socially) impossible. For another, unlike the case of sex (gender), there are a lot of people who are intermediary between races. And you know what problems that would create! > There ARE white kids who are smarter than the "average" > asian, so why hold them to a lower standard due to genetics? Of course. But the point is that kids in schools can tend to identify their capabilities in terms of everyone around them. Not all kids to be sure. The extremely capable will be fine no matter what. > Unless you are suggesting that someone's ethnic background > or gender defines their potential.... but you wouldn't be saying > that, right? Correct. It is simply a fact that a person's race is overwhelmed and dwarfed by his or her individual capabilities. I gave a talk on transfinite numbers recently to a few extremely gifted 8th graders. As it was finishing up, a parent asked, "Why is it that when my son was in elementary school the kids who were good at math were mostly girls, and now they're mostly boys?" I had to craft my answer carefully because there was a very bright 8th grade girl there who had kept up with the boys in the seminar just fine. But I also had to tell the truth. So I began by making exactly this statement about individuals, and how generalities do not apply to individuals, but are statistical in nature. I mentioned the extremely competant physicist Lisa Randall at Harvard. Then I told the rest of the truth: following puberty, boys leap ahead of girls in the higher reaches of performance, and I speculated upon evolutionary reasons for why this is so. The girl didn't seem to care or notice. She is so bright and confident that her inner soul told her that whatever I was saying didn't apply to her. Lee From randall at randallsquared.com Sun Nov 5 18:44:56 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:44:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. In-Reply-To: References: <20061102235019.83835.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006401c70040$3a1acb90$bb084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <277AC067-3152-4038-B60D-0BEA7ABB790F@randallsquared.com> On Nov 5, 2006, at 7:40 AM, Heartland wrote: > On 11/4/06, Ian Goddard wrote: >> But for me, I'd be as dead as >> I'd be without the upload. ~Ian > > Robert Bradbury: > "Interesting. Someone maintaining nonidentity. Of course I'll > fall into the > camp that 1 = 1 = 1 = 1... at least for the instant that the copies > are > activated. I would be interested in whether there are others who are > operating within this framework." > > Ian is 100% correct. As a further point of data, I'll add my agreement. -- Randall Randall "Hey, Mr. Record Man, your system can't compete; It's the new artist model: File Transfer Complete..." - MC Lars, "Download This Song" From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Nov 5 07:59:47 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:59:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <065101c700ad$61831030$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061105075947.28211.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Right. George Wallace. We just have to make the distinction between between overt and covert racism-- nearly everyone has covert racist tendencies, but not to be militant about it. Only blockheaded Marxists think we can end racism. Academic segregation? Let's give it a try. > [...]But last time someone suggested the "today, > tomorrow, > and forever" formula, he ended up getting shot and > spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair! > > Lee > __________________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta) From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 19:07:15 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 11:07:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: list delivery References: <20061104232822.GL6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <06b101c7010d$a42d3fe0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eugen and Heartland wrote ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugen Leitl" > On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 11:03:07AM -0500, Heartland wrote: > >> Looking at my inbox and the archives, the delivery rate seems to hover somewhere >> around 80% which is not good at all. The problem with these mailing lists is that > > Yeah, hotmail really sucks mossy rocks. You should ditch it. Well, I'm getting straight delivery through subscription to an established address. Horribly enough, for all I can really say, maybe *my* miss rate may also be 20%! I suspect this because Al Brooks copied me---just as I'm going on this message to Slawomir and Eugen---and so I could see that I had missed his message to the list. Hmm... so this is one reason why people "Copy to all". Heretofore, I thought that it was silly to do so, and even unfair to other recipients. No more. Resolved: from now on I'll "Reply to All". Lee P.S. And sorry if I've ignored some posts where some direct question has been asked me, or for which I was supposed to answer. (I do have one outstanding post to answer, and that's from pjmanney. I needed to research the question he asked and will send my reply today or tomorrow.) From randall at randallsquared.com Sun Nov 5 19:32:18 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:32:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: <015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Nov 5, 2006, at 1:44 PM, John K Clark wrote: > If I place you (the copy) and the original an > equal distance from the center of a symmetrical room so you see the > same things and then instantly swap your bodies position with the > original then neither you nor the original nor any outside observer > could detect the slightest change. There was no change because > although there were 2 bodies in the room there was only one person. This appears to be the argument that had the Soviets been perfectly successful in erasing all records of Trotsky, he would really not have been there. In your room, there are two person-processes* of the same person-type, but only one person-type. You feel that all processes of the person-type you call John K Clark are equivalent for all purposes, where we would say that they are only equivalent for non-subjective purposes. But here's a question for you: in a Tegmark universe, as I understand it, there are an infinite number of John K Clark bodies, widely separated by space, but in your view all with an equal claim to being *you*, right? (In a MWI universe, the same is true but without the spacial separation). So, when you walk across the street, why dodge a car that almost hits you? Lee Corbin would say, I believe, that the important thing is increase Lee-Corbin-runtime, and that this dictates saving this particular Lee-Corbin-process, but I don't think this mild preference (for the actual runtime lost by losing this particular process would be infinitesimal) explains the great lengths that I imagine you guys would go to if this process' runtime were in danger. If you don't agree that the runtime lost would indeed be infinitesimal, we can introduce a random number generator based on decay rates or some other apparently random source, and then reason only about the reactions of the one in a zillion John K Clark or Lee Corbin. * Assuming that everyone can agree that each body which is a person is a separate process. -- Randall Randall "This is a fascinating question, right up there with whether rocks fall because of gravity or being dropped, and whether 3+5=5+3 because addition is commutative or because they both equal 8." - Scott Aaronson From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Nov 5 19:36:58 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:36:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's all understandable, except) In-Reply-To: <33593.72.236.103.23.1162737714.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <33593.72.236.103.23.1162737714.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <33690.72.236.102.119.1162755418.squirrel@main.nc.us> When our children were born we selected godparents who could also stand as guardians should anything happen to us. They were named as the guardians *in our wills*. The term "godparent" was used socially because our parents *really* cared that there be some religious involvement, it mattered to them, and their feelings mattered to us. The religious aspect did not matter to *us*, but the selection process was very important. So there is a term, I think which could be used. Guardian. The meaning may be somewhat broadened because we commonly think of guardians only when there are no longer active parents, but it was more than that in our family. Our children grew up with close association with their guardians - some of them, because it's always easy to select a guardian who doesn't work out for some reason. Remember: whenever there's a birth, death, marriage, divorce, or coming of age, the wills should be re-examined for current accuracy. That's what my dad always said, and I think it quite wise. Best regards, MB From randall at randallsquared.com Sun Nov 5 19:37:00 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:37:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: list delivery In-Reply-To: <06b101c7010d$a42d3fe0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061104232822.GL6974@leitl.org> <06b101c7010d$a42d3fe0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8E6B98EE-051E-45AF-9159-075D70C4EF9A@randallsquared.com> On Nov 5, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eugen Leitl" >> Yeah, hotmail really sucks mossy rocks. You should ditch it. > > Well, I'm getting straight delivery through subscription to an > established > address. Horribly enough, for all I can really say, maybe *my* > miss rate may > also be 20%! > > I suspect this because Al Brooks copied me---just as I'm going on this > message to Slawomir and Eugen---and so I could see that I had missed > his message to the list. > > Hmm... so this is one reason why people "Copy to all". Heretofore, > I thought that it was silly to do so, and even unfair to other > recipients. > No more. > > Resolved: from now on I'll "Reply to All". > > Lee > > P.S. And sorry if I've ignored some posts where some direct question > has been asked me, or for which I was supposed to answer. (I do have > one outstanding post to answer, and that's from pjmanney. I needed to > research the question he asked and will send my reply today or > tomorrow.) You may want to use http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-November/date.html for that research, as several more posts than I got in the last coupla days have shown up there. I don't use Hotmail, either, of course. Part of the drop rate to me might be explainable due to some quirk of the list, since I just joined (I've been absent since the list was "extropians@"). -- Randall Randall Software isn't really a product; it's a service: the service of arranging bits on a customer's computer. Trying to pound software into a 'product' niche is the fount of many licenses. From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Nov 5 18:43:47 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 12:43:47 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: References: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E23@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061105123424.047f9b10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 12:19 PM 11/5/2006, Robert wrote: >I'll start the bidding at US$10.00 ;-) >>I bid $100.00 in Novamente LLC stock ;-) >Oh now come on -- Anders is worth at least 1000x perhaps 10,000x that much >on the open market. (provided one can enroll him in ones perspective). >Anders' children would be a much different discussion vector. Like fine wine, fine art and fine ideas, Anders is priceless. It is not a matter of owning these fine elements that brings about happiness, but a matter of appreciating them for their full worth and value by tasting the fruits of their bouquet, their quality and character, style and technique, and where they, because of these characteristics, allow us to venture-to grow and explore-in our own minds. This my friends is priceless. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sun Nov 5 19:59:07 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 11:59:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <066001c700ea$fb396b60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com><20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com><05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454D960C.2020504@pobox.com> <066001c700ea$fb396b60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <454E428B.4090109@pobox.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > > You missed my point, which was my fault: I should have stressed > this: the very brightest (the ones that I complain are too few) make > out well NO MATTER WHAT. You can't wreck them. It's just > sad when they can coast their last few years in the school system, > and the parents (of these very few) often won't stand for it. I think the school system came within inches of wrecking me permanently, and if I'd actually been forced through high school, especially a non-Gunn-class high school, that might have been it. Selection bias, Lee. You don't see the wrecked ones. They don't look like the "very brightest" any more. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Sun Nov 5 20:11:12 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:11:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <20ef01c7008c$baa95730$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <20ef01c7008c$baa95730$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20061105201112.GG6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 07:44:42PM -0800, Olga Bourlin wrote: > ...). The school I attended in Rio was much stricter, and much, much more > advanced in terms of scholastics - I was doing long division and > multiplication, until I came to America ... when kids my age had barely I can provide a similiar data point for the Russian school system (I crossed over from 7th grade in 1980 UdSSR to 7th grade 1980 Germany, and found that many things were lagging over here. I've heard similiar experiences about direct comparisons with Germany and US for mid-1980s (public schools, I presume, and the comparison was similiarly disastrous). Of course, things have gone considerably downhill since, about everywhere. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Nov 5 20:17:14 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 15:17:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <454E428B.4090109@pobox.com> References: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com><20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com><05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454D960C.2020504@pobox.com> <066001c700ea$fb396b60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454E428B.4090109@pobox.com> Message-ID: <33720.72.236.103.101.1162757834.squirrel@main.nc.us> Eliezer wrote: > > I think the school system came within inches of wrecking me permanently, > and if I'd actually been forced through high school, especially a > non-Gunn-class high school, that might have been it. > > Selection bias, Lee. You don't see the wrecked ones. They don't look > like the "very brightest" any more. > I fear this is true. Instead they often look like the worst. Drugs, drinking, other maladaptive behaviours - anything to kill the frustration and boredom and pointlessness of their daily lives. Regards, MB From george at betterhumans.com Sun Nov 5 20:26:43 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 15:26:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20061105123424.047f9b10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E23@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> <6.2.1.2.2.20061105123424.047f9b10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: > I'll start the bidding at US$10.00 ;-) > >>I bid $100.00 in Novamente LLC stock ;-) Sorry, Ben -- with all due respect to the value of Novamente stock, I think my opening bid still stands. I could use a polymath around the house. Cheers, George From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Nov 5 20:33:31 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 12:33:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's allunderstandable, except) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200611052031.kA5KVd4M023387@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury ...? And of course if Spike is making babies and Eugen is making babies then one has to put the possibility of Eliezer or Anders making babies on the table... R Robert we tried the making-babies-on-the-table routine, but in my opinion it is overrated. It was interesting as a change of pace, but less comfortable than the more conventional settings for making babies. spike From eugen at leitl.org Sun Nov 5 20:31:58 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:31:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 07:29:41PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > The Singularity (or its preceding technological innovations) need > above all to get people smarter, especially the great hordes of > children today who simply are incapable of difficult technical work, > and who will (because of IQ limitations) perform rather poorly > whatever they try to do that is of any use. I try to avoid me-toos, but above passage can't be overemphasized. The issue isn't differences in issued equipment between the ears. Motivation is the key, and almost all current education environments (nevermind prior poor parenting) actively demotivate. And everybody seems to think that's god-given! What an awful waste of human life. Not only does demographics limit the quantity, the quality has been going down monotonously since middle last century, or even before. The job market does the rest to discourage entering technical fields. The message is certainly loud and clear enough, and it's being heard. This is no way to drive progress forward, or event to sustain it. Many places are regressing, but slowly enough that it isn't too obvious. And The Great Depression v2.0 (new and improved, now with even more suckage) seems to be ante portas in earnest. What we here need to do is to figure out how to prevent the coming crash, that is looming clearer with each passing year. -- 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 moulton at moulton.com Sun Nov 5 23:42:26 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 15:42:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061104231911.03f35940@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061104231911.03f35940@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <1162770146.4935.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 23:35 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > > For reasons I don't completely understand, but are rooted in the stone age, > I don't expect ranting against religions to have a positive effect and it > might well be counter productive, switching off rational thought by > mechanisms that originated in wars between hunter gatherer bands. It seems to me that we might have different understanding of the phrase "ranting against religions". I had assumed that it was a short hand reference to "arguing against memes such as the existence of hell, heaven and supernatural deity or deities"; this assumption was based on my understanding of Dennett. I think it is important to remember that telling someone that they have chickenpox is not "ranting against chickenpox" but rather an attempt to convey information and similarly telling someone that they hold religious views which are false is not "ranting against religion". > >Consider the > >decline of infectious disease with the advent of better sanitation. > >Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and others are hopefully causing a more > >critical focus on the memes associated with religion. > > You might note that better sanitation memes are an outgrowth of > *understanding* infectious disease, particularly what *causes* it. I agree that understanding the mechanisms in which harmful memes take hold is important. My opinion is that this is a very complex subject and that Dennett, Dawkins and Harris (along with many others) are just beginning to make progress in this area. > Ranting against religions might be really effective if religions were > understood to the level we understand infectious disease. As it is, what > this crew is doing is like ranting against fevers without the least > understanding of what causes fevers. I think I found more value in what Dennett, Dawkins and Harris are doing than you do. For one thing they are providing momentum to a long overdue response to some of the nonsensical attacks on atheism which many religious persons have been doing for years. > I have been doing a bit of ranting on this subject myself on the Harris > page. > http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060916_sam_harris_rottweiler_barks/ The URL worked and I will take a look at it. > Frankly I suspect that if people understood the origin of the human > capacity for religions they would be horrified. Of course there were people who were horrified when Darwin and others began to publish their ideas on evolution. > Best wishes and give my best to the Silicon Valley crew. Thanks and I hope all is going well with you. Fred > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From moulton at moulton.com Mon Nov 6 00:00:10 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:00:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil on TV Message-ID: <1162771210.4935.111.camel@localhost.localdomain> Ray Kurzweil is on the C-Span Book TV this weekend and rebroadcast next weekend. It airs again tonight [(Midnight Eastern / 9:00PM Pacific)] and again Saturday Nov 11 [(9:00AM Eastern / 6:00AM Pacific)] Check the schedule at: http://www.booktv.org/ Fred From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Nov 5 21:18:31 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 22:18:31 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2258.208.181.209.209.1162761511.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Can't quote my paper right now (still in internet cafe mode), but most evidence suggests that humans form metastable, fairly monogamous dyads in all societies. In societies where polygamy is accepted it is still less than 20% of the men who do it. Adultery occurs in monogamous relations, but it seems to be less than 20% of people who do it. Incidence of children genetically unrelated to their official fathers appears to be relatively low, on the order of 3%. The romantic love system appears to be geared towards exclusivity; the lust and attachment systems allow multiple partners, but not the mate selection system. If another form of organisation was more stable or produced more happiness it would likely be fairly prevalent. Since triads or tetrads do not occur that often I would conclude that they are not stable in general. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From sentience at pobox.com Sun Nov 5 21:35:02 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:35:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: <2258.208.181.209.209.1162761511.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <2258.208.181.209.209.1162761511.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <454E5906.10003@pobox.com> Anders Sandberg wrote: > Can't quote my paper right now (still in internet cafe mode), but most > evidence suggests that humans form metastable, fairly monogamous dyads in > all societies. In societies where polygamy is accepted it is still less > than 20% of the men who do it. Adultery occurs in monogamous relations, > but it seems to be less than 20% of people who do it. Incidence of > children genetically unrelated to their official fathers appears to be > relatively low, on the order of 3%. The romantic love system appears to be > geared towards exclusivity; the lust and attachment systems allow multiple > partners, but not the mate selection system. > > If another form of organisation was more stable or produced more happiness > it would likely be fairly prevalent. Since triads or tetrads do not occur > that often I would conclude that they are not stable in general. Second paragraph does not follow logically from first paragraph. Since when is "happiness" a primary optimization target of the patterning processes in question? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Nov 5 21:40:17 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 22:40:17 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pure Gossip: Who will Anders marry? In-Reply-To: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E23@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.ed u> References: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E23@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Message-ID: <2472.208.181.209.209.1162762817.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Hughes, James J. wrote: >> So let's plan a special session at Chicago dedicated to >> finding a girlfriend, boyfriend, aifriend, vrfriend or >> whateverfriend for Anders! > > Since he's a fan of market-based solutions perhaps we could auction him > off? Surely the person willing to pay the most for him is the person who > loves him the most, and what more can a man want than the love of a > devoted consumer? Of course! This makes a lot of sense. I'm honored to see that the bidding war has already started. And that it is an English auction and not a Dutch one :-) If one studies love, it seems that it has three main components on the low neural level: an attraction system finding the best mate and causing a passionate "clicking together", an attachment system for creating a lasting pair bond and a lust system for mating with the partner (or anybody else suitable). At least in some people attraction is influenced by social status and wealth, so signalling desire through auction might work. I'm less sure about how one could make a marketbased pair bond, except of course of the general observation that marriage stability is affected by the relative utility of staying together vs apart. Market based lust is no problem if one is a red-blooded capitalist, just think of all those lovely stock options! (for those of you who can read Swedish, you might want to see Waldemar's hillarious Ayn Rand porn parody http://www.eudoxa.se/techne/archives/lem.pdf "He put on the protection of vulcanized rubber that only a rational capitalist society could mass produce so that men and women would be able to give each other pleasure without the fear that is the fuel for the infernal construction of guilt that the mystics had created and fed with their hateful jabbering") -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Nov 5 21:50:48 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 22:50:48 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: <454E5906.10003@pobox.com> References: <2258.208.181.209.209.1162761511.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <454E5906.10003@pobox.com> Message-ID: <2546.208.181.209.209.1162763448.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Anders Sandberg wrote: >> If another form of organisation was more stable or produced more >> happiness >> it would likely be fairly prevalent. Since triads or tetrads do not >> occur >> that often I would conclude that they are not stable in general. > > Second paragraph does not follow logically from first paragraph. Since > when is "happiness" a primary optimization target of the patterning > processes in question? OK, more properly: humans tend to move out of social relations that make them unhappy (especially when there are alternatives around) with a higher probability. So if a state of relationsship has probability P1 of ending due to inherent instability, to this one can add an extra probability P2 of ending due to unhappiness. My model would be a small Markov chain with three states: S, single, T, triad/tetrad, and D for dyad. S can move to T with P(s->t) and D with P(s->d). If there are transitions between all three it is nicely ergodic and we can get a stable long term distribution just by calculating the biggest eigenvalue of the transition matrix. I'm sitting in an internet cafe right now so I can't prove anything strictly, but I'm pretty sure that one can prove that if the steady state distribution overwhelmingly promotes S and D over T, it implies that either the probabilities leading to T are extremely low or that P(T->T) is lower than P(D->D) and/or P(S->S). Hmm, sounds like entertainment for my flight home. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From James.Hughes at trincoll.edu Sun Nov 5 21:52:48 2006 From: James.Hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 16:52:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships Message-ID: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803901C47E4E@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> > If another form of organisation was more stable or produced > more happiness it would likely be fairly prevalent. I tried to grapple with the instability of non-monogamous subcultures within a rational choice framework in this paper: "Monogamy as a Prisoners Dilemma: Non-Monogamy as a Collective Action Problem" (1990) James J. Hughes Ph.D. http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/Monogamy/Mono.html ------------------------ James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies http://ieet.org Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology http://jetpress.org Williams 229B, Trinity College 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 (office) 860-297-2376 director at ieet.org From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Nov 5 21:55:30 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 22:55:30 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's allunderstandable, except) In-Reply-To: <001101c70100$004702b0$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <200611051716.kA5HGSNE006105@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <001101c70100$004702b0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <2566.208.181.209.209.1162763730.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> My brother's children both have my sister-in-law's brother as godfather, not me. The reason is that the godfather is actually supposed to give some christian education (of course, people largely ignore this in Sweden anyway), but it didn't feel appropriate to ask me. So I'm officially the nongodfather of the kids, responsible for telling them the stuff they won't get from their parents or godfather :-) This week I think I will introduce them to RFID and some beginner greek mythology. Hmm, a an awful lot of family talk right now. Oxytocin is in the air! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Nov 5 21:47:22 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:47:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Computer animation References: <01e701c7008a$76d9a390$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <005901c70124$0a748f90$0200a8c0@Nano> Hello! I received an email from someone about my previous email to you, apparently when they clicked the links that were attached to the words they did not work, so here in this email, I have the links typed out and clickable for you, just in case you had the same problem. This will resolve it. This happens to some folks probably due to the different email settings and how they interpret reading links. Thank you for all your help! New begin - My new animation "dandelion" was the most sequential animation that I have done. It was generated for the film2music (http://www.film2music.com/) competition in which registrants are asked to select a track from the composers cd and create a video to accompany it. Previous to this competition I had been busy producing "The Mark" (http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/themark.htm) for the aniboom contest (http://www.aniboom.com/pages/application/Animations/UserZoneZ1.aspx?zoneID=3495 ). This meant that I had only a couple weeks to create and complete this one. As elaborate as a concept this piece was, the time line wasn't feasible but I crunched through nights without sleep to get it in on time. I just barely made it, but I made it! So the prize for this one is not only money but meetings with a famous producer and agent! And this time, it's no sweat to vote, (http://www.cinematiccd.com/votedandelion/) you don't have to sign up or register for anything, no typing at all, it's just one click and "send", okay so technically that's two clicks, but that's all just clicks! So please come vote for me friends. Come watch dandelion here: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/dandelion.htm - an animation about hope and faith in ones future dreams. Thank you all! Blog comments about this animation are invited: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2006/11/dandelion.html Hope you all had a happy Hallows Eve! 'animator for hire' Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Gina Miller To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:28 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Computer animation This piece was the most sequential animation that I have done. It was generated for the film2music competition in which registrants are asked to select a track from the composers cd and create a video to accompany it. Previous to this competition I had been busy producing "The Mark" for the aniboom contest. This meant that I had only a couple weeks to create and complete this one. As elaborate as a concept this piece was, the time line wasn't feasible but I crunched through nights without sleep to get it in on time. I just barely made it, but I made it! So the prize for this one is not only money but meetings with a famous producer and agent! And this time, it's no sweat to vote, you don't have to sign up or register for anything, no typing at all, it's just one click and "send", okay so technically that's two clicks, but that's all just clicks! So please come vote for me friends. Come watch dandelion here - an animation about hope and faith in ones future dreams. Thank you all! 'animator for hire' Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Nov 5 21:57:03 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:57:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Computer animation References: <01e701c7008a$76d9a390$0200a8c0@Nano> <8d71341e0611050302p320e5d37p3a152efb0a65d944@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00fa01c70125$afea8af0$0200a8c0@Nano> Thank you Russell! I really appreciate it : ) G` ----- Original Message ----- From: Russell Wallace To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 3:02 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Computer animation I like it! Vote sent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Nov 5 22:12:11 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:12:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: <2546.208.181.209.209.1162763448.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <2258.208.181.209.209.1162761511.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <454E5906.10003@pobox.com> <2546.208.181.209.209.1162763448.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <454E61BB.4000707@pobox.com> Anders Sandberg wrote: > > My model would be a small Markov chain with three states: S, single, T, > triad/tetrad, and D for dyad. S can move to T with P(s->t) and D with > P(s->d). If there are transitions between all three it is nicely ergodic > and we can get a stable long term distribution just by calculating the > biggest eigenvalue of the transition matrix. > > I'm sitting in an internet cafe right now so I can't prove anything > strictly, but I'm pretty sure that one can prove that if the steady state > distribution overwhelmingly promotes S and D over T, it implies that > either the probabilities leading to T are extremely low or that P(T->T) is > lower than P(D->D) and/or P(S->S). Hmm, sounds like entertainment for my > flight home. But people die all the time, alas. So triads or tetrads might have low formation probabilities, very low breakup probabilities due to unhappiness, but with the ergodic state still dominated by death. Make people immortal and *then* we'll draw conclusions. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 22:17:29 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:17:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <06c701c70128$57f91610$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Randall writes > On Nov 5, 2006, at 1:44 PM, John K Clark wrote: >> If I place you (the copy) and the original an >> equal distance from the center of a symmetrical room so you see the >> same things and then instantly swap your bodies position with the >> original then neither you nor the original nor any outside observer >> could detect the slightest change. There was no change because >> although there were 2 bodies in the room there was only one person. > > ... > But here's a question for you: in a Tegmark universe, as I > understand it, there are an infinite number of John K Clark > bodies, widely separated by space, but in your view all with > an equal claim to being *you*, right? (In a MWI universe, > the same is true but without the spacial separation). So, > when you walk across the street, why dodge a car that almost > hits you? > > Lee Corbin would say, I believe, that the important thing is > increase Lee-Corbin-runtime, and that this dictates saving > this particular Lee-Corbin-process, Right you are! Proof that we *do* understand each other, occasionally :-) > but I don't think this mild preference (for the actual runtime > lost by losing this particular process would be infinitesimal) > explains the great lengths that I imagine you guys would go > to if this process' runtime were in danger. Here is a scenario. There are a million copies of me in the inner solar system, all having been made from the original in the last ten minutes and have been placed into identical or near-identical physical circumstances. But there is also an understanding that one of them must be eaten by a Bengal tiger! It is not efficient for each to worry about a 1 in 1,000,000 possibility, so our minds turn to other things. But in one place, a Bengal tiger leaps into the room. By sheer reflex, that copy will try to escape and will no doubt be terrified. But I say that these are only "lower-order" aspects of one, and are not representative of who I truly am. If the scenario becomes less graphic, and one of them must press a button and be disintegrated, then all of us would be indifferent as to who did so. If the button were in the room, we'd all reach for it, with the understanding that the last 999,999 would not be disintegrated. No instance would actually care a whit. > If you don't agree that the runtime lost would indeed be > infinitesimal, But it's not infinitesimal: it's one whole unit of John Clark or Lee Corbin. > we can introduce a random number generator based on > decay rates or some other apparently random source, > and then reason only about the reactions of the one in a > zillion John K Clark or Lee Corbin. Not sure I understand, but I'll give it a swing. Okay, in each of the rooms where I've been copied, we are each subject to hearing a bong go off that says that our 1/1,000,000 chance from the random number generator actually happened, and the individual instances who hear the bong know that they're about to be zapped. We'd each be unhappy that *so many* of us were unlucky, even if it was only one. But none of us (speaking for myself only, not John) would feel his life imperiled in the slightest. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 22:25:41 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:25:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except References: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com><20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com><05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454D960C.2020504@pobox.com><066001c700ea$fb396b60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><454E428B.4090109@pobox.com> <33720.72.236.103.101.1162757834.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <06da01c70129$9d973d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> MB writes > Eliezer wrote: > >> I think the school system came within inches of wrecking me permanently, >> and if I'd actually been forced through high school, especially a >> non-Gunn-class high school, that might have been it. >> >> Selection bias, Lee. You don't see the wrecked ones. They don't look >> like the "very brightest" any more. > > I fear this is true. Instead they often look like the worst. Drugs, drinking, other > maladaptive behaviours - anything to kill the frustration and boredom and > pointlessness of their daily lives. You guys have to remember the twin studies. If twins had turned out radically, radically different as you're suggesting, we'd have heard about it. Now I'll grant that it *can* happen, but I claim it's unusual. Judith Rich Harris has looked into all this in "The Nurture Assumption", and even has a new book out about it: "No Two Alike". I haven't read that, but I can't really take the title entirely seriously. In The Nurture Assumption, it's related---and Pinker endorses this---that your adult personality is determined half by genes and half by your peer group (as you're growing up). So I retort that the "wrecked ones" MB speaks of---having succumbed to drugs, drinking, and other maladaptive behaviors---are a small minority. Almost everyone turns out (as in the twin studies) pretty much the same as if they'd been raised hundreds of miles apart by entirely different families. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 22:38:04 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:38:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The self-identity quest reply to Wallace, Corbin .. References: Message-ID: <06ea01c7012b$4e94e1f0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> David address what Russell said, and I what I said. I'll leave Russell to deal with his half. > Lee Corbin write in his article Duplicates are Self , 1988 > http://www.leecorbin.com/dupproof.html > > "Why is it easy to believe that someone could be at the same > > place at two different times, but very hard to believe that > > someone could be at the same time in two different places?" > > my point being that you can be alive in two places at the > > same time. One person, even. David replies > the reductionist theories of the self assume that If A is the original > person and B is his duplicate, A's survival in B is maintained as > long as they are not mutually existent! Well, I've never heard of that, or at least I don't believe it at all. What in the world could the existence or non- existence of a copy of me at Alpha Centauri have to do with an instance here? They cannot communicate. If one dies, the other lives, and in either case I still live. > Yet, this condition of not being mutually existent for > survival to take place, will not necessarily be required > in the future, That's right. But many of us on this list never required that in the first place. As I say, I can be alive at the same time in two *very* different places, far outside each other's light cone. > since then, various manifestations of the same person at > the same time, like cyborg entities, virtual forms, forglet > forms, and nano-engineered manifestation and other forms, > does not impede these selves being one and the same > person, as long as these various manifestations are > synchronously info-connected and thus keeping the same > diachronic identity. I don't think that they need to be connected in this way. Duplicates are selves already. Lee > Synchronous connection is achieved when human and machines are > online broad band, connected such as all the various experiences > are online recalled and merged to all of them at the same time or > even once a day as you mention. This support your view, in the > future we will be able to be one and many at the same time, as > long as we are synchronously connected. From ben at goertzel.org Sun Nov 5 22:42:26 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:42:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <454E428B.4090109@pobox.com> References: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com> <20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454D960C.2020504@pobox.com> <066001c700ea$fb396b60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454E428B.4090109@pobox.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150611051442n582d6411la4b68cbbf452ace6@mail.gmail.com> On 11/5/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > You missed my point, which was my fault: I should have stressed > > this: the very brightest (the ones that I complain are too few) make > > out well NO MATTER WHAT. You can't wreck them. It's just > > sad when they can coast their last few years in the school system, > > and the parents (of these very few) often won't stand for it. Hmmm... I feel that, in this point of yours, "making out well" is poorly-defined. For instance, one of the brightest, most creative, most broadly thoughtful math physics/students I knew in college, stopped studying technical subjects after getting his BS in physics from Stanford, and became a lawyer. He just got frustrated with the need to work on boring, conformist topics for N years in order to get tenure, before you get to work on the stuff that really interests you. He's a damn good labor lawyer, working in DC, but had the university system been of a different nature, I bet he would have been pushed in a different direction, and study with his early interest in science, and IMO the world would have benefited considerably. (And, yeah, of course I wish he had chosen to fight against the stupider aspects of the academic establishment, like myself and many others ... but not every very bright person makes this choice...) In another (very different) case I remember, there was a friend of a friend of my mother's who was very gifted in mathematics, but from a very poor neighborhood in Philadelphia. He did well in high school and got a scholarship to go to a university in Oklahoma; but he was living off campus and his roommate committed suicide and he couldn't cover the rent himself and wound up coming back home to Philly. To make the $$ to go back to school again he took up an occupation suiting his math ability and the local neighborhood: "numbers running", i.e. managing an illegal sports-betting operation.... This wound up being so lucrative he never went back to school; he now has 9 kids and is making a really good living, far more $$ than most professors ... so, yeah, he's using his brains to "make out OK" too... ;-) Ben g > > I think the school system came within inches of wrecking me permanently, > and if I'd actually been forced through high school, especially a > non-Gunn-class high school, that might have been it. > > Selection bias, Lee. You don't see the wrecked ones. They don't look > like the "very brightest" any more. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From ben at goertzel.org Sun Nov 5 22:44:53 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:44:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <06da01c70129$9d973d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com> <20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454D960C.2020504@pobox.com> <066001c700ea$fb396b60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454E428B.4090109@pobox.com> <33720.72.236.103.101.1162757834.squirrel@main.nc.us> <06da01c70129$9d973d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <638d4e150611051444w57670e42n951806aa3359f426@mail.gmail.com> > So I retort that the "wrecked ones" MB speaks of---having succumbed > to drugs, drinking, and other maladaptive behaviors---are a small > minority. Almost everyone turns out (as in the twin studies) pretty much > the same as if they'd been raised hundreds of miles apart by > entirely different families. I believe these "twin studies" only hold up for separated twins who are raised in roughly the same cultural and socioeconomic conditions... -- Ben From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Nov 5 22:44:48 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:44:48 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <06da01c70129$9d973d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com> <20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454D960C.2020504@pobox.com> <066001c700ea$fb396b60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454E428B.4090109@pobox.com> <33720.72.236.103.101.1162757834.squirrel@main.nc.us> <06da01c70129$9d973d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061105163941.02249ad8@satx.rr.com> At 02:25 PM 11/5/2006 -0800, Lee wrote: >The Nurture Assumption, >it's related---and Pinker endorses this---that your adult personality is >determined half by genes and half by your peer group (as you're growing >up). > >So I retort that the "wrecked ones" MB speaks of---having succumbed >to drugs, drinking, and other maladaptive behaviors---are a small >minority. Almost everyone turns out (as in the twin studies) pretty much >the same as if they'd been raised hundreds of miles apart by >entirely different families. The assumption of homogeneity in peer groups begs the question at issue. It might in practise be the case that separated median twins in a white-bread culture turn out much the same, but if one potentially brilliant twin grew up with well-educated peers and the other grew up among violent and stupid scumbags, that 50% due to peer influence would have a marked differentiating influence. Not to say *what* influence--maybe the trash surrounds would bring out genius, while the comfortable violin lessons with polyglot chums would induce complacency and oar-resting. Damien Broderick From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Nov 5 22:46:38 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:46:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <06da01c70129$9d973d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com><20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com><05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454D960C.2020504@pobox.com><066001c700ea$fb396b60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><454E428B.4090109@pobox.com> <33720.72.236.103.101.1162757834.squirrel@main.nc.us> <06da01c70129$9d973d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <33762.72.236.102.75.1162766798.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > So I retort that the "wrecked ones" MB speaks of---having succumbed > to drugs, drinking, and other maladaptive behaviors---are a small > minority. Almost everyone turns out (as in the twin studies) pretty much > the same as if they'd been raised hundreds of miles apart by > entirely different families. > Perhaps it is that I do not know if the ones I see dragging about were actually "the brightest" - really they probably were not, but they were bright and bored and not challenged or meaningfully encouraged. Also, my perception is skewed by the dyslexic child problem... a bright child who cannot seem to move ahead in the "school-approved" fashion. And they *do* become discouraged and they do tend to get into trouble. Acting out, boredom, considered stupid and knowing they really aren't but everybody thinks they are... frustration. We need to nurture the bright ones, all of them, not simply the very top ones, because who on earth will the very top ones find to help them at their work? Do we notice how many of the very brightest seem to have had non-traditional schooling? I'm bitter on the dyslexic thing, my son is one of them. My brother is another. Looks like my great-nephew is also one. The schools (public schools, USA) often have nothing much to offer. Regards, MB From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 5 22:50:21 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:50:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] all that concerns me is the future of education References: <20061105001850.59776.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com><062801c70091$02bb8490$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240611050926l6a87c935p582c1dfe61c34f81@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <06f401c7012c$ffbfb0d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > On 11/4/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Moreover, the services are much more racially integrated than society at > > large; young men and women there mix freely while their counterparts > > on college campuses self-segregate. Just visit your local college or > > university and go into commons or cafeteria room to see what I mean. Well, this is an objective question. I admit that this is what I have heard, not seen. A high school a few miles north of hear even had segregated parking lots, or so a newspaper article in the San Jose Mercury said. There was an Asian parking lot, a white parking lot, a black parking lot and a hispanic parking lot. Presumably these were divisions within the single high school lot. The reporter asked a kid if something bad would happen if he didn't park in his group's lot. "Probably nothing," came the reply, "but I just wouldn't feel comfortable doing so." > It may be that you are seeing what you want to see based on your own bias. As I say, this is a completely objective question. We need folks to randomly drop in on high school and college campuses. Hmm, there was even a book about this a couple of years back, IIRC, written by a black woman sociologist. I glanced through it at a bookstore. She made the same claim that I'm repeating. > The same could be said about a homogeneous group of white European- > descendant Americans - they are likely to segregate themselves into > groups of Irish, German, French, etc. And, in America, they did. They did, that is, until they all actually assimilated by virtue of the now defunct melting pot. I don't *know* if any self-segregation along racial lines is principally because of cultural differences, or physical differences. But the latter *could*, you surely admit, be a possibility. Even fully assimilated people might have a feeling that they don't *know* if people are going to react to their racial appearance---and so they might self- segregate just to avoid that feeling of uncertainty. > We may actually be in agreement, but I am having difficulty with > the terms you are using and how you are presenting your ideas. > I hope I am misreading your intentions. Could be :-) Let's be open, frank, and honest, and---naturally--- write as clearly as we can about our conjectures. Lee From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Nov 5 23:27:58 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:27:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] FILM: "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061105171759.048e0f90@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Saw it last night. Refreshing, fun ride. The pentagostal scene was hilarious, and also the US etiquette training and dinner party scene. Only one scenes disturbed me - the frat-bus scene with the drunk college students, which I could have done without. Interesting to read the current Fox executive decision to reduce distribution, for now anyway. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Nov 5 23:34:33 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 15:34:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity In-Reply-To: <05f901c7008b$848bff50$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee wrote: > Heartland writes >> What!? You're not understanding. What is *different* between the >> nine year old and the ninety year old in Jef's example is >> that the VMBs *did* change. It fits perfectly with the fact that we >> are so tempted (and rightfully so) to question whether they are the >> same person. >> >> Eventually you realize that almost none of your VMBs at 2 >> are the same as your VMBs at 80 which forces you to admit that >> someone has died sometime between 2 and 80. >> Then you either admit this or choose to give up the idea >> that "VMBs = Self." :) > > I *admit* that! Too much change kills one. It changes you > into someone else. [For those who are already tired of this discussion, you might enjoy going straight to the examples further below.] This discussion becomes dull and sometimes frustrating to a large extent due to confusion between the ontological and epistemological domains. I often despair of us climbing out of that morass so we can explore higher vistas. One might say such is the reality of attempting philosophical discussions in a public forum via email, but I see much the same limitations, albeit on a more ponderous scale, in regard to academic philosophical discourse from Plato to John Locke to present-day thinkers. We're not professional philosophers here, and we often make mistakes of domain and category confusion, invalid logical inference, and simple failure to rigorously define our terms. And at a meta level, how many of us keep in mind while debating that we can only "prove" inconsistency, but never consistency within an open context? In this discussion we often unwittingly confuse categories such as "what does it mean to be a unique person?", with "what does it mean to be the same unique person over time?" We often confuse domains, arguing over the statement "two different copies can be the same", where one person argues on the ontological basis that to say there are two copies logically mandates a difference between them, while another person argues just as consistently on the epistemological basis that a difference that makes no difference is no difference at all. And then we have conflict between contrasting point of view and motivations. Following in the tradition of Descartes, there are those who reason from the point of view that reality is defined in terms of the subjective observer, and then there are those who reason from the point of view that there is no privileged point of view. Those of one viewpoint have a strong tendency to assume that unique identity must truly and necessarily exist, those of the other viewpoint tend to see "unique" identity as a useful fiction. As for the bias of motivation, it is apparent that some argue the issue of personal identity from a sense of mathematical or scientific purity, some argue from a sense of pragmatic utility, and others argue from a sense of desperately hoping to escape an end to their personal existence. Nevertheless, we see potential for growth of understanding, and we see practical application of that understanding with the imminence of new technological capabilities that would challenge popular understanding of personal identity. As I consider how to present a theory of personal identity based on agency, I see many possibilities for the discussion to become a phyrric one, with any valid point likely to succumb to attacks which might succeed not due to their aim but their number. I observe that the more general a new principle, the greater its exposure, and I wonder what strategy is best for such an effort. There's the direct frontal attack, likely to succumb as described above, there is the pincers maneuver--a favorite of Lee's--but one finds there is always a escape (if only through a previously unknown dimension of discursive reality ;-) ), there is the Socratic method, and there is infiltration from within. Hmmm. ------------------------------- Well, let's begin. Lee, I presented the little story of Aging Alice in order to demonstrate the incompleteness of the "patternist" view that personal identity is essentially defined in terms of ones values, beliefs and memories, i.e. in terms of their physical/functional attributes. While I agree that this holds for any given instant (t=0), and that it supports the view that an identical copy of a person is essentially that same person, this definition appears to fail *immediately* and progressively with increasing divergence of two instances of the same person. While many of us would say that a person's identity remains constant as they change with age, and thus your definition seems wrong or at least incomplete, you claim that your definition is mathematically and logically correct and it is the common-sense understanding of personality that is flawed. I will attempt to show that your assertion is correct only at t=0, and while it usefully demonstrates the possibility of multiple instances of a personal identity, it says nothing about the extended practicality of such a narrow concept. (1) You have stated that as change accumulates with age, at some point a person must be considered to have become a different person. (2) You have stated that one should consider any copies of oneself as being exactly the same person regardless of some non-zero amount of space, time and accumulated experience, so it is clear that in your theory, personal identity persists through some significant amount of change. (3) So in your theory it seems either that there must be some t>0 dividing point, or that your definition of personal identity is internally contradictory. (3a) You seem to claim a sort of mathematical or objective purity to your theory, so I would ask you, at what point is a person no longer the same person? (4)Failing (3a), would you agree that personal identity (other than for the trivial case at t=0) can not be stated essentially in terms of some objective physical measure (ideal or practical), but that personal identity must necessarily be assigned as the result of some subjective evaluation (which of course is likely to have a strong correspondence with observables)? Please let me know your response to the preceding and of your agreement or disagreement with any of its premises or conclusions. ---------------------- Following Robert Bradury's wise counsel that one should not attempt to destroy another's belief without offering a replacement, I will now offer the following: Given that an objective measure of personal identity is incoherent (other than the case of the mathematically valid identity at t=0), I will propose that a more encompassing concept of personal identity can be based on agency, namely that multiple agents (can be said to) share the same personal identity to the extent that they (are observed to) act on behalf of a particular entity. To head off an anticipated early objection, consider the following: We are all familiar with the idea of a commercial agent, such as one who represents the seller of real estate, or the author of a book, or a film star. We are accustomed to the idea that this agent can act on behalf of the principle in certain limited ways, and in doing so, assumes moral and legal responsibility for such acts as authorized. This is agency, but to a very limited extent relative to what promises to be possible with future technologies. If we extend the concept of agency, we see the agent taking on more and more resemblance to the principle, in terms of knowing the principle's values, beliefs and memories and being able to choose and take action in all such respects. Logically, I am my own agent. This instantiation acts in all ways as an agent of the entity known as Jef. Consider the following scenarios: #1 With the intention of increasing my working bandwidth, I step into the duplicator box. A short time later two agents acting on behalf of the entity known (by everyone including himself) as Jef go to work. They happen to be physically (and thus functionally) the same as the original so the results are coincidentally the same as the patternist view. #2 With the intention of increasing my working bandwidth I step into the duplicator box. To avoid some confusion, I set the controls so that one copy will have blue skin, but be identical in all other respects. The two agents of Jef go to work. Would the patternist say they are not the same personal identity since there's an obvious physical difference? >From the point of view of agency, it's the same personal identity, but with different skin colors. If Jef's skin color were to change would we say he's a different person? #3 With the intention of temporarily increasing my working bandwidth I step into the duplicator box. To avoid confusion and dispute later on, I set the controls such that one copy will have blue skin and will also not feel hunger or boredom, and incidentally it will die within a short time (maybe due to not eating.) From the patternist point of view there are two different persons physically, functionally, and in terms of values. From the point of view of agency it's two of Jef, with one of them significantly modified. If Jef were in the hospital with a skin condition and a brain anomaly that caused lack of boredom would we say it isn't Jef? Note that the functions and actions of someone in hospital may be severely modified but they continue to act solely and entirely on behalf of the same entity. #4 With the intention of contributing to the worthwhile social cause of asteroid mining, but not being able to send my firstborn son, I step into the duplicator box. I send my duplicate off as a free agent to contribute to the cause, knowing that he will get a good pension and I probably won't ever see him again. The patternist view would insist that I was sending myself. The agency point of view would say I was sending a different person with an extremely strong resemblance, carrying my knowledge and skills. Note that if I had in fact sent my son, no one would think of doubting that he was ultimately a free agent, even though I was the sole direct cause of his enlistment. #5 Ten years after sending said free agent to the asteroid mines, he returns, informs me that he was converted to patternist thinking while away, and now claims equal share of my property, my projects and my wife. A patternist might claim (I remember Lee claiming this) that he would in fact be me, and I should be happy to have doubled my runtime and gladly find a way to share. #6 A few days later, I learn that the real reason he returned from the asteroid mines is that he had been accused of a plot to blow up an asteroid belonging to the Bush family and had therefore been charged with terrorism under penalty of death. Under patternist thinking, should I turn myself in, or under agent-based thinking, should I tell him he's in big trouble and might consider making a large political contribution while in hiding? #7 Remember Alice? Under patternist thinking according to Lee, she died at some point even though someone continued on with her property, her relationships, and her name. Under agent-based personal identity, there's no question that we should see the 86 year old woman as a late instantiation of the entity known to all, including herself, as Alice. Furthermore, fifty years later, we would gladly interact with her variants and doubles exactly as if they were Alice in various alternate forms and places. I look forward to your thoughtful comments. - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Nov 6 00:02:27 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 16:02:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <1162770146.4935.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200611060000.kA600Yfr002991@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Fred C. Moulton > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 3:42 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett > > On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 23:35 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: ... > > > Frankly I suspect that if people understood the origin of the human > > capacity for religions they would be horrified... Ja. Fred and I, along with several of the local usual suspects enjoyed a talk by Dawkins last weekend. I had expressed concern that the local religionistas would recognize that the venue was very limited in capacity, and so would attack via displacers. They could organize via the internet, get a bunch of them to attend the talk, thereby using up all the room that would otherwise be occupied by us flaming atheists. They could make the talk unprofitable to Kepler's by simultaneously not buying books. As it turns out, I needn't have worried, or if so I was worried about the wrong thing. I saw no evidence of displacers, and no one heckled Dawkins. Perhaps the others looked at me with my decades-outdated clothing and hairstyle, probably thought I was one of the displacers. {8^D I bought a book. > Of course there were people who were horrified when Darwin and others > began to publish their ideas on evolution...Fred Ja, especially those who didn't actually read Origin of Species. That is a marvelous book, which amazes me at how modern the ideas sound today, a century and a half down the road. Darwin had such a clear and wonderful way of stating things, he can be considered the 19th century prototype of Sagan, Dawkins, Asimov, Gould, Broderick, et al. > > > Best wishes and give my best to the Silicon Valley crew. Keith Thanks Keith! spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Nov 6 00:40:20 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 19:40:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <33762.72.236.102.75.1162766798.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <06da01c70129$9d973d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com> <20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454D960C.2020504@pobox.com> <066001c700ea$fb396b60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454E428B.4090109@pobox.com> <33720.72.236.103.101.1162757834.squirrel@main.nc.us> <06da01c70129$9d973d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061105192604.03f4c948@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:46 PM 11/5/2006 -0500, MB wrote: snip >I'm bitter on the dyslexic thing, my son is one of them. My brother is >another. >Looks like my great-nephew is also one. The schools (public schools, USA) >often have >nothing much to offer. A *few* of those with dyslexia can be effectively "cured" by external symmetry breaker. Put a cheap plastic ring on a hand and ask if reading toward or away from it helps. Worth trying. Keith From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 6 00:48:35 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 16:48:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061106004835.86004.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jef Allbright wrote: > Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > One may ask under what conditions are survival > probabilities enhanced by partnering? > > ago I posted what I thought was a provocative and > insightful idea, but didn't get much feedback. I'd > like to try again here: > > Might it be that the most effective relationship > structure in terms of cost/benefit might be the > triad? I'm not talking about polyamory or m?nage ? > trois but rather a stable, committed triadic > relationship between three individuals in any > combination of genders. > > I recognize that this would require individuals of > greater than average self-awareness to avoid > destructive two-against-one dynamics. I also > recognize that nature settled on binary > relationships in most cases, but I think human > culture represents a more highly developed phase > that may support and reward more highly developed > relationship structures at various scales. > > The advantages I see are significantly increased > synergies, built-in tie-breaking, and possibly an > inherent 3D structural stability similar to that of > a tetrahedron over a planar object. > > Comments? I tend to like the idea in general. There has been a lot of fuss lately over the concepts like "gay marriage" and "family values" these days. Yet it is my observation that the traditional American model of the "nuclear family" of man, wife, and children is showing signs of impracticality in the modern world. These days child-rearing has become a nearly lost art-form since typically both parents work and children are essenstially brought up by television. The phenomenon of "latch key" children that surfaced in the eighties has, in the 21st century, become the rule rather than the exception. I do not feel this is not a healthy situation physically, mentally, or socially for our children. Developing children need realistic role models during their formative years and TV, including "reality tv" doesn't really fit the bill. I believe that a larger family unit of genetically related or unrelated breeding age adults should be the typical model. There is no reason why any combination of consenting adults of any gender/orientation should not be able to enter into mutually beneficial marriage-like domestic partnerships for purposes procreating and raising children while making ends meet. Sort of the human equivalent of a pack or pride. Bigger than a standard marriage but smaller than a tribe. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/) From mfj.eav at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 01:28:18 2006 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 19:28:18 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transvision 2007 on Oprah? Message-ID: <61c8738e0611051728p24c8f2d9pb4896925828cf64d@mail.gmail.com> On 11/4/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > As to finding places to gossip, bring it to the Transvision conferences. > Next one will be in Chicago July 26-28, 2007, with Kurzweil and de Grey > as keynotes. > > ------------------------ > James Hughes Ph.D Isn't Chicago the home of Harpo Productions ... Oprah Winfrey? How about providing Oprah with some advance warning and perhaps an extropian/transhumanist program topic can make its way to mainstream USA? It would certainly broaden the audience .... Aubrey De Grey made it to 60 minutes quite nicely. Perhaps an audience dotted with futurists from around the globe would be refreshing change of pace. Morris Johnson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 01:39:22 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:39:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] truth machine Message-ID: Extropes, Perhaps you will recall Halperin's "Truth Machine". Science fiction, right? Science fiction, as in nerd boy vaporware. As in ***just*** science fiction. I haven't read "The Truth Machine", but I'd heard about it, on this list, (back when Halperin was coming out with "The First Immortal"). Heard that it depicted a world radically transformed by a robust capability to detect lying and discern the truth. Fast forward five or six years. I was reading this article: U.S. says terror suspect shouldn't talk to civilian lawyer http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-04-interrogation_x.htm The first paragraph states: "A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques." Which made me think back to this article which I read about two years ago: MRI lie detector may tell fact from fiction http://www.temple.edu/temple_times/2-10-05/lies.html So a year after the announcement of the research, an application comes to market: Brain Scan Lie Detectors Come To Market http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003548.html >From which I offer a couple of excerpts: Two companies plan to market the first lie-detecting devices that use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and say the new tests can spot liars with 90% accuracy. Both rely in part on recent research funded by the federal government aimed at producing a foolproof method of detecting deception. Lie detection will become a huge market. It will change personal relationships, marriages, the criminal justice system (I love tools that can exonerate the innocent), the hunt for terrorists, and raise honesty in business dealings. ******************************************* So I'm wondering -- assuming really -- is the CIA is using this tech in its interrogation protocol? Brave new world. -- Best, Jeff Davis "Always tell the truth. You'll please some people, and astonish the rest." Mark Twain From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 01:46:47 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 20:46:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transvision 2007 on Oprah? In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0611051728p24c8f2d9pb4896925828cf64d@mail.gmail.com> References: <61c8738e0611051728p24c8f2d9pb4896925828cf64d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/5/06, Morris Johnson wrote: > It would certainly broaden the audience .... Aubrey De Grey made it to 60 > minutes quite nicely. Yes and without investing six figures in the process. There is an argument to be presented that Aubrey is more clever than I. But it does not trump that I had the vision first. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Nov 6 01:53:41 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 20:53:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <200611060000.kA600Yfr002991@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1162770146.4935.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061105204636.03f91248@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:02 PM 11/5/2006 -0800, spike wrote: (Fred wrote) snip > > Of course there were people who were horrified when Darwin and others > > began to publish their ideas on evolution...Fred > >Ja, especially those who didn't actually read Origin of Species. That is a >marvelous book, which amazes me at how modern the ideas sound today, a >century and a half down the road. Darwin could not account to ants, bees and the like. Accounting for altruistic behavior through inclusive fitness took about a hundred years and the genius of William Hamilton. It accounts for much weirdness and irrational behavior (such as suicide bombers) when the "interest" of a person and their genes diverge. Keith Henson From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Nov 6 02:00:45 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:00:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061105192604.03f4c948@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <06da01c70129$9d973d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <638d4e150611041654g5d25a025q7aba36ddbfd4e25e@mail.gmail.com> <20061105013219.90607.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454D960C.2020504@pobox.com> <066001c700ea$fb396b60$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <454E428B.4090109@pobox.com> <33720.72.236.103.101.1162757834.squirrel@main.nc.us> <06da01c70129$9d973d90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <5.1.0.14.0.20061105192604.03f4c948@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <33848.72.236.103.204.1162778445.squirrel@main.nc.us> Keith wrote: > > A *few* of those with dyslexia can be effectively "cured" by external > symmetry breaker. > > Put a cheap plastic ring on a hand and ask if reading toward or away from > it helps. > > Worth trying. > > Indeed it is. Another other technique that helps is the index card underneath the line being read. This helps keep the eyes tracking along that line and helps when coming back to the beginning of the next line. One of the complaints has been that the eyes track back and the child re-reads the same line several times, which is quite disruptive to the flow of the material. Whole body movements can be used to try to avoid the glitch from brain to fingers for writing. Arm movements in air, making the letter shapes. Drawing the letters in a sand tray, feeling the letters made of different materials. All these things can help, but the difficulty is still annoyingly there, just better dealt with. I guess it's like being color blind: one can describe it but it really doesn't quite click unless one suffers from it. One learns to compensate, tricks tricks tricks. My son complained that reading was like translating. All the time. And that certainly breaks the flow of the content. I am delighted that he has gotten as far as he has, but he has yet to find his niche. My brother succeeded, but he is far brighter. Regards, MB From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Nov 6 01:40:21 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 20:40:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <1162770146.4935.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061104231911.03f35940@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061104231911.03f35940@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061105194323.03d73838@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:42 PM 11/5/2006 -0800, Fred wrote: >On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 23:35 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: snip > > > > You might note that better sanitation memes are an outgrowth of > > *understanding* infectious disease, particularly what *causes* it. > >I agree that understanding the mechanisms in which harmful memes take >hold is important. I agree with you on the importance of understanding. But "harmful" needs to be carefully examined as to what is harmed and what is helped. Take the 9/11 hijackers as an example. No doubt about them harming others and dying in the process or about them being motivated by some religious class meme. But how about their *genes*? Don't forget that most or all of them had lots of relatives who shared their genes. I can't state with confidence that the relatives of the 19 hijackers are doing better in terms of status and other perks that make it more likely for there to be a more copies of those hijacker's genes in the next generation, but these psychological traits were selected in the Stone Age. The relatives of warriors (i.e., copies of their genes) who fought neighbors for resources on average did better than those who did not. We know that the brain even has dedicated "religious feeling" circuits in the temporal lobe. That indicates genes build a PROM like religious meme receptor area. My (paranoid) claim is that wars were the origin of the psychological traits that manifest as religious memes. >My opinion is that this is a very complex subject >and that Dennett, Dawkins and Harris (along with many others) are just >beginning to make progress in this area. I wish it were true, but I don't even see them moving in the right direction. Evolutionary psychology states that every psychological trait resulted from direct selection or it is a side effect of something that was selected. I strongly suspect that the psychological trait that causes humans to have religions at all was selected as a result of incessant warfare. It wouldn't be hard to show with some hopped up war buffs and functional MRI. Viewed this way, religions are seed xenophobic memes that are brought to a fever pitch by the conditions leading to wars. > > Ranting against religions might be really effective if religions were > > understood to the level we understand infectious disease. As it is, what > > this crew is doing is like ranting against fevers without the least > > understanding of what causes fevers. > >I think I found more value in what Dennett, Dawkins and Harris are doing >than you do. For one thing they are providing momentum to a long >overdue response to some of the nonsensical attacks on atheism which >many religious persons have been doing for years. I suspect that wide understanding the function of religions as a part of the war complex might be more effective. On the other hand, if my paranoid thoughts on the function of religions are right, we might *need* them. If some vast religious population insists on going to war with the western world, some bunch of our warriors, hopped up on memes of the religious class, will have to kill huge numbers of them. :-( The alternative I see to megadeath is high tech rapidly improving the "income per capita" and shutting off the psychological mechanisms that lead to war or related social disruption. It's too late for a reduced birth rate (as happened in Ireland) to shut off the drive to war. Have fun at Hacker's Keith From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 6 01:45:19 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:45:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: <638d4e150611041307hfa88d4ia61be18a52953a44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061106014519.79695.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ben Goertzel wrote: > However, this > doesn't really matter much, because human emotional > tendencies are > strong, and due to the nature of human emotions > interpersonal > partnerships with >2 members are just not very > stable.... Well neither is the traditional marriage these days. According to http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats05.htm The median life of a first marriage is 7 years and subsequent marriages last even less. While an extended domestic partnership may not be very stable, it probably is not that much lower than a traditional marriage. Furthermore most such long-term relationships ought to be based on mutual self-interest rather than on fickle fleeting emotions any way. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. ____________________________________________________________________________________ We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups (http://groups.yahoo.com) From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Nov 6 03:28:30 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:28:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061104231911.03f35940@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: <1162679909.4912.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061105222433.03f96578@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> > >I have been doing a bit of ranting on this subject myself on the Harris >page. >http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060916_sam_harris_rottweiler_barks/ Only about 1/4 of this made it to the comments log, so here is the whole thing; Joan wrote: I have been stepping back from our dialogue to get sort of an overview, instead of tripping over specifics too much. Keith, it seems you are proposing a psychology of evolutionary behavior of man's warlike behavior. In a nutshell, when faced with bleak prospects imminently or in the far distance, such as Iran, you claim that man will resort to war to enhance his probability of survival. Close, but not exactly on the mark. You have to be extremely careful with the wording in models if you want them to be useful for predicting the future. And, you have to keep in mind that the psychological traits leading to wars evolved in the Stone Age. Going to war (as Azar Gat points out) wasn't always the only option. Sometimes people under resource pressure could move far away. "Enhance his probability of survival" isn't the right way to state it either. War is a chancy business today and was no less so when high tech was sharp rocks. For the individual, and even the kin group, war only came about because the alternative was worse. What resulted is the evolved psychological mechanisms we have for amplifying xenophobic memes and going out to kill neighbors when our ancestors perceived "hard times a-coming. In the Stone Age such traits statistically and over a long time worked to enhance "inclusive fitness." Inclusive fitness has genes "winning" even if many carriers of the genes die, provided there are more carriers of the genes after a war than would be the case taking an alternate course. Perhaps an example from history would help. Consider the Spartans at Thermopylae: " . . . as well as a symbol of courage against extremely overwhelming odds. The heroic sacrifice of the Spartans and the Thespians has captured the minds of many throughout the ages and has given birth to many cultural references as a result." . . . "Knowing the likely outcome of the battle, Leonidas selected his men on one simple criterion: he took only men who had fathered sons that were old enough to take over the family responsibilities of their fathers. The rationale behind this criterion was that the Spartans knew their death was almost certain at Thermopylae. Plutarch mentions, in his Sayings of Spartan Women, that after encouraging her husband before his departure for the battlefield, Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas I asked him what she should do when he had left. To this, Leonidas replied: 'Marry a good man, and have good children.'" ****** Spooky! Almost as if the Greeks understood EP and genetics. Perhaps living closer to the Stone Age and incessant war they would find it easier to understand compared to modern people. Leonidas' death did,/b> save Greek genes, specifically the Spartans', more specifically his genes through his children and even more specifically the genes of his male children who would have been killed by the invaders. Along with the preceding victory at Marathon some ten years earlier, "their victory endowed the Greeks with a faith in their destiny that was to endure for three centuries, during which western culture was born." Maybe because of certain universal moral precepts, such as in the NY Times article Maani cited like the prohibition against unjustified killing, men develop certain ideologies that give a sort of morally acceptable permission to suspend these precepts to engage in war. Communism and religions are two such ideologies. You refer to such ideologies as memes that people adapt and act on to preserve their self- interest of survival. You make it sound conscious, it's not. EP seems to be an inter-disciplinary study of sorts encompassing psychology, anthropology, and biology Not exactly, you are mixing levels. Biology (that is evolutionary biology) is the level upon which EP builds, like biology builds on the chemistry level. Anthropology (and the rest of the social sciences) are at a higher level. EP is essentially putting a foundation under a lot of formerly free-floating disciplines. "Evolutionary psychology is an approach to psychology, in which knowledge and principles from evolutionary biology are put to use in research on the structure of the human mind. It is not an area of study, like vision, reasoning, or social behavior. It is a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic within it. "In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking about the brain, mind, and behavior is changing how scientists approach old topics, and opening up new ones. http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html as I gather you are suggesting that these memes may reflect certain chemical dispositions. Some musings If memes do not reflect a biology, how are they different from belief systems? Memes are at a higher level yet. They depend on the existence of creatures able to learn information patterns from each other. And beliefs are memes. Can one animal pass along information patterns (often behaviors) to another? Memes are what they pass, pure replicating information, elements of culture, ideas, beliefs--all fit the concept of a meme. This brings me to my broader question-What does this meme theory give us that prior theories have not? Clear, accurate models are of vast importance in reducing human misery. Consider the germ theory of disease as an example. Very little progress was made before Pasteur and Koch developed that theory. Anthropologists already speak about how belief systems develop, spread, assist man and die out in tribes. When you use "meme" instead of "idea" the replication aspect is important. It's a model to help explain the persistence of elements of culture. In one of my earliest meme papers I noted (without a biological or EP explanation) that economic downturns are accompanied by upswings in neo-Nazi movements in the US. The essence of memetics has been around at least a century. It is encapsulated in "Ideas have a life of their own." If you take that serious and apply what we know about living things to ideas, you have memetics. Another musing all wars minimally are wars of perceived self-interest. Close again, but not exactly on the mark. It's hard to do, but to understand this you need to get your mind to look at the world from the "viewpoint of genes." _Selfish Gene_ and the more difficult _Extended Phenotype_ by Richard Dawkins are still a very good place to get this essential but alien viewpoint. Hunter-gatherer wars were in the self-interest of genes. More recent wars, particularly the southwest corn farmers 800 years ago, may not be. (Side effects due to a different level of technology caused them to die out over a vast area.) All wars need perceived moral permission prior to engagement and during engagement. History tells us that there have been religious wars. And there have been wars that do not pertain to religion per se. My sense is that you are claiming that no matter the smokescreen that gives permission, all wars are fought with the bleak future motivation as the paramount one for the war. It isn't just permission, it is an essential part of synching hunter-gatherer warriors up into a killing frenzy. Now I can agree theoretically but it is a stretch Iran being a case in point Every case (post agriculture) has to be considered very carefully. While humans still have the psychological traits honed in the Stone Age, the environment is very different. For example, the vast majority of human evolution was when our ancestors lived in bands of under 100 people. The last really big war (WW II) involved hundreds of millions. It is not obvious if or how this difference in scale modulates the traits. Certainly a million times more population to draw leaders from is going to get ones further out on the bell curve, for example, Genghis Khan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan, Iran has the option of developing nuclear energy peaceably with IAEA inspections etc, to prepare for the day that the oil wells run dry but Iran has not opted to do so it has opted for belligerence Palestinians have not opted for security and prosperity but have also opted for belligerence... Option and opted imply rational thinking. The essence of the theory is that the ability of humans to think rationally gets trashed as they go into war mode. This is one of the sad legacies out of our hunter-gatherer past. If either of your examples were thinking rationally, there would be a major push for birth control. perhaps the bleak theory has to be expanded to not only include material survival, i.e., gathering your protein but also perceived psychological survival i.e., a bleak psychological future theory of war.. In _Influence: the new psychology of modern persuasion_ (1984 and more recent editions) Robert Cialdini, goes into a great deal of psychological background. One of these (using the three bucket experiment) is the importance of relative changes. It is clear from the lack of revolts in India that grinding poverty (the lifelong prospect for a large segment of the population) won't spark war mode. Why? Because the future looks no bleaker than the conditions they have lived in all their lives, and people tend to respond to relative change. This may explain Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, Caesar and Alexander . Perhaps. We should not forget that our view of wars are highly biased, essentially our knowledge of wars is since the invention of writing, which is to say 6000 years of the 6 million since we and the chimps parted ways. Lastly, although religions are exploited to give permission to engage in war, it is important to note that religions are not founded with the primary end to give man permission to fight wars. I think there have been cases where religions were founded to support wars. They have other more immediate functions and are generally called upon to meet other of man's complex needs. Religions are bastardized. It is crucial in scholarly study to give an authentic depiction of the intent of religion and other ideologies, distinguishing their paramount intent from their misuse or corruption when making judgments about value of these ideologies. I seriously think your concern is directed to the wrong level. Persisting at that level will get you no further than being concerned about fever would have prevented epidemic diseases. Religions are a consequence of human psychological traits. Where, did those come from? " 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) You can say that religions arise from human needs, but it's the same question, where did those "needs" come from? Pascal Boyer doesn't take it far enough, but I suggest he is taking steps in the right direction. " . . . anthropologist Pascal Boyer that discusses the evolutionary origins of religious concepts. Through an examination of the mind's inference systems - how they work and how they have been shaped over time - Boyer explains how it is that we have the religious concepts we do, and why they have been so culturally successful. Boyer presents evidence from many specialized disciplines including anthropology, cognitive science, linguistics, and evolutionary biology to support the idea that a naturalistic explanation of religion is possible; moreover, such an approach is necessary if the field and study of religion is going to make any progress." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_Explained Otherwise they are misrepresented. We have seen some heinous tragedies in science but we would not want to say that because of them that these tragedies were this is the purpose of science. Think thalidomide here. True, though there is more to the story. "In 1964, a French physician named Jacob Sheskin was trying to help a critically-ill male patient with erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL), a very painful complication of leprosy. He looked throughout his small hospital for anything that might help his patient stop aching long enough to sleep. He came across a bottle of thalidomide tablets, and remembered that the drug had been effective in helping mentally ill patients sleep - and also that it was banned. Thinking he had nothing to lose, Sheskin gave the man two tablets of thalidomide. The patient slept for hours, and he felt good enough to get out of bed without aid when he woke up. The result was soon followed by more favorable experiences, followed by a clinical trial. Dr. Sheskin's drug of last resort revolutionized the care of leprosy, and led to the closing of most leprosy hospitals." It was my engineer husband's idea about the earthquakes and tsunami's as a type of nature's population control I think this could be right because in the grand scheme of things, population control does not have to be causally linked to a given population, just the way of nature. As a guess he is a civil engineer. Most of the other engineering specialties tend to be more restrictive using of the word. Hepburn/Tracy...humor, but perhaps as women's attention turns from childbearing and home to the corporate sector etc there will be rise in female aggression and hence in the total amount of aggression in society think of it like the pressure/ volume law governing gas, as one decreases, the other increases and vice versa It could be. But you would have to factor in fewer wars to see if the net result was desirable. The danger with the decrease in reproduction as a way to stem war is that reproduction is a delicate balance. If reproduction declines too much, the bleak future again emerges and then war, according to your theory. That would be really perverse. I can't think of an example where a country with a declining population went to war. In any case, Japan will provide a test case shortly. Russia may be a good crucible to study here Possibly. I have not given a lot of thought to the problems in Russia. Some of them are probably genetic such as sensitivity to alcohol. Alcohol seems to have come late to the Russians and they are still in the process of genetically getting used to it. (Unexposed populations range up to 95% alcoholics--if they can get it.) and the more affluent European nations like Sweden and Germany whose many immigrants are not melding and working to bolster the economy but actually are causing more of a threat to their viability. France has certainly had problems of this sort. Keith Henson (sorry about the HTML tags) From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Nov 6 03:29:42 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 19:29:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: <20061106014519.79695.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200611060327.kA63RoDK001639@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 5:45 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships > > --- Ben Goertzel wrote: > > > ... due to the nature of human emotions > > interpersonal partnerships with >2 members are just not very > > stable.... > > Well neither is the traditional marriage these days. > According to http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats05.htm > The median life of a first marriage is 7 years and > subsequent marriages last even less... > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu Wow that is a mind blower Avant. When this question came up before, about 6 yrs ago, I estimated the half-life of marriages at about 15 yrs. Looks like I was off by a factor of 2. It amazes me to think my own union has already lasted three half-lives and we are just now starting on the spawning process. I have personally witnessed an apparent three-way relationship. A friend married while we were still in college, took up a one-bedroom apartment across the street. A mutual friend of theirs, female, was always visiting over at their place, and eventually was living with them. Of course there was some curiosity as to whether he was actually sleeping with both women, but no one asked. Perhaps we were not sure we wanted to hear the answer. Within a year he had moved out and the women stayed together in that apartment. Again, no one asked and no one volunteered any info. I don't see how that arrangement could possibly work long term, but I recognize my deplorable lack of imagination when it comes to human relationships. spike From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Nov 6 03:33:16 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 04:33:16 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: <20061106004835.86004.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061106004835.86004.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1401.142.179.110.23.1162783996.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Just a few preliminary observations on the Markov approach to relationships: If one state is less stable than the others, the number of people found there in stationary distribution is significantly lower than the others. It is roughly an 1/(1-p) curve. Hence even a slight difference in stability might be enough to make a social pattern rare. The lower the transition probability between the states, the more pronounced this effect is. Eliezer pointed out that there is a state one cannot get out of, being dead. One can of course run the whole thing with a constant inflow of new singles and people dropping off, but given that the death probability appears to be one order of magnitude smaller than the divorce probability these days I think it can be safely ignored. Even if triads may be less stable than dyads, that doesn't mean it has to be like that. With the right social context, and perhaps some chemical or neural tweaking we could invent entirely new forms of relationships. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From velvethum at hotmail.com Mon Nov 6 03:34:21 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 22:34:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Detectives and red herrings (was Survival tangent) References: <20061102082308.30427.qmail@web37204.mail.mud.yahoo.com><8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> <057501c6ffdf$33394920$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: > Jeffrey [wrote]: > "Personally, I'm not ready to reject Slawomir's ideas and conceptions. But, in > this particular example, I agree with you Lee. That the intricate weave of > *consciousness* of a person can effectively "exist" at two places simultaneously. Lee: "Right, Jeffrey, but we'll still have to convince Heartland :-) I love pincer attacks. John Clark is coming at him from the north while we hammer away from the west" No worries, mate. I've got the mini-nukes set up along the perimeter. Besides, it's apparent that virtually no one can even locate the continent I'm on, let alone can identify which buildings to bomb. But I'll say this. Few months ago Jeffrey was able to send an EMP that seriously disrupted my defense systems for few minutes. The shockwaves were being felt long after the incident. That was by far the closest I came to having "a problem". As for Clark, he continues to bomb the hell out of some imaginary ghost town in some parallel universe. :-) ---- Lee, I believe that now I have a full comprehension of what you've been saying. Taking also into account Jef Allbright's recent proposal of "agency" as a determinant of personal identity finally gives me the complete picture of all the points of view in this debate. So, let's zoom out to see the big picture of what we've got so far. At this meta-level the philosophers of personal identity implicitly or explicitly answer this single fundamental question: "What defines a person?" The task of answering this question is usually being undertaken, as it should, in the spirit of reductionism. But despite agreement on the choice of investigative tools, the philosophers of PI still find different suspects responsible for the essence of what a person is. How can this happen? Well, sometimes these detectives grab the first thing they find that *might* be responsible for that "essence" and stop there. But, as in all good mystery novels, the first suspects are rarely guilty. It turns out that some detectives are also mystery novel writers and are skilled at identifying "red herrings". Instead, they dig deeper, gather more evidence, spend years on trying to understand the motive and finally find some other guy with even less alibi then the previous suspect. But there are also those detectives who never close the case as long as there's a shadow of a doubt that someone else might be responsible. ;-) Philosophers searching for the essence of what a person really is follow the reductive process that initially goes something like this: Things->Body->Brain But then, someone like Lee Corbin comes along and claims this is not enough and extends the process: Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs But then, Jef Allbright comes along and says this is not enough/correct and decides to extend this process further still until it looks like this: Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs->Agency Meanwhile, I look at both of these reductive processes and can't help but comment: "You've already missed a crucial exit and are heading for an inevitable dead end." Here's my version of the reductive process: Things->Body->Brain->Mind->Process->Presence At this moment you, dear reader, are probably asking yourself: "What the hell is Presence?" Well, the short version is that it's an "instance of awareness, perception, sensation, etc". I might provide more details if there's enough demand. I know from experience that these ideas are quite hard to convey since it requires the reader that he think in 4-D *and* abandon the habit of thinking that Person=VMBs, among other things. The most important thing to realize is that Presence supervenes on the physical. I want to make sure this is clear right from the start to counter knee-jerk accusations of promoting existence of "souls". There are no souls, okay? (That goes especially for you, John K Clark.) --- Lee: "But I'm claiming (along with several other people here) that while there are two instances, two minds, two brains, there is only one person. What is a person? I'm going to be arguing against Jef Albright shortly, but to me it's values, beliefs, and memories, which someone began to call VBM or something here not long ago." Right, *to you* a person is equivalent to a specific collection of VBMs. Apparently, Jef and I don't share this view for the same exact reasons (so I'd be happy to outsource arguing with you about this to Jef :-)) even though Jef's value of "X" in "person reduces to X" is not the same value of my "X". (Incidentally, if I thought that any person reduced to VBMs I would have no problems embracing "The Luckiest Person in the Universe" scenario described in Max More's "The Diachronic Self"). Lee: "Yes, but the concept of *person* that you dispute includes the proposition that you are the same person you were ten years ago even though we are speaking of two minds, two brains, two spatial locations, and two temporal locations. But still *one* person." Well, that's the thing. You have a different referent for "person"; a different value of X in "Person=X". Slawomir From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Nov 6 03:39:35 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 04:39:35 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: <200611060327.kA63RoDK001639@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200611060327.kA63RoDK001639@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1403.142.179.110.23.1162784375.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: > Wow that is a mind blower Avant. When this question came up before, about > 6 > yrs ago, I estimated the half-life of marriages at about 15 yrs. Looks > like > I was off by a factor of 2. It amazes me to think my own union has > already > lasted three half-lives and we are just now starting on the spawning > process. Which makes it very likely it is going to last much longer. In the UK the median length of marriages that break up is 10 years, but the peak is about 5-6 years. Risk factors involve being young when married, previous marriages... and in the UK, children. This is a very odd thing, because most US evidence and data from the 70's in the UK show that children protect marriage. But children increase divorce probability in the UK now. Why this has changed nobody knows. This research paper is turning me into some kind of Dr Love, brimming with helpful statistics... -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Nov 6 03:49:01 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 04:49:01 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] truth machine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1413.142.179.110.23.1162784941.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Jeff Davis wrote: > So I'm wondering -- assuming really -- is the CIA is using this tech > in its interrogation protocol? My guess is that they are funding research and maybe testing it. But it is not part of standard protocols because 1) MRI equipment is expensive and requires particular facilities with staff. Not even the Firm has the budget to put it everywhere, and bussing suspects around to such sites is troublesome. 2) the method is rather experimental. You really want to know everything about what it can and cannot do before trusting its results. It is very similar to the P300 brain fingerprinting idea: without a good questioning methodology it is pretty useless for finding truth. Of course, it would not be the first time big agencies spend money and effort on useless methods that everybody then claims work wonderfully. And as the various torture scandals have shown, inefficient truth-finding methods are indeed used. A far more likely explanation IMHO is that the suspect could tell yet another Abu Graib/Quran in toilet/whatever embarrasment. But give them a few years to work. Maybe it is time to get those magnet implants - or learn to control your anterior cingulate gyrus by biofeedback. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 6 03:53:39 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 19:53:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] 2-party-system = 1-dimensional politics (was polls again) In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60611040856t51a97100kb8a8a6e3430351fe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061106035339.37606.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > I have to take issue with most of what you said, > Stuart. I think that > the current two party system is the result not so > much of > one-dimensional thinking, or other causes you > mention. That's ok. If my post got you to delurk, it did its job. ;) > It is better > explained by economies of scale in a form of > marketing that strongly > relies on our tribal tendencies. The problem with economies of scale is that they tend toward monopolies and collusive duopolies quite frequently. Monopoly in turn reduces competition which reduces innovation and exchanges the free-market for the "mega-market". > Both parties have > marketed themselves > as champions of the poor, pacifists, hawks, > small(er) government > advocates, champions of progress and defenders of > the faith, > frequently at the same time. Yes, which just goes to show that they embrace no true lasting vision, principle, or philosophy and instead just seek to maintain their duopolistic grip on the American people. > I fail to see any > substantive > differences between the major parties on important > issues, if averaged > over periods of twenty years or more. And, of > course, there are > economies of scale in selling ideology: a large > organization trying to > maximize their appeal has an advantage over smaller > sellers of exactly > the same ideology. That's why there is only one > party per large niche: > there is no small Democratic party, since this large > supplier > outcompetes any comers. Yes and also serverely limits the available types of idealogy on the market. The point of espousing an idealogy at all is that it should promote ones biological and economic survival. > > Now this leads to the second element: tribalism. The > most important > predictor of voting Rep vs. Dem is what your parents > used to vote. That is not a very rational reason to vote for a particular party. I can see why people do it because it exploits the in-born tendency to mimic ones parents as a model of successful survival behavior. But the ground in politics shifts so quickly compared to the natural environment, it is hardly an adaptive behavior to run a 21st century nation. Throwing stones at tigers may have been a great suvival tactic back in the days of my glorious ancestor Og, but it isn't a very adaptive behavior in the modern age when there is a speeding bus barreling down upon you. > This imposes seemingly > impossible demands > on political parties: being different while staying > the same. >The > young Republican cubs want to be Republican like > daddy but they want > to be a different shade of Republican. Very > importantly, for a tribe > to exist, there has to be at least one out-group to > identify yourself > against. Without the outsider to rally against, the > tribe is likely to > splinter on its own, making outsiders out of its own > flesh. Hmm. This is a better point. But I am worried that the homogeneity we both observe of the two parties is the result of the development of a homogenous "political class" that merely tries to maintain the illusion of an "outgroup" for the sake of maintaining the illusion that they are being elected democratically. The republocrats seem to just recycle old rhetoric, without meaning a word of it, in order to line the pockets of their bed-fellows from the ranks of special interest. I can however see how having multiple parties may contribute to greater factionalization of society than exists now. Then again a viable third party may be able to operate as to consolidate all of the minor-third parties. Thus leading to more societal cohesion by mopping up the misfits so to speak. > Now combine the strictures of mass marketing in a > democratic system > that existed for a few generations with tribalism, > and you get a > solution: at least two, but not more than three > major parties, that > differ in minor details and shift their image over > periods of twenty > years or more. There are some countries with dozens > of parties: this > is where tribal affiliation goes not to the party of > your parents, but > to the extended family or clan. This seems to be a good solution for America. America seems less a "melting pot" than a "pot of stew" with all manner of tribes bound together loosely by the broth of freedom. Freedom, which need I remind you, we are losing because my hypothesized collusion of the duopolistic republocrats. > There are some > countries with only one > party but they are less likely to be true > democracies. The two party > system seems to be a common outcome in stable > democracies due at least > in part to the mechanisms that I described. And in part perhaps to the mechanisms that I described. They are hardly mutually exclusives and the actions of individual players in key positions can hijack so called market forces for their own benefit. > Now, I admit that this is a rather boring > explanation: there are no > cliques scheming to keep new political vendors out, Admittedly I may have made it sound like the biggest conspiracy since the cyanobacteria tried to poison their neighbors with oxygen, but it need not be orchestrated by a handful of masterminds in order to have evolved. > there is no > connection between the two-party system and the > fictional "decline of > the middle class" (which actually enjoyed the > largest ever increase in > numbers and in political power in the last century), > no relation to > the "growing inequality" Well I make it a point not to believe everything I read, but I can see it on the streets as well. Check out: http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/29/news/economy/wealth_gap/index.htm Do you have contradictory statistics you would like to offer? > There is no master plan by power > wielders to destroy the > middle class and support the poor (in fact, no > serious democratic > politician ever cares about the poor, because hardly > any voters care > about the poor, Don't the poor voters care about the poor? Of course they do, which is why you have to use sheriff officers to keep them away from the ballot boxes. and of course the middle class that > votes does not > want to destroy themselves either). Yet surprisingly, if it came out as a ballot measure here in Taxifornia, it might actually pass: Proposition 99: Ban H2O- people drown in it you know. > It's the outcome > of hundreds of > millions of people making decisions, embedded in > institutionalized > tradition and guided by various inborn propensities. It is the reduction of a vast human mind generated by billions of neurons down to a single bit of information: Blue or Red. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. ____________________________________________________________________________________ We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups (http://groups.yahoo.com) From velvethum at hotmail.com Mon Nov 6 04:44:08 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 23:44:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > "Ian Goddard" Wrote: >> the definition of 'identity' in logic matches >> Leibniz's Identity of Indiscernibles. John K Clark: > Leibniz's Identity Of Indiscernibles is the idea that if you exchange the > position of two things and there is no change in the system then the > two things are the same. If I place you (the copy) and the original an > equal distance from the center of a symmetrical room so you see the > same things and then instantly swap your bodies position with the > original then neither you nor the original nor any outside observer > could detect the slightest change. Then I'm afraid you don't really understand Leibniz's law. Regardless of the arrangement, you can always come up with *at least one arbitrary* property (measurement of the distance from a non-equidistant point, for example) with respect to which two material things are going to be different; a sufficient evidence for assigning different identities. Just because the copy subjectively "feels" the same doesn't influence the fact that objectively it isn't and never will be identical to the original as this would violate the law of conservation of mass/energy. I basically agree with what Ian and Randall told you so far. Slawomir From sentience at pobox.com Mon Nov 6 04:53:34 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 20:53:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: <1401.142.179.110.23.1162783996.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <20061106004835.86004.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <1401.142.179.110.23.1162783996.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <454EBFCE.2070505@pobox.com> Anders Sandberg wrote: > > Eliezer pointed out that there is a state one cannot get out of, being > dead. One can of course run the whole thing with a constant inflow of new > singles and people dropping off, but given that the death probability > appears to be one order of magnitude smaller than the divorce probability > these days I think it can be safely ignored. Even ignoring death, the ergodic distribution of dyads, triads, and tetrads does not give you information about the relative stability of dyads, triads, and tetrads unless you also know the formation probabilities of dyads, triads, and tetrads. E.g: Assume that all changed relationships are from x-ad to single or vice versa (i.e., ignore transition probabilities between relationships.) 6 people have a 99% chance of forming three dyads and a 1% chance of forming two triads. A dyad is stable for 7 years. A triad is stable for 63 years. Ergodic ratio of dyads to triads will be on the loose order of 16 to 1 (I would think), but triads are 9 times as stable. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Nov 6 05:33:34 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:33:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sex, Power and Single H+er Message-ID: <15616726.275921162791214745.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon Nov 6 05:40:31 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:40:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Graps Seminar at USC on November 6 Message-ID: (From 5 weeks ago) >I'll send another notice when the date gets closer. Time is running too fast, apologies. Time / Place: 4:15pm, Building / Room SLH 102 Abstract: http://physics.usc.edu/Colloquia/ViewTalk.php?t=2294 Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 06:17:33 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 06:17:33 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's all understandable, except) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0611052217j51be79jffb33b9a936e1b52@mail.gmail.com> On 11/5/06, Amara Graps wrote: > > And Eugene is interested indeed in children's education and his > grandchildren. > His baby boy, Laurin Leitl, was born 2 November. Mother Kiki and little > Laurin are happy and healthy. > Excellent news, congratulations to parents, child and godmother! (I don't think I have to literally believe in the existence of God to use that last term, any more than I have to literally believe in a geocentric universe to note that the sun's going to rise in an hour or so :)) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au Mon Nov 6 01:00:29 2006 From: c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au (Colin Geoffrey Hales) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:00:29 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Hi folks In-Reply-To: <20061106004835.86004.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061106004835.86004.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2071.128.250.225.217.1162774829.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> Hello all, You probably don't remember me. I've been off list since 2003. I thought I'd have a look at things extropian and ....all the troops are still at it! I trust you are all well.... cheers Colin Hales From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Nov 6 07:06:21 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 23:06:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 3, 2006, at 1:47 PM, Ensel Sharon wrote: > > > (FYI, I am agnostic on the subject of God / religion) > > > On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: (Daniel Dennett > speaking actually) > >> But isn't this awfully harsh? Surely it does the world no harm if >> those who >> can honestly do so pray for me! No, I'm not at all sure about that. >> For one >> thing, if they REALLY wanted to do something useful, they could >> devote >> their prayer time and energy to some pressing project that they CAN >> do >> something about. For another, we now have quite solid grounds >> (e.g., the >> recently released Benson study at Harvard) for believing that >> intercessory >> prayer simply doesn't work. Anybody whose practice shrugs off that >> research >> is subtly undermining respect for the very goodness I am thanking. >> If you >> insist on keeping the myth of the effectiveness of prayer alive, >> you owe >> the rest of us a justification in the face of the evidence. Pending >> such a > > > Wrong. They owe you NOTHING. If they wish to think about hooters > girls > and sports cars, so be it. If they want to direct their time and > thought > energy to their hamster, so be it. If they want to pray for your > well-being[1] (or perhaps for you to mind your own business), so be > it. > I don't believe Daniel Dennett said that anyone owed him anything. So what are you yelling about anyway? He says that he is not sure the practice does no harm. In the sense that it keeps a lot of folks befuddled and thinking they are doing good when they are doing little but further befuddling themselves he has a point. He does not say above that people should in any way be forced to do anything other that what they wish to. > >> justification, I will excuse you for indulging in your tradition; I >> know >> how comforting tradition can be. But I want you to recognize that >> what you >> are doing is morally problematic at best." > > > Wrong. No thought whatever is morally problematic. The time, > energy and > will that I expend are my own and require no justification - from me > or > anyone else. > Not wrong. It is morally problematic to ignore reality and instead engage in feel good fantasies and it is especially problematic to claim that doing so is "good". He did not require anyone to justify anything. He also has the right to voice his opinion about the choices of others. He is not "Wrong" to do so. It is actually a very good thing when people speak out about collective unsane behavior. > If Dennett is such a fucking genius, why doesn't he recognize the > problem > of labeling things "thoughtcrime" ? He never did any such thing. When you get through foaming at the keyboard perhaps we could have a better discussion. > Further, how dare he suggest that I > do anything with my time and kilowatts, or dispose of my own > property in > any way, other than exactly as i see fit ? Where did he do that? > The notion that he would > impose upon others some kind of minimum acceptable level of function > and > efficiency in their thoughts and actions is absurd. If certain time, > energy and kilowatts belong to me, I will dissipate them in any way > I see > fit, and as efficiently as I see fit. Where did he do that? - samantha From sentience at pobox.com Mon Nov 6 07:14:18 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:14:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454EE0CA.4050609@pobox.com> Ensel Sharon wrote: > > If Dennett is such a fucking genius, why doesn't he recognize the problem > of labeling things "thoughtcrime" ? Further, how dare he suggest that I > do anything with my time and kilowatts, or dispose of my own property in > any way, other than exactly as i see fit ? The notion that he would > impose upon others some kind of minimum acceptable level of function and > efficiency in their thoughts and actions is absurd. If certain time, > energy and kilowatts belong to me, I will dissipate them in any way I see > fit, and as efficiently as I see fit. How dare you complain about how Dennett expends his kilowatts? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Nov 6 07:27:27 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 23:27:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> <8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 3, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 11/3/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > As for Dennett suggesting that people are doing something wrong by > praying instead of helping - that they are thereby committing a moral > sin, in need of forgiveness - why, yes, you're right, that is somewhat > like a theologian who *peacefully argues with you*, for what he > conceives to be your own benefit, that you are committing a mortal sin > by denying the existence of God. > > Yes, that's what I was referring to. The equivalent of the religious > fundamentalists who kill infidels for not believing in God would be > those who did the same thing in the name of the atheist ideology of > communism. Did you actually read the piece? It is beyond me how you go from the gentle thoughtful ruminations on actual good that just saved this man's life as compared to the claimed good of religious acts like prayer to the evils of communism. There in nothing whatever of force in Dennett's remarks yet you act as if there is. This I find very puzzling and of some concern. > > As for who's being more irrational, whatever your opinion of > religion, it worked. Look at the results once religion is gone: the > prime examples of evolution in action are precisely those who > believe in evolution. If I believed in God I'd say He had a wicked > sense of humor. > What do you mean "it worked"? What worked exactly? I am really at a loss as to what you meant by this paragraph. > As for who's doing harm by ill-considered words, consider _why_ so > many people are rejecting evolutionary biology (in a way that they > don't reject, say, physics or chemistry). It's because they've been > taught they _have_ to reject it or give up everything they hold dear > and find themselves in an empty universe with empty lives. > Really? I know an awful lot of atheists who are very delighted with life and this universe and consider life extremely full. > What fanatical religious preachers taught them this, you may wonder? > Why, some of the names are quite familiar. Gould, Dawkins, Dennett. > This is beyond the pale. > Now if people want to preach atheism, that's their right; and if > they want to preach nihilism, well I suppose even that's their right. Preach? There is no rational reason for believing in God that I am aware of. Why is it "preaching" to say so? Theism has done a great deal of harm. Superstitious and irrational thinking does even more. How is it preaching to say this is so? Again, what is your beef? I don't see anything you seem to be saying in the actual article. Are you claiming that those who say what they honestly thing about religion and theism should be despised or censored for saying it? If so then I would suggest you look up the meaning of "projection". > It's when they do so _with their scientist hats on_, when they abuse > their reputation as scientists to advance those personal > philosophies, that the rest of us in the scientific community should > speak up and disown them. Not one of these people says that science proves there is no god. So how are they doing anything wrong as scientists? Yes, you want to disown them. Is that enough or do they need a good flogging to satisfy your anger? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 07:34:36 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 02:34:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sex, Power and Single H+er In-Reply-To: <15616726.275921162791214745.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <15616726.275921162791214745.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: On 11/6/06, pjmanney wrote: > > Well, after what must have been the most active posting period in recent > memory, this weekend has only proven once again the verities of life: > Master, we are here for the purpose of affirming your realities. > Sex sells. (And somehow Sex + Anders sells even more. Why is that, > Anders?) > Oh you know, its that whole Swedish thing. I suspect we all want something different and Anders is from Sweeden and is merely a surrogate for that. I suspect someplace downstream there will be papers written on the topic of "Anders vs. Swedish cultural history. Good or bad?" The paradoxical part is that there are going to be minds which will *think* about this. > Power corrupts. (Absolutely!) > And the thing you have to be concerned with is whether Anders or I or Eliezer will have it first. > And no one knows who they are. (If they did, they wouldn't be looking so > hard for their identity!) > That is of course an interesting observation -- which of A.S./R.B./E.Y. would give up their identity freely (or lay it out on the table for one to fiddle with it?) > Is there a correlation between dysfunctional dualistic sexual unions > leading to divorce and dysfunctional 2-party politics leading to... > Armageddon? Have both groups lost their sense of identity? Or could it > just be that they involve the number 2? Or is it some vast conspiracy? ;-) > I will state that as of this date (6 Nov 2006) there is no conspiracy that I am to my knowledge involved in. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Nov 6 07:34:41 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 23:34:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [SK] Re: Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <20061102091430.60569.qmail@web37208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061102091430.60569.qmail@web37208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2FF526CC-7685-4734-8931-EE047A3A2102@mac.com> On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:14 AM, Anna Taylor wrote: > Anna wrote on Mon Oct 30: >>>>> Why wouldn't the gay communities want their own >>>>> word for their union and still keep the basic >>>>> laws for spouse and marital? > > On 10/31/06, Terry Colvin > forwarded: >>> Maybe because they're forming a union, joined for >>> life, and creatin a family -- so there's a perfectly >>> good word for that already in existence. > > That word is already taken. It describes the "Union" > between male and female. > Says who? The Law? The law is a matter of societal convention. The law once said that no female could vote and that slavery was ok. That did not make it right. >>> In any case, it's not "scriptural" -- the >>> institution predates and is independent of any >>> particular scripture. > > No. Laws are institutions that predate. Predate what? See the above. > If gays want > to be married, I again will repeat, I have no problem > with that. I believe they should have every right to > the same benefits and laws as a "married" couple > should have but I think it should be defined by a > different word. > What for? >>>> I can't pressume to understand the relationship >>>> between 2 men or 2 women and who am I to judge what >>>> "Union" they want but as a heterosexual woman, >>>> don't I have every right to keep word "marriage"?. > >>> Sure you do. Your marriage won't suddenly become >>> a "flerm" just because someone else got married. Did >>> all heterosexual marriages suddenly change somehow >>> in 1989, when Denmark recognized gay marriage? > > It's not about recognizing gay marriage. I have the > upmost respect for gays, I would never disrespect any > choice of sexual behavior unless it violates rights. I > feel using the word "marriage" as a symbol of the > union between 2 men or 2 women violates my right as a > heterosexual female. Why is that so wrong? > Because you have no such right. You have no right to decide the word marriage is only for people like yourself and not others. >>> What you don't necessarily have is the right to >>> deny the word to other people. > > Why? If the word had already been established, why > wouldn't I have the right to keep it just the way it > is? Why should you have any such right? What makes you think you do? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Nov 6 07:49:38 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 23:49:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <1162679909.4912.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061103224339.03c13fa8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <1162679909.4912.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <9755FABB-18A8-4E96-86DF-A705C53D2C86@mac.com> On Nov 4, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Fred C. Moulton wrote: > On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 22:57 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: >> Besides, it's the wrong way to approach the problem. >> Ranting against epidemic disease didn't save a single life. >> What was needed was to understand what causes infectious diseases. >> People have religions like they have chicken pox. > > There are several different ways of viewing religion. If one views > religion as being infected by a set of bad memes then ranting can > make a > difference if the ranting has an impact on the bad memes. Consider > the > decline of infectious disease with the advent of better sanitation. > Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and others are hopefully causing a more > critical focus on the memes associated with religion. > There are many of us in the world who were deeply and systematically infected with said religious memes and had much too many recurrences of related maladies. People such as Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, Bertrand Russell and many more who spoke up against the prevailing memeset have been a very tremendous help and curative. The world could use a great deal more like them. I for one feel deepest gratitude and admiration for their efforts. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Nov 6 07:59:50 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 23:59:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] young Leitl is born! (was extropian grandchildren..) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A920D3D-54BD-4675-9114-947554DFFD75@mac.com> Eugen, Congratulations to you, to Kiki and to Laurin! Amara, congratulations also on godmotherhood. - samantha On Nov 5, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > Eugene: >> It would be so ironic if demographics and education would shoot >> down our >> chance for Singularity within the narrow launch horizon. If we mess >> it >> up real good this time, our grandchildren might not have an >> opportunity >> for another shot. > > If I may interject ... > > And Eugene is interested indeed in children's education and his > grandchildren. > His baby boy, Laurin Leitl, was born 2 November. Mother Kiki and > little > Laurin are happy and healthy. > > Amara > (godmother) > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 08:05:45 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 08:05:45 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> <8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0611060005g5ac79cdeie540449406ec95b7@mail.gmail.com> On 11/6/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Did you actually read the piece? It is beyond me how you go from the gentle thoughtful ruminations on actual good that just saved this man's life as compared to the claimed good of religious acts like prayer to the evils of communism. There in nothing whatever of force in Dennett's remarks yet you act as if there is. > > I did not claim there was anything of force in Dennett's remarks; in the text you quoted, I was agreeing with Eliezer that the most precise analogy would be with "a theologian who *peacefully argues with you*, for what he conceives to be your own benefit, that you are committing a mortal sin by denying the existence of God." > As for who's being more irrational, whatever your opinion of religion, it > worked. Look at the results once religion is gone: the prime examples of > evolution in action are precisely those who believe in evolution. If I > believed in God I'd say He had a wicked sense of humor. > > > > What do you mean "it worked"? What worked exactly? I am really at a loss as to what you meant by this paragraph. > Religion worked for survival. Look at what happens to modern cultures where religion is gone: they fall apart into self-hatred and nihilism, birth rates plummeting below extinction level, their people rapidly headed for oblivion. The greatest civilization that ever existed on this planet is dying, in what should have been its hour of triumph - dying not of any external threat, but of its own parasite memes; and who will pick up the torch once we are gone? Really? I know an awful lot of atheists who are very delighted with life and this universe and consider life extremely full. > > If that works for them, great, though I will note that most people who give up belief in God, in order to find meaning in life, need to substitute some equivalent belief: aliens, the Singularity, reincarnation or whatever. > What fanatical religious preachers taught them this, you may wonder? Why, > some of the names are quite familiar. Gould, Dawkins, Dennett. > > > This is beyond the pale. > I'm sorry it offends you to see things called by their right names. Preach? There is no rational reason for believing in God that I am aware of. > There's no rational reason for believing in the Singularity either (yes, like most myths it was inspired by some nuggets of truth, but the vast bulk of what's written about it is as much a fable as Noah bringing two of each animal aboard the ark). I don't see you going around proclaiming this to be irrational. Theism has done a great deal of harm. > But far more good than harm. A parable, quoting from memory so the wording may not be accurate, but the gist of it is: Young man: "I can see no use for that fence, let's get rid of it." Old man: "Certainly not. Go and study the problem some more, and when you come back and tell me you _can_ see a use for it... _then_ we can start talking about whether to get rid of it." Superstitious and irrational thinking does even more. How is it preaching to say this is so? Again, what is your beef? I don't see anything you seem to be saying in the actual article. > It isn't about Dennett's article - if it were just him, I wouldn't have said anything. It's about the prevailing meme in Western intellectual circles these days that tearing down Christianity and its value system is somehow a rational or wise thing to do. Are you claiming that those who say what they honestly thing about religion and theism should be despised or censored for saying it? > I have not advocated censoring anyone. What I think should be done is this: when Dawkins goes around using his science to preach atheism, someone - it'd have to be someone who'd be listened to, something like a professor of evolutionary biology at a well-known university would be ideal - should stand up and say: "Dawkins is of course entitled to preach his religious beliefs - in his capacity as a private citizen. Science says nothing whatsoever about the existence or nonexistence of God, and it is a fallacy to claim it as authority on either side of that debate." We all agree teaching science is important. I claim it is equally important to teach that science is compatible with pro-survival value systems. Not one of these people says that science proves there is no god. > Have you actually read any of Gould or Dawkins' recent works? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 08:06:44 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:06:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren (was: it's all understandable, except) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/5/06, Amara Graps wrote: > And Eugene is interested indeed in children's education and his grandchildren. > His baby boy, Laurin Leitl, was born 2 November. Mother Kiki and little > Laurin are happy and healthy. Congrats, Eugen, Kiki, and Laurin. -- Best, Jeff Davis "We're a band of higher primates stuck on the surface of an atmosphere-hazed dirtball. I can associate with that. I certainly can't identify with which patch of the dirtball I currently happen to be on, and which monkey tribe happens to reside therein. Only by taking the big view we can make it a common dream, and then a reality. It's worth it." Eugen Leitl From amara at amara.com Mon Nov 6 08:12:09 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:12:09 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships Message-ID: Avantgardian: >Well neither is the traditional marriage these days. >According to http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats05.htm >The median life of a first marriage is 7 years and >subsequent marriages last even less. For the US ... To go further (for the U.S.), 50.2 percent of people are living either as single moms (14 million), single dads (5 million), or in unmarried gay or hetero households (37 million). from my favorite columnist Mark Morford : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/10/25/notes102506.DTL&hw=morford&sn=001&sc=1000 Amara From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Nov 6 08:16:57 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:16:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <06ab01c7010c$5bfa8ad0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061105055843.98856.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> <065101c700ad$61831030$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240611050908i5032dca3n78c18badec3aaabb@mail.gmail.com> <06ab01c7010c$5bfa8ad0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <6A1AAFF4-6433-4118-B3F0-8EEB0A9D81EF@mac.com> On Nov 5, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Mike writes > >> On 11/5/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > >>> Here is my solution: segregation. Segregation today, >>> segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. >>> Right now in California, everyone needs segregating: >>> because the white kids can't keep up with the Asians, >>> and many of them conclude that math, English, and >>> science are for smart kids, not them. As the whites can't >>> keep up with the Asians, the Hispanics can't keep up >>> with the whites, and the blacks can't keep up with the >>> hispanics, so we ought to go back to... yes, segregation. >> >> Why does it have to be racist and sexist? Why can't we >> 'segregate' (to use your negatively overloaded term) along >> dimension of performance capability? > > Oh, I agree. I was being a bit flippant, but as Robert has > just said, there is a point at least insofar as gender is concerned. > As for racial segregation, it really isn't practical anymore. For > one thing, it would just be politically (and probably socially) > impossible. For another, unlike the case of sex (gender), there > are a lot of people who are intermediary between races. And > you know what problems that would create! Guess again on gender being completely binary. > >> There ARE white kids who are smarter than the "average" >> asian, so why hold them to a lower standard due to genetics? > > Of course. But the point is that kids in schools can tend to > identify their capabilities in terms of everyone around them. > Not all kids to be sure. The extremely capable will be fine > no matter what. > No, I don't think so. I went through a "good" public school system that had nearly nothing for me. It was geared to some average, more numerous students' needs. I am not even at the stratospheric top of the intelligence chart. I knew more than a few really bright kids who dropped out out of boredom, frustration, feeling utterly alien to the entire scene and most of their "peers". A minority of them managed to release their brilliance into world to some (but I can't help believe diminished) degree regardless. Many of the withered or became very misshapen long before they even discovered what their capabilities were. By the time you can label the "extremely capable" in a non-mundane environment where their capabilities get noticed you have begged the question. Much potential is wasted before it can ever get to such an environment. - samantha - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Mon Nov 6 11:16:54 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:16:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] punchscan: see your vote count Message-ID: <20061106111654.GU6974@leitl.org> Here's a low-tech way to route around vote fraud. http://punchscan.org/faq.php Frequently Asked Questions 1. Does Punchscan really remove the need for the public to trust any hardware or software as far as election results, while lowering costs and improving reliability compared to other voting systems? Yes! Briefly: Punchscan provides full transparency of the whole election process, from mandatory pre-election public audit, through to voters who wish checking the printing of the paper receipt they keep and the recording of the votes coded on it, all the way to the mandatory public post-election audit. Although each voter can verify online definitively that his or her vote is counted as cast, voters cannot show how they voted to anyone else. Lower cost results from commodity hardware and open source software, but backdoors are not an issue because anyone who wishes can choose to run and even write full audit software. If significant cheating were to be present, it would be detected with near certainty. But deliberate cheating or errors can be kept from necessitating a re-vote, considerably more effectively than with other system. (See the ?sections? below for elaboration and the ?learn more? page for complete system details.) 2. GENERAL Don?t paper receipts and online checking facilitate vote selling or coercion of voters? 3. Couldn?t a clever hacker or a corrupt software insider, perhaps by gaining control of the election computers, change the election outcome undetectably? 4. Does each voter have to make an extra effort in order to protect his or her vote or to check the election outcome? 5. Isn?t the cryptography too hard for most people to understand? 6. If someone, maybe a code breaking agency or clever hacker, were to break the cryptography, couldn?t they then choose the winner? 7. Isn?t the larger issue in elections, rather than integrity of the outcome, really confidence in the overall election process including registration and participation? 8. Wouldn?t all this high security cost too much? 9. Could this type of system work for general elections in large US counties? 10. VOTER PROTECTIONS What about the ?Florida problem,? where voters thought they were voting for one candidate but ended up voting for another? 11. Isn?t it difficult or time consuming for those marking a ballot to find the letter through the hole that matches the letter next to the desired candidate? 12. What if voters are paid or coerced to mark their receipts in particular ways? 13. What if those operating a polling place were corrupt and could locally learn how people vote and thereby help enforce vote buying or coercion schemes? 14. Can?t the secret keys of those running the election be used centrally to spy on how people voted? 15. Can?t voters sell votes by allowing their votes to be identified through voting for a pre-arranged pattern of down-ballot candidates or issues? 16. What if a ballot were to be smuggled out of the polling place and then used in a chain scheme, where each voter casts a pre-marked ballot provided to them before they go inside the polling place and then brings out the unmarked fresh one they were given inside so that it can be used as the next link in the chain? 17. What if the same ballot serial number is given to more than one voter? 18. RELIABILITY Couldn?t fake receipts be used to discredit the integrity of an election? 19. What if some of those running an election were to try and block publication of the outcome? 20. If cheating by the system were actually to be detected, would the whole voting process have to be repeated? 21. ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS Wouldn?t good old-fashioned paper ballots counted by hand in each polling place provide a higher level of integrity for election outcomes? 22. Aren?t systems that keep an electronic record as well as a voter-viewed paper record, and that include mandatory hand recount of a sampling of the paper, more practical and just as capable of engendering as much voter confidence? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Nov 6 11:15:18 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 03:15:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except References: <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com><05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eugen wrote > On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 07:29:41PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > > The Singularity (or its preceding technological innovations) need > > above all to get people smarter, especially the great hordes of > > children today who simply are incapable of difficult technical work, > > and who will (because of IQ limitations) perform rather poorly > > whatever they try to do that is of any use. > > I try to avoid me-toos, but above passage can't be overemphasized. > The issue isn't differences in issued equipment between the ears. > Motivation is the key, and almost all current education environments > (nevermind prior poor parenting) actively demotivate. Since Eugen wrote this, a number of people have chimed in to agree. I ask, where is the evidence that the key problems are current educational environments or poor parenting? Are there studies? The studies---your anecdotes aside---report what I said they did, namely that it's genes 50%, peers 50%, parents 0%, and schools, 0%. (I should add, to be careful, that these are determinants of adult personality. But I think that it applies to contributing technically to society too.) And furthermore, contrary to what Eugen states, the limiting factor *is* what is between the ears. Researchers on intelligence admit, however, that intelligence is like money. It really doesn't matter how much you have so long as you have enough. But the overwhelming part of the populace does *not* have enough cognitive ability, not enough for today's technical needs. And even in your anecdotes, from dyslexia to "boredom and frustration" causing dropping out, we could segregate :-) those with certain proclivities and try to specialize the instruction they're given. That would be a good idea. But many kids simply rebel, and unless you provide very expensive tutoring (with a touch of compulsion), they're not going to use all their potential anyway. You can suggest remedies. That would be nice. But why not point to somewhere among the 6 billion people where the problem as you see it *has* been solved? Eugen continues, rather obscurely: > Not only does demographics limit the quantity, the quality has been > going down monotonously since middle last century, or even before. What do you mean by this? IQ has been going up (cf. Flynn effect). > The job market does the rest to discourage entering technical fields. > The message is certainly loud and clear enough, and it's being heard. How does the job market discourage entering technical field? I'm not following you. Lee > This is no way to drive progress forward, or event to sustain it. > Many places are regressing, but slowly enough that it isn't too > obvious. And The Great Depression v2.0 (new and improved, > now with even more suckage) seems to be ante portas in earnest. > What we here need to do is to figure out how to prevent the coming > crash, that is looming clearer with each passing year. From brentn at freeshell.org Mon Nov 6 11:25:17 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 06:25:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effective relationships In-Reply-To: <200611060327.kA63RoDK001639@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200611060327.kA63RoDK001639@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <669C3965-A4AD-4646-B93F-7022E37FC6BC@freeshell.org> On Nov 5, 2006, at 22:29, spike wrote: > I have personally witnessed an apparent three-way relationship. A > friend > married while we were still in college, took up a one-bedroom > apartment > across the street. A mutual friend of theirs, female, was always > visiting > over at their place, and eventually was living with them. Of > course there > was some curiosity as to whether he was actually sleeping with both > women, > but no one asked. Perhaps we were not sure we wanted to hear the > answer. > Within a year he had moved out and the women stayed together in that > apartment. Again, no one asked and no one volunteered any info. I > don't > see how that arrangement could possibly work long term, but I > recognize my > deplorable lack of imagination when it comes to human relationships. I had a prof in college who lived in a stable triad, and had for almost a decade. Last I heard, they were still living that way, making their relationship almost 20 years old. The opposite of data is anecdote. :) But, I think Eliezer's comment on formation probabilities is insightful. One thing that it well-known in the polyamory community is that the polyamory community is not well-known - that is, many people just don't know that there is a reasonably large group of people who eschew the traditional monogamous-dyad model of partnering and do not have the will to actively go against their cultural programming. This, as I have seen in multiple cases (we've approached data here, not just anecdote...), does act as an inhibitor to the formation of stable polyamorous relationships. If you want some statistics, the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom may have some survey results. It'd be interesting to see. Brent -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Nov 6 11:45:49 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 03:45:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com><8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com><454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com><8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0611060005g5ac79cdeie540449406ec95b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <079401c70199$64625b20$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > Religion worked for survival. Look at what happens to modern > cultures where religion is gone: they fall apart into self-hatred and > nihilism, birth rates plummeting below extinction level, their people > rapidly headed for oblivion. The greatest civilization that ever existed > on this planet is dying, in what should have been its hour of triumph - > dying not of any external threat, but of its own parasite memes; > and who will pick up the torch once we are gone? You bring up the gravest problem of all, a real one that is not going away, unless a technological miracle happens quickly. Europe is finished. A Muslim civilization will replace it. But in North America, the situation is less clear. An elite in North America can continue to "run things" for a very long time yet. This is because as the class structure of the country becomes more pronounced, the lower classes shall respond to direction, just as they do in Mexico today, whereas in Europe, the Muslims have superior cohesion and superior will. Now, more and more people in the west are coming to see the danger, and so resistence, even in Europe, may mount, and in interesting ways. Prognostications, anyone? But it's too late IMO to defend religion as you're doing. You're right about its original value, but the damage has been done, and we just can't believe lies anymore. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:12:40 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:12:40 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <079401c70199$64625b20$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> <8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0611060005g5ac79cdeie540449406ec95b7@mail.gmail.com> <079401c70199$64625b20$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0611060412s444bd0cp8be626d624b7106f@mail.gmail.com> On 11/6/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > But it's too late IMO to defend religion as you're doing. You're right > about its original value, but the damage has been done, and we just > can't believe lies anymore. > Maybe, though I'm not so sure; it's still strong in America which, as you say, may endure for a long time yet to come. But in any event I think it is not too late to point out the value of what is being lost, and the consequences thereof. And now, back to trying to make use of whatever time we do have left. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:20:30 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:20:30 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <079401c70199$64625b20$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> <8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0611060005g5ac79cdeie540449406ec95b7@mail.gmail.com> <079401c70199$64625b20$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 11/6/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > Europe is finished. A Muslim civilization will replace it. > > But in North America, the situation is less clear. > An elite in North America can continue to "run things" for a very long > time yet. This is because as the class structure of the country becomes > more pronounced, the lower classes shall respond to direction, just as > they do in Mexico today, whereas in Europe, the Muslims have superior > cohesion and superior will. > > Now, more and more people in the west are coming to see the danger, > and so resistence, even in Europe, may mount, and in interesting ways. > Prognostications, anyone? > The FT had a contrary opinion article recently which says that Europe is now waking up to the problem of an aggresive Muslin minority. Currently, of the 456m people of the EU, just 15m to 16m are Muslim. US prophets of Europe's doom are half wrong By Gideon Rachman Published: October 16 2006 European governments are acutely aware of this and are changing policies in response. The British are rethinking their "multicultural" approach to immigration; the French are considering positive discrimination; the Danes have cracked down on arranged marriages. Who knows ? some of these policies may even work. If they do not, politics and policies will change again. Of all the many scenarios for the future of Europe, perhaps the least likely is that Europeans simply sleep-walk off a cliff. ---------------- BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon Nov 6 13:25:48 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:25:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 03:15:18AM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > Since Eugen wrote this, a number of people have chimed in to agree. > I ask, where is the evidence that the key problems are current educational > environments or poor parenting? Are there studies? If you've got poorly socialized children with a migrant background as a majority, you will not be able to start schooling at a decent level. It only goes downhill from there. I presume the answer to that is to start saving for a private school -- but you will notice that e.g. most of the U.S. doesn't do that, they do in fact quite the opposite. A few days ago on the commute I heard on the propaganda channel radio about the current grand coalition slapping each other on the back, mutually congratulating themselves on their grand achievement. That being, that they have reduced the amount of new debt this year. To "only" 30 GEUR. Perhaps too many people misunderstand what exponential functions (compounded interest) means, especially if each third EUR already silently vanishes into the debt hole. > The studies---your anecdotes aside---report what I said they did, > namely that it's genes 50%, peers 50%, parents 0%, and schools, 0%. Genes are meaningless, if you're looking at poorly socialized kids with a migrant background entering the school system, which is already contaminated with a couple of decades of similiar toxic problems. Teaching is traditionally a well-paid high-prestige job in Germany, but the schools have gotten so bad it's hard to find new personnel, especially in hard sciences. For genes to wield their full potential you need a stable, supportive environment even pre-birth, and an educational system which challenges each kid individually. The genes have remained basically the same, it's the parenting and schools (peers are an integral part of the school) which have been failing. > And furthermore, contrary to what Eugen states, the limiting factor > *is* what is between the ears. Researchers on intelligence admit, Correct, but irrelevant. The bottlenecks are elsewhere. As long as the environment is the same no amount of perfect genes will matter. You don't need perfect genes to be a highly productive individual. Yes, for some things you need genius, but only in trace amounts. Unlike Galt's Gulch and Vinge's visions a small group of supergeniuses without the vast pyramid of support can do only very little. Our concerns are that that supportive structure is failing. It's hard to build buckyball circuits if there's almost no industry and the state is effectively bankrupt (well, the state isn't, but the citizens are left with the bill). > But the overwhelming part of the populace does *not* have enough > cognitive ability, not enough for today's technical needs. Jobs in R&D are negligible in the old West. What's the point in entering a challenging technical field if you know that 1) the job market will be brutal 2) you're entering a field which is not even lower middle class, by salary standards? Bright people are not stupid. Who in their right minds would study e.g. chemistry right now? Who would enter something so overhyped as nanotechnology? > > Not only does demographics limit the quantity, the quality has been > > going down monotonously since middle last century, or even before. > > What do you mean by this? IQ has been going up (cf. Flynn effect). If Flynn shows things are stellar yet you agree that the practical experience it telling us the opposite, then something is wrong with your metrics. Ability to play WoW doesn't make yourself good workplace material. > How does the job market discourage entering technical field? Have you looked at an engineer's entry level salaries? You have noticed that the middle class is shrinking fast? And that a Second Great Depression is at the door, and there's not deus ex machina just-in-time fix to pull us out? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jonkc at att.net Mon Nov 6 14:57:28 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:57:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> Me: >> If I place you (the copy) and the original an equal distance >>from the center of a symmetrical room so you see the same >>things and then instantly swap your bodies position with the >>original then neither you nor the original nor any outside >>observer could detect the slightest change. There was no >>change because although there were 2 bodies in the room >>there was only one person. Randall Randall" > This appears to be the argument that had the Soviets been perfectly > successful in erasing all records of Trotsky, he would really not have > been there. That's true, it you erased all records of Trotsky then Trotsky would never have been, however it is physically imposable to do so. Recently Stephen Hawking finally conceded that noting, not even a Black Hole, can destroy information. I don't believe the Soviets could do what a Black Hole could not. Does this contradict my earlier statement that a BEC can erase the individual history of an atom? No. Before the BEC is formed we know that one particular atom, lets call him Bob the Hydrogen atom, did this that and the other thing, it had a history. After the BEC forms you still know a particular atom had this history, but it's imposable to know even in theory which atom is Bob. No information is lost because it doesn't matter under ANY circumstances which atom is Bob. > there are an infinite number of John K Clark bodies, widely separated by > space, but in your view all with an equal claim to being *you*, right? Certainly. > So, when you walk across the street, why dodge a car that almost hits you? If cars are coming toward all my copies and none of us decides to move to safety then we're all dead. If I'm the only one with a killer car after me then my "exact" copies are no longer even approximately exact, I'm having a terrifying and traumatic experience and they are not. But to be honest I doubt if any of those thoughts would enter my head in the split second I had to jump to safety. The real reason I'd get out of the way is because that's the way my brain is wired, and it's wired that way because if it were not creatures like me would never have evolved. > You feel that all processes of the person-type you call John K Clark are > equivalent for all purposes, where we would say that they are only > equivalent for non-subjective purposes. But there is no way you can be correct, absolutely positively no way. In my thought experiment I had you (the copy) and the original standing an equal distance from the center of a symmetrical room. I use a Star Trek brand transporter to instantly exchange your positions, or if you prefer I leave your bodies alone and just exchange the two brains. There is no way subjectively you would notice that anything had happened, and objective outside observers would not notice anything had happened. There would not even be a way to tell if the machine was actually working. If objectively it makes no difference and subjectively if makes no difference then I conclude it just makes no damn difference. John K Clark From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 16:12:08 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:12:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] 2-party-system = 1-dimensional politics (was polls again) In-Reply-To: <20061106035339.37606.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7641ddc60611040856t51a97100kb8a8a6e3430351fe@mail.gmail.com> <20061106035339.37606.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60611060812v53ca1e64ob21140dacf399473@mail.gmail.com> Stuart, this time I mostly agree with your remarks, especially insofar as you say that politicians tend to be assholes, but I still think they are not really the problem - the real problem is insufficient intelligence of the average citizen and antedeluvian emotional presets which lead to voter irrationality. I do not approve of the way things are - but I see it as the result not so much of organized evil but rather widespread ignorance, negligence, short-sightedness, etc. I also have a different perspective on the importance of the poor - there are very few of them left anyway, and they are either not interested in voting, or, being on average even less intelligent than average, they cheerfully vote in support of the programs that actively harm them, like Social Security (which is a regressive taxation scheme transferring money e.g. from young working blacks to rich retired whites). It's a pity that so far most humans can't learn to reject tribal politics (or religion, the other major form of mass irrationality). Probably there will be droves of flag-waving evangelicals on the day the AI announces TEOTWAWKI :/ but whatever, Singularity ftw! Rafal From jonkc at att.net Mon Nov 6 16:59:58 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:59:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. References: <20061105030322.68246.qmail@web52611.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e901c701c5$03f3c180$250b4e0c@MyComputer> "Ian Goddard" > Why should properties of a mind/self resemble quantum properties of > electrons? A mind does not have the quantum properties of an electron, but a brain does. > It's a big leap from that to the view that one > mind/self can be in two locations at once. Mind is not macroscopic (or microscopic) and mind is not an object, so being at two places at once is simple, in both meanings of the word simple. I believe the position of a mind is a concept of very limited value, if it has any meaning at all it's the place the mind is thinking about. > But I see no reason to assume that the self of the original brain would be > somehow connected to its copy. In thought experiments people always take the part of the original, but try being the copy. Yesterday I copied you and then instantly destroyed the original. Do you feel dead? You still remember being you yesterday and last year and when you were nine, you can see no discontinuity between yesterday and today. You had no last thought so you have no reason to complain,. And if I didn't tell you I'd made the copy you'd never had known anything unusual had happened. What more do you expect from survival? It's true I can't ask the you of yesterday his opinion on the matter, but that is ALWAYS true even without my pesky copying. John K Clark From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 17:01:41 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:01:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> References: <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60611060901l15ea6bcdh3fd4bbc138c99f58@mail.gmail.com> On 11/6/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: Ability to play WoW doesn't make yourself good workplace > material. ### OMG WTF! Warlocks own the workplace! Horde FTW! ------------------------------------------- > Have you looked at an engineer's entry level salaries? You > have noticed that the middle class is shrinking fast? And > that a Second Great Depression is at the door, and there's > not deus ex machina just-in-time fix to pull us out? > ### Jeez, Eugen, you sound depressed. Reading libertarian-leaning economics blogs (Cafe Hayek, Marginal Revolution, Econlog) gives me a totally different outlook, with the middle class shrinking by steady attrition into the affluent class, and an economical revolution due to disappearing manufacturing costs in the offing. I may be the inveterate optimist seeing a silver lining everywhere ("The UFAI ante portas? Cool, it will fry all the guys I hate, too!") so maybe I am prone to missing the dark clouds on the horizon but, really, where is the evidence for doom (aside from the risk of UFAI in the next 20 - 50 years, which is the only major existential threat I am aware of)? Rafal From benboc at lineone.net Mon Nov 6 19:15:18 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:15:18 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropian grandchildren In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454F89C6.807@lineone.net> spike asked for: > Suggestions? My understanding is that a godparent is supposed to be a mentor, at least in the religious context (i actually declined to be a godfather to my nephew, because the only advice i would be able to give him would be "there is no god, you've got to think for yourself, mate" and that wasn't acceptable, unfortunately), so something based around this mentor concept would be appropriate, like, er... Mentor? ben zaiboc From randall at randallsquared.com Mon Nov 6 19:32:24 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:32:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: <06c701c70128$57f91610$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> <06c701c70128$57f91610$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Nov 5, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Randall writes >> Lee Corbin would say, I believe, that the important thing is >> increase Lee-Corbin-runtime, and that this dictates saving >> this particular Lee-Corbin-process, > > Right you are! Proof that we *do* understand each other, > occasionally :-) Once in a while, perhaps. :) > But I say that these are only "lower-order" aspects of one, > and are not representative of who I truly am. If the scenario > becomes less graphic, and one of them must press a button > and be disintegrated, then all of us would be indifferent as to > who did so. If the button were in the room, we'd all reach > for it, with the understanding that the last 999,999 would > not be disintegrated. No instance would actually care a > whit. Whereas all million units of Randall (using the below exchange as my guide) would be trying to figure out how to avoid button pressing at all. >> If you don't agree that the runtime lost would indeed be >> infinitesimal, > > But it's not infinitesimal: it's one whole unit of John Clark or > Lee Corbin. If you're willing to use this argument, then everything I would say can be rephrased as "unit" rather than "person", and my own concern is that this particular unit of Randall Randall continue. I'm not sure that this terminology change actually adds anything, however. -- Randall Randall "One thing that makes me tired is people who whine about the prospect of restoring youth. I want to tell them to get a life, but the point seems to be that they?re not really sure they want one." -- Perry Willis From randall at randallsquared.com Mon Nov 6 19:49:43 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:49:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> On Nov 6, 2006, at 9:57 AM, John K Clark wrote: > Me: >>> If I place you (the copy) and the original an equal distance >>> from the center of a symmetrical room so you see the same >>> things and then instantly swap your bodies position with the >>> original then neither you nor the original nor any outside >>> observer could detect the slightest change. There was no >>> change because although there were 2 bodies in the room >>> there was only one person. > > Randall Randall" > >> This appears to be the argument that had the Soviets been perfectly >> successful in erasing all records of Trotsky, he would really not >> have >> been there. > > That's true, it you erased all records of Trotsky then Trotsky > would never > have been, however it is physically imposable to do so. It's possible, hypothetically, to erase all record to the level at which no person can ever know that Trotsky existed, and that's all that's required for this thought experiment. I find it deeply weird that you suggest that if no one knows or has the capability to find out a fact, that fact ceases to exist. But the assertion that you believe this does point out the futility of trying to show otherwise, doesn't it? > But to be honest I doubt if any of those thoughts would enter my > head in the > split second I had to jump to safety. The real reason I'd get out > of the way > is because that's the way my brain is wired, and it's wired that > way because > if it were not creatures like me would never have evolved. And that's why I included the bit you snipped about the random number generator. Of course, you may be saying that "this unit" of John K Clark with which I'm speaking would try to continue to exist regardless of the fate of other units, but if so, then your position reduces to mine. >> You feel that all processes of the person-type you call John K >> Clark are >> equivalent for all purposes, where we would say that they are only >> equivalent for non-subjective purposes. > > But there is no way you can be correct, absolutely positively no > way. In my > thought experiment I had you (the copy) and the original standing > an equal > distance from the center of a symmetrical room. I use a Star Trek > brand > transporter to instantly exchange your positions, or if you prefer > I leave > your bodies alone and just exchange the two brains. There is no way > subjectively you would notice that anything had happened, and > objective > outside observers would not notice anything had happened. There > would not > even be a way to tell if the machine was actually working. If > objectively it > makes no difference and subjectively if makes no difference then I > conclude > it just makes no damn difference. If you remove one unit (by not reconstituting it on one swap, for example), then it's clear that the number of units of "Randall Randall" has decreased by half, yes? In this case, announcing you're going to do this ahead of time means *each unit* has a fifty percent chance of continuing to exist. Let me assure you that this would cause both units great concern, and no amount of pleading that the surviving unit wouldn't notice anything wrong would help. -- Randall Randall "If we have matter duplicators, will each of us be a sovereign and possess a hydrogen bomb?" -- Jerry Pournelle From randall at randallsquared.com Mon Nov 6 20:02:21 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:02:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. In-Reply-To: <00e901c701c5$03f3c180$250b4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20061105030322.68246.qmail@web52611.mail.yahoo.com> <00e901c701c5$03f3c180$250b4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <4D4BF25D-62DE-4257-93BB-47F9554B0191@randallsquared.com> On Nov 6, 2006, at 11:59 AM, John K Clark wrote: > "Ian Goddard" >> Why should properties of a mind/self resemble quantum properties of >> electrons? > > A mind does not have the quantum properties of an electron, but a > brain > does. But a mind is merely a process running on a brain. >> It's a big leap from that to the view that one >> mind/self can be in two locations at once. > > Mind is not macroscopic (or microscopic) and mind is not an object, > so being > at two places at once is simple, in both meanings of the word simple. > I believe the position of a mind is a concept of very limited > value, if it > has any meaning at all it's the place the mind is thinking about. I would expect that this view of "mind" as something which doesn't require any physical component (as physical components have a position, of course), and in which a mind can actually *be* in some other place just by thinking about that other place is not widely held around here. Of course, that doesn't mean it's wrong; it's just wrong. :) >> But I see no reason to assume that the self of the original brain >> would be >> somehow connected to its copy. > > In thought experiments people always take the part of the original, > but try > being the copy. Yesterday I copied you and then instantly destroyed > the > original. Do you feel dead? You still remember being you yesterday > and last > year and when you were nine, you can see no discontinuity between > yesterday > and today. You had no last thought so you have no reason to > complain,. And > if I didn't tell you I'd made the copy you'd never had known anything > unusual had happened. What more do you expect from survival? No one is disputing that the copy survives, John. It's tautological that the one that survives survived; it's the cessation of the one that didn't that worries us. -- Randall Randall "It's alright, it's alright, 'cause the system never fails; The good guys are in power, and the bad guys are in jail." From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Nov 6 20:05:29 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:05:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Some of my Recent Creations Message-ID: <20061106200529.99006.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> FYI: here's some of my recent output... * After an eight-year hiatus I picked up pad n pencil and began attending some local figure-drawing sessions. See some results: Short poses http://iangoddard.net/sketchesQuick.htm Long poses http://iangoddard.net/sketches.htm * Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs), what are they? Here's a review I wrote on recent OBE research and the effect of such research on explanatory models. This also appears in 'Noesis' no. 182: http://iangoddard.net/OBEs.htm * My analysis of the mysterious red rains of Kerala, India received positive notice by the University of Wisconsin's 'The Why Files' : http://whyfiles.org/shorties/207red_rain * What the hay, here's some simple proofs I did in a math class: http://iangoddard.net/proofs.htm I'd add more proofs, but it's too time consuming! So here I am, still striving for perfection, which I see as rigorously accurate modeling of reality... explicit rendering. Almost surely I'll never reach such a goal, but as they say, if you don't try you probably won't even get close. ~Ian ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr - MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Associate Click now to apply http://yahoo.degrees.info From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Nov 6 20:57:32 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:57:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] not to forget teachers' unions In-Reply-To: <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20061106205732.4112.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> We suffer a financial problem with "migrant" (often PC for illegal) student funding, there's limited funds for educating native American students to begin with, funding education for illegals doesn't help matters. Then too is the problem of teachers' unions; most teachers & their unions do care about students and care about schools, yet they are conflicted as along with limits on funding and the unaccountability associated with funding the education of illegals, teachers also have to concern themselves with their own pension and medical plans. Teachers' medical plans are good and their pensions are frequently excellent (or many teachers would have chosen other careers to begin with). So teachers have to look out for their own interests in an expensive educational system that also looks out for the interests of students who aren't even citizens. Also-- how to say this nicely-- some teachers aren't precisely teacher material, a certain percentage of them chose the teaching profession because teaching in a classroom and grading papers is sure a whole lot better than cleaning the deep frying mechanisms at Wendy's and Burger King. --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Nov 6 21:35:58 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:35:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except Message-ID: <14545876.369241162848958726.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Please let me preface this to say that I happen to fall in the Gould/Postman camp that believes IQ is a bogus measure of intelligence. So whether IQ is going up or down (i.e. the Flynn effect) is largely irrelevent. To me, what is relevant is how the supposedly intelligent are applying their intelligence and are adapting to a changing world. And as always, some people rise to the occasion and others don't, regardless of their supposed IQ scores or talents or the success or failure of their own parents or their parents expectations of them. I have noticed (ancedotally of course) a certain rise in some kinds of intelligence and a remarked drop in others. But that's for another thread. (Full disclosure: Having said the above, I seemed -- at least as a kid -- to have excelled at certain kinds of IQ testing, which is probably why I have such strong beliefs in IQ's irrelevance!) However... In my research on persons with high IQ (for the book), I came across the essays of Grady Towers. Some of you may know of him. He died, quite tragically, a number of years ago. But he had a multi-faceted intelligence and knew the world of ultra-high IQ intimately. His essay, "The Outsiders," is considered a classic analysis into the world of ultra-high IQ. http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html In it, he describes the work of Lewis Terman, who demonstrated the behavioral thresholds between levels of tested intelligence and the sad fact that after certain IQ thresholds are past -- in the case of this work, an IQ of 170 -- the odds of "success" as defined as using one's IQ in your life/work that benefits both the person and/or society and brings self-satisfaction, are few. Frankly, the number of ultra-high IQ people who burn out is amazing. I witnessed a number myself. So maybe "School" wasn't the culprit. Maybe these kids had other issues that led to their "failure to perform." And let's not forgot other psychological issues. Substance abuse, depression, bi-polar, schizophrenia, etc. I've know a few who fell off the supposed IQ ramp because of these. And I'm sure those with more acute autistic spectrum disorders have a hard time, too. Questions like 'So why did I/my child fail?' 'Why was I/they so unhappy at school?' are never answered adequately. We so easily fall into the role of accuser. Especially parents and as one, I can see my own tendencies to it in both myself and others. Obviously, we want what is best for our children. But do we always really know what is best? And are our personal experiences, and subsequent disappointments, always applicable to our children? And are they actually bad for us? I don't believe they are. In my own case, I hated public school, until high school, when I joined the 'theater kids.' There I had an outlet. Otherwise, school was just a disappointment. It wasn't until college that I felt I found my place. But I also believe that that which doesn't destroy me makes me stronger. Life is suffering. Move on. (I can come up with any number of cliched sayings...) But my kids are more socially well adjusted than I was. School isn't hell for them. They have different personalities than me. So I can't apply my experiences to them. I tend to believe that school is school. It is NOT an education. School exists to create cogs in the socio-economic machine. This doesn't make me happy, becasue it's not the 'ideal,' but that's the way it is. However, it is an important tool for socialization, simply because of the diversity involved in the school demographic. It is also an effective way to take in the cultural memes, which allow you to connect on a cultural level with your peers, which is important. I know the social aspects of primary and secondary school probably sucked for most of us. Really smart people often don't function well with people who don't understand what we're talking about. But that doesn't mean it isn't important to try. Because the world is filled with the average. And if you don't learn how to deal with them, what are you going to do? Stay home? Miss out on life? That's not an option to me. I know the arguments about the advantages of home-schooling, but having been involved with a cub scout pack with both home-schooled kids and regularly schooled kids, the home-schooled kids seemed pretty lonely and some had some problems socializing. Really effective home-schooling, that feeds both the brain and the individual in society, is beyond the logistical reach of most modern parents. To those who can pull off the trick -- Congratulations. It is not a public (or private) school's job to create a functional, well-honed mind. It is the job of the parents and the child. Both have to want it. If you have the mind and mental health to succeed, school only 'kills' if you let it. You can do both -- attend public school and still get the education you or your child deserve. It just might not be at school. Both my parents and I made sure I did. Whether you think it did any good, of course, is your own opinion! Respectfully, PJ p.s. -- You want a 'killer school' story? How about this one: I was 15 before I found out I had dyslexia. I only found out when I got to see my secret school file, which I wasn't supposed to see, but my guidence councelor snuck to me. In it, teachers as far back as 2nd grade had diagnosed me correctly with dyslexia. But they never told me OR MY PARENTS! Why? The notes in my file indicated they planned on using it to reign me back -- I was so advanced, they had to bring materials from the upper schools for me and I created a lot of work for my teachers. They figured leaving the dyslexia as it was would put some breaks on me and make me easier to manage. I created coping mechanisms myself, at a very young age, coming up with a lot of the dyslexia methods that I read about now, although mathematics and music notes still dance all over the page unless I'm relentless. I guess their plan didn't work, because I ended up skipping 6th grade anyway, which was the best thing they ever did for me. But I don't blame them. Not really. They were doing the best they could for the greatest number. And it was my responsibility to do the best for me. Which we both did. From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Nov 6 22:04:08 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:04:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Triad question? In-Reply-To: <454F89C6.807@lineone.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061106170240.03d106d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Transferred from another mailing list since this has been a topic here: From: "Chattoe-Brown, Dr E." Subject: Kirk and Coleman ... To: SIMSOC at JISCMAIL.AC.UK Dear All, Does anybody know whether the work by Jerome Kirk and James Coleman "Interaction in a 3-Person Group" which is often cited as "mimeo, Johns Hopkins Department of Social Relations" was substantively published elsewhere? If not, has anyone ever seen the mimeo? JSK seems to have gone through a phase of discussing simulations in rather little detail (perhaps work with his grad students?) in batches to make methodological points in the sixties and, because they are unpublished and/or "batched" into general methodology papers, it is hard to find out whether this work has been developed: cites of the overall papers aren't necessarily cites for any particular model. All the best, Edmund From eugen at leitl.org Mon Nov 6 22:16:11 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 23:16:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60611060901l15ea6bcdh3fd4bbc138c99f58@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> <7641ddc60611060901l15ea6bcdh3fd4bbc138c99f58@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061106221611.GC6974@leitl.org> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 12:01:41PM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Jeez, Eugen, you sound depressed. Reading libertarian-leaning No, just not irrationally exhuberant. You might or might not remember that just prior to the .bomb I wasn't exactly exhuberant, either. Where others saw the gleaming outskirts of the Singularity, I only saw a bubble about to pop. Well, I hate to repeat myself, but this one is going to be a really Big One. The only thing I don't know for sure is when exactly. Some say as early as 2007, some put that at 2012. It's hard to tell, because it's punctuated equilibrium psychology thing. In a number of different universes it has happened already. > economics blogs (Cafe Hayek, Marginal Revolution, Econlog) gives me a > totally different outlook, with the middle class shrinking by steady Yeah, the flavor varies widely, depending on which brand of koolaid you drink. > attrition into the affluent class, and an economical revolution due to I don't know the source of your numbers, but I'm hearing the entire middle class is taking a mud slide downwards. The situation only reverses in multiple megabuck (still single-digit, probably) country. I.e., the cutoff threshold is really high. The situation in the rural U.S. is arguably really dismal. > disappearing manufacturing costs in the offing. Yes, outsourcing production to hellholes which have no environmental nor labor protection really makes things cheap, at least as long energy is cheap enough so that transport doesn't figure much. On the plus side of things, we see lots of long-ailing societies in the process of bootstrap. As long as the ecosystem can still take it, that's a good thing. I'm not sure the ecosystem is taking it at all well, though. > I may be the inveterate optimist seeing a silver lining everywhere > ("The UFAI ante portas? Cool, it will fry all the guys I hate, too!") > so maybe I am prone to missing the dark clouds on the horizon but, > really, where is the evidence for doom (aside from the risk of UFAI in > the next 20 - 50 years, which is the only major existential threat I > am aware of)? There is no existential risks short-term, but most world economies are at the threshold of collapse, and the entire house of cards is entirely interconnected. The reasons are boring and manifold, and I'm sure you haven't missed them. The only thing which can pull us out is a concerted disruptive technology series, but I just don't see any signs for it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 22:19:01 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:19:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] =?windows-1252?q?the_self_identity_quest_=96_summa?= =?windows-1252?q?tion_to_Bradbury=2C_Wallace_and_Jef?= Message-ID: Robert Bradbury write: ?.. I am willing to go on record, as stating that info-identity is a legitimate process of preserving oneself. Most people considering "identity" are doing so in an information constrained world (i.e. it is impossible to copy oneself). But this will not always be the case. A copy of information imprinted on 3 lbs of wet matter will not always be "unique". So David's choice of selling point aside one has to deal with 1 = 1 = 1... and you can apply it to the left of or to the right of as selling points but you still have to get back to "is it identical". I have no problem with people treating copies of Robert as if they were Robert. surrogates (copies) filling in for = substituting - me. In particular I would like to know *who* would be so presumptuous as to claim knowing when I have been replaced by one of my copies and how they would know such. Robert through your inspiration and others here, I could have come to phrase this new angle, and this is also a kind of summation to the discussion about identity capture and reanimation from my point of view: info-resurrection can be defined as minimal and maximal option. Firstly, on its minimal viewpoint INRES is an impressive virtual statue of oneself, as Russel Wallace phrased it: "metaphorical immortality through one's works - that's a familiar enough concept. Sort of the digital equivalent of getting a statue of yourself But the thing about statues is, they get done because people think they look cool. So go ahead and create a digital monument to yourself, and do it in such a way that it looks cool - nice site layout and suchlike. Then point people to it and say "wouldn't you like one of these for yourself?" Russel this is a fantastic vision which I wholeheartedly adopt, Yet I would add your view is the minimal option. mine is the maximal option that it is going to be your true virtual immortality, So why not support it anyway, even if you don't think it will be totally your self identity, - and see my work http://davidishalom1.googlepages.com/home for the contrary - yet, even if you are not sure about that, even if you don't believe that it will be you, who will wake up, nevertheless, why not capture your personality and create vivid and convincing simulation of yourself, someone/s who talk like you, think like you ? and million times faster as well ? look like you ? only your improved and enhanced you in the cyber space; and as Jef holds be your true and full agent, and even if you don't think it will be you, surely it will be your mind child, and since we inclined to wish good to our genetic children, isn't it time we originate, create, and wish all the best to our mind children, to our mind clone? Yet as is mentioned in my work about info-resurrection (my site is cleaned from yellowish highlights thanks to some advice here) only after emergence of really intelligent AI next decade, we will be able to run these vivid and convincing simulation about ourselves, probably more than one simulation synchronously, vivid and convincing avatar/s of ourselves, and this will gain huge popularity in the Net, while everyone will have his virtual self there ?self agent/s, according to Jef Allbright theory - not only to live, experience and evolve, but to exercise improving fidelity and identification of oneself with your virtual self. At this stage, I am not talking yet about conscious personalized AI of yourself, but as long as you continue to live, the intimacy and identification between you and your virtual you, your true and complete agent, in the cyberspace is just growing, later conscious artificial intelligence will emerging, until one day if you exidentally die phisically? and hopefully that will never happen :)- than instantly you wake up as your info-resurrected self or at least your mind clone. To Jef Allbright, your theory of agency as the source of personal identity " namely that multiple agents (can be said to) share the same personal identity to the extent that they (are observed to) act on behalf of a particular entity". is a thoughtful ingenuity no doubt. I tend to adopt this theory of "agency" to my eclectic repertoire of theories of the self identity, and I will integrate parts of your text here as well as Alice's story in my website: http://davidishalom1.googlepages.com/home all represented under your name for sure. I would advise you to check Joe Strout Fuzzy experience theory of the self - a summary in my site - since it is complementary to your theory. Yet I would suggest that your "agency theory of the self" is strongly contributing to representing the self from the outside point of view and maybe only partly so from the inside qualia- "is it me who will wake up" point of view - yet I have to delve on this more - and from this respect, maybe Max Mores The Diachronic Self, come better for our rescue. Further I would suggest that all these theories of the self are complimentary and all of them, including yours give credence to the identity capture feasibility. Why so? you state "? If we extend the concept of agency, we see the agent taking on more and more resemblance to the principle, in terms of knowing the principle's values, beliefs and memories and being able to choose and take action in all such respects" and this parallel to what I mentioned above "only after emergence of really intelligent AI next decade, we will be able to run these vivid and convincing simulation about ourselves to their fullest, probably more than only one simulation synchronously, vivid and convincing avatar/s of ourselves, and this will gain huge popularity in the Net, while everyone will have his virtual self there ? self agent/s, doing his work and representing him there according to Jef Allbright - not only to live, experience and evolve, and represent us there, but to exercise improving fidelity and identification of oneself with your virtual self, your virtual agent. Moreover, who is my true and complete agent as you hold? This is something that can surely be captured, mainly more thoroughly with next decade personalized AI but even now for large extent. I would dare to say that Jef Allbright's "Agency Theory of the Self" do give more credence to the identity capture option and to the info-resurrection strategy. Jef, I was laughing like anything from your "he had been accused of a plot to blow up an asteroid belonging to the Bush family and had therefore been charged with terrorism under penalty of death." And much impressed by your imaginative plot and illuminative abilities". I look forward to your thoughtful comments. David Jef Allbright "Agency theory of the self" I will propose that a more encompassing concept of personal identity can be based on agency, namely that multiple agents (can be said to) share the same personal identity to the extent that they (are observed to) act on behalf of a particular entity. ?.This is agency, but to a very limited extent relative to what promises to be possible with future technologies. If we extend the concept of agency, we see the agent taking on more and more resemblance to the principle, in terms of knowing the principle's values, beliefs and memories and being able to choose and take action in all such respects? Consider the following scenarios: #1 With the intention of increasing my working bandwidth, I step into the duplicator box. A short time later two agents acting on behalf of the entity known (by everyone including himself) as Jef go to work. They happen to be physically (and thus functionally) the same as the original so the results are coincidentally the same as the patternist view. #2 With the intention of increasing my working bandwidth I step into the duplicator box. To avoid some confusion, I set the controls so that one copy will have blue skin, but be identical in all other respects. The two agents of Jef go to work. Would the patternist say they are not the same personal identity since there's an obvious physical difference? >From the point of view of agency, it's the same personal identity, but with different skin colors. If Jef's skin color were to change would we say he's a different person? #3 With the intention of temporarily increasing my working bandwidth I step into the duplicator box. To avoid confusion and dispute later on, I set the controls such that one copy will have blue skin and will also not feel hunger or boredom, and incidentally it will die within a short time (maybe due to not eating.) From the patternist point of view there are two different persons physically, functionally, and in terms of values. From the point of view of agency it's two of Jef, with one of them significantly modified. If Jef were in the hospital with a skin condition and a brain anomaly that caused lack of boredom would we say it isn't Jef? Note that the functions and actions of someone in hospital may be severely modified but they continue to act solely and entirely on behalf of the same entity. #4 With the intention of contributing to the worthwhile social cause of asteroid mining, but not being able to send my firstborn son, I step into the duplicator box. I send my duplicate off as a free agent to contribute to the cause, knowing that he will get a good pension and I probably won't ever see him again. The patternist view would insist that I was sending myself. The agency point of view would say I was sending a different person with an extremely strong resemblance, carrying my knowledge and skills. Note that if I had in fact sent my son, no one would think of doubting that he was ultimately a free agent, even though I was the sole direct cause of his enlistment. #5 Ten years after sending said free agent to the asteroid mines, he returns, informs me that he was converted to patternist thinking while away, and now claims equal share of my property, my projects and my wife. A patternist might claim (I remember Lee claiming this) that he would in fact be me, and I should be happy to have doubled my runtime and gladly find a way to share. #6 A few days later, I learn that the real reason he returned from the asteroid mines is that he had been accused of a plot to blow up an asteroid belonging to the Bush family and had therefore been charged with terrorism under penalty of death. Under patternist thinking, should I turn myself in, or under agent-based thinking, should I tell him he's in big trouble and might consider making a large political contribution while in hiding? #7 *Remember *Alice*? Under patternist thinking according to Lee, she died at some point even though someone continued on with her property, her relationships, and her name. Under agent-based personal identity, there's no question that we should see the 86 year old woman as a late instantiation of the entity known to all, including herself, as *Alice. *Furthermore, fifty years later, we would gladly interact with her variants and doubles exactly as if they were *Alice* in various alternate forms and places. * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 22:37:04 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:37:04 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] trio relationship, reply to Spike and Jef Message-ID: Spike your humor and sarcasm hold much truth known to me already, but this is another experience of a "an experimenter" as myself, and I am 57 now, but I have clues to success and then we'll three info-resurrect ourselves :) , and love and compassion and moral, can even be instantiated in three, and so often is not found in pair, so wish me good luck and I surely do report back. By the way, once I came across a nice book about MD... etc" BY Spike, is it you ?:) Ja "naturally", but your wife will surely help with these. She will have surprisingly little difficulty finding two additional men, and a second job for you to cover the increased expenses. Honest to jahweh, David, I would be very surprised if the ladies go for this notion. Even really rich guys can seldom pull it off. But if you work it out, congratulations. Do report back. Even if not, do report back anyway. We want to hear what your Indian wife hit you with when you suggested it. spike Jef Allbright" wrote: >> Might it be that the most effective >> relationship structure in terms of cost/benefit might be the triad? >> I'm not talking about polyamory or mriage ? trois but rather a >> stable, committed triadic relationship between three individuals >> in any combination of genders. > > Amazing what you say Jef, i am married to an Indian woman, I love > here,a few months ago i came to live in Israel and have new lover, > my wife is supposed to come soon to live with me, and i intend and > hope to maintain a trio, which i "naturally" there are some personal > and social difficulties, especially in conservative Jerusalem, yet > some personal advantages, but your claim is encouraging, will you > elaborate please ? David, when I suggested that triadic relationships might provide inherent advantages, I hinted (strongly, I thought), but did not make fully make explicit, that I thought this form might rise to predominance within a more highly developed (and more highly competitive) culture with individuals possessing a higher degree of awareness than the present situation. Jef, true, but personally I strive for higher awareness but only sometime achieve it, yet in the future, I intend to permanently be there and we are training ourselves to that future J As Keith Henson mentioned, evolutionary psychology provides a good basis for understanding much of the dynamics of human relationships at the individual and group level. There are strong reasons why such relationships are not stable within the social context. [Note to Keith: I studied Cosmidies and Toobey and others several years ago, but thanks anyway for the suggestion. ;-)] In your particular case, I wish you luck maintaining your relationship(s). Perhaps you and your partners should read Heinlein for inspiration. *Note that a high degree of openess and honesty is recommended, but rarely achieved over the course*." My reply: honesty and high degree of openness is a must, yet it sometimes should come gradually. . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Nov 6 22:37:15 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:37:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <20061106221611.GC6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20061106223715.58139.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Rafal, hope the housing bubble bursts big-time because the prices are IMO inflated. > [...]economics blogs (Cafe Hayek, Marginal Revolution, Econlog) gives me a > totally different outlook, with the middle class shrinking by steady >attrition[...] >Rafal --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon Nov 6 23:08:24 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:08:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Randall Randall" > It's possible, hypothetically, to erase all record to the level at which > no person can ever know that Trotsky existed Absolutely true. > and that's all that's required for this thought experiment. Absolutely false. > I find it deeply weird that you suggest that if no one knows > or has the capability to find out a fact, that fact ceases to exist. Yes, that would be indeed be deeply weird, if I had suggested it. > And that's why I included the bit you snipped about the random number > generator. I snipped that bit for 2 reasons: 1) I wasn't entirely sure I knew what the hell you were talking about. I'm not to this day. 2) This random number stuff, as near as I can tell, was designed to counter the runtime theory, a theory NOT proposed by me, therefore I felt no great need to defend it. Personally I can't see why running the same program a million trillion billion times is much better than running it just once. > Of course, you may be saying that "this unit" of John K Clark with >:which I'm speaking would try to continue to exist regardless of the > fate of other units, but if so, then your position reduces to mine. Bullshit. Why do I get out of the way of a runaway killer car? I gave you a logical reason, an emotional reason, and a evolutionary reason. All three reasons are absolutely ironclad and only one needed to do the trick. You're toast. You think I'm just bragging? Come on, try to pick apart my reasoning, I dare you! > If you remove one unit [....] No no no, I'm not letting you off the hook that easily. In my thought experiment I removed precisely nobody, I EXCHANGED the position of the brain of you and your "vastly different" copy, and guess what; subjectively nobody noticed, objectively nobody noticed, and even the universe didn't notice! Leibniz says that means they are the same thing and if it's good enough for Leibniz it's good enough for me. > a mind is merely a process running on a brain. Yes, and your point being ... > I would expect that this view of "mind" as something which doesn't require > any physical component [.....] I would never be so foolish as to say mind doesn't require a physical component, but the physical part is generic, anything will do. Asking for the position of mind is like asking what the number 4 smells like. And I'll make you a deal, if you tell me exactly where mind is I'll tell you exactly where the number 42 is hiding. > No one is disputing that the copy survives, John. The original, discuss, the copy, discuss; for God's sake people grow up! If you really believe in this putrid crap then one of 2 things about you must be true: 1) You reject the Scientific Method as Heartland does and believes in the sanctity of certain atoms. 2) You believe in the soul and you believe even Nanotechnology cannot duplicate the soul. I believe both beliefs are incredibly fantastically comically stupid, but that's just my opinion I could be wrong. But I'm not. John K Clark From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 23:13:23 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:43:23 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] young Leitl is born! (was extropian grandchildren..) In-Reply-To: <9A920D3D-54BD-4675-9114-947554DFFD75@mac.com> References: <9A920D3D-54BD-4675-9114-947554DFFD75@mac.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0611061513y7d5abe3dh54fbb4a8ac901230@mail.gmail.com> Congratulations Eugen! Emlyn On 06/11/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Eugen, > > Congratulations to you, to Kiki and to Laurin! > > Amara, congratulations also on godmotherhood. > > - samantha > > On Nov 5, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > > > Eugene: > >> It would be so ironic if demographics and education would shoot > >> down our > >> chance for Singularity within the narrow launch horizon. If we mess > >> it > >> up real good this time, our grandchildren might not have an > >> opportunity > >> for another shot. > > > > If I may interject ... > > > > And Eugene is interested indeed in children's education and his > > grandchildren. > > His baby boy, Laurin Leitl, was born 2 November. Mother Kiki and > > little > > Laurin are happy and healthy. > > > > Amara > > (godmother) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Nov 6 22:48:51 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:48:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent. Message-ID: <20061106224851.77734.qmail@web52615.mail.yahoo.com> John K Clark wrote: >> Why should properties of a mind/self resemble >> quantum properties of electrons? > > A mind does not have the quantum properties of an > electron, but a brain does. Have all quantum properties that defy macroscopic behaviors been observed in atoms or their components when they're embedded in some material? It seems all (of the little) I've read on QM involves atoms or their components separated from any atomic grouping, as, for example, electrons or photons flying across 'open' space. So I've wondered if nonlocal behavior is a potential result of being separated from some atomic grouping, and so when atoms are bound together, such nonlocality may not be the case. Delving into QM is one of those things that sits too long on my back burner. I've made some preliminary study of quantum logic, which looks like the best place to start... and I'll get back to it asap. ;^) >> But I see no reason to assume that the self of the >> original brain would be somehow connected to its >> copy. > > In thought experiments people always take the part > of the original, but try being the copy. Yesterday > I copied you and then instantly destroyed the > original. Do you feel dead? You still remember > being you yesterday and last year and when you were > nine, you can see no discontinuity between yesterday > and today. You had no last thought so you have no > reason to complain,. And if I didn't tell you I'd > made the copy you'd never had known anything > unusual had happened. What more do you expect from > survival? It's true I can't ask the you of > yesterday his opinion on the matter, but that is > ALWAYS true even without my pesky copying. I agree that the copy living on would be satisfied that it survived and was 'me'. Maybe too, in line with your argument, every time I go into deep sleep, the 'I' of before dies, and a new 'I' emerges upon waking up. Notice that the logical identity analyses I posted may run into trouble with respect to any person over time. Today I have properties I lacked yesterday, does that mean I'm not that Ian? Personal identity may call upon a dynamic intensional model of identity, rather than the static one I proposed. Consider deep sleep further. It would seem that each time I'm in deep sleep, 'I' cease to exist, or exist only as the potential of being reanimated when the brain wakes up. So suppose the neuro-electric signal to 'wake up' was rerouted into a perfect copy of my brain exactly as it was when I went to sleep. Will 'I' wake up? Or suppose a copy brain was attached to me like: http://www.nicolaas.net/dvorak/future/zaphod.jpg and suppose one or both could be active. Do 'I' exist in two locations? Hmmm... I'm still inclined to answer both questions with 'no'. It just seems to me that each brain (or brain copy) is its own machine. Even if the output of each is indistinguishable to an observer, they're still distinguishable in that they're two machines (hearkening back to Leibniz's Law). Perhaps analogies can be found that blur that line more... what about if half of my brain was a copy of half removed... ? Then I'd see the whole as one 'me'. But then suppose the remaining half was replaced is a copy of that half too. Then what? Perhaps better still (and someone's probably already raised this). Just suppose for the sake of argument that it's possible that as each brain cell died during normal aging, a copy is put in its place. Now keep supposing until no carbon-based cell is left. Well, what we have is in effect a copy of a brain that existed. And this copy was always in the same location as the original. Now my inclination seems to shift to believing that copy would be me. But am I justified in shift my view at this point? Hmmm... ~Ian http://iangoddard.net "Our greatest illusion is to believe that we are what we think ourselves to be." -- Henri Amiel ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link $200,000 mortgage for $660/mo - 30/15 yr fixed, reduce debt, home equity - Click now for info http://yahoo.ratemarketplace.com From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 23:23:08 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 01:23:08 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Religion worked for survival - Russel Wallace Message-ID: *Russel you write:..."there's no rational reason for believing in the Singularity either (yes, like most myths it was inspired by some nuggets of truth, but the vast bulk of what's written about it, is as much a fable as Noah bringing two of each animal aboard the ark). I don't see you going around proclaiming this to be irrational. David comment: for believing in the Singularity there are absolutely rational reasons, yet to all the rest of what you say here I heartily harmonize with, its wise and out of the box. i would add that this tendency of many transhumanist to go against religion is not contributing to transhumanism spreading to the vast masses of humanity and just holding this crucial meme as marginal and rejected by humanity at large. *i am much surprised at Samantha, who has taken a leading role in the transhuman religion group and now turns so vehemently against what she was supporting there ?! > What do you mean "it worked"? What worked exactly? I am really at a loss as to what you meant by this paragraph. *"Religion worked for survival. Look at what happens to modern cultures where religion is gone: they fall apart into self-hatred and nihilism, birth rates plummeting below extinction level, their people rapidly headed for oblivion. The greatest civilization that ever existed on this planet is dying, in what should have been its hour of triumph - dying not of any external threat, but of its own parasite memes; and who will pick up the torch once we are gone?" * Really? I know an awful lot of atheists who are very delighted with life and this universe and consider life extremely full > *If that works for them, great, though I will note that most people who give up belief in God, in order to find meaning in life, need to substitute some equivalent belief: aliens, the Singularity, reincarnation or whatever*. > What fanatical religious preachers taught them this, you may wonder? Why, > some of the names are quite familiar. Gould, Dawkins, Dennett. > > This is beyond the pale. I'm sorry it offends you to see things called by their right names. Preach? There is no rational reason for believing in God that I am aware of. There's no rational reason for believing in the Singularity either (yes, like most myths it was inspired by some nuggets of truth, but the vast bulk of what's written about it is as much a fable as Noah bringing two of each animal aboard the ark). I don't see you going around proclaiming this to be irrational. * * Theism has done a great deal of harm. But far more good than harm. A parable, quoting from memory so the wording may not be accurate, but the gist of it is: Young man: "I can see no use for that fence, let's get rid of it." Old man: "Certainly not. Go and study the problem some more, and when you come back and tell me you _can_ see a use for it... _then_ we can start talking about whether to get rid of it." Superstitious and irrational thinking does even more. How is it preaching to say this is so? Again, what is your beef? I don't see anything you seem to be saying in the actual article. > It isn't about Dennett's article - if it were just him, I wouldn't have said anything. It's about the prevailing meme in Western intellectual circles these days that tearing down Christianity and its value system is somehow a rational or wise thing to do. Are you claiming that those who say what they honestly thing about religion and theism should be despised or censored for saying it? > *I have not advocated censoring anyone. What I think should be done is this: when Dawkins goes around using his science to preach atheism, someone - it'd have to be someone who'd be listened to, something like a professor of evolutionary biology at a well-known university would be ideal - should stand up and say: "Dawkins is of course entitled to preach his religious beliefs - in his capacity as a private citizen. Science says nothing whatsoever about the existence or nonexistence of God, and it is a fallacy to claim it as authority on either side of that debate." * We all agree teaching science is important. I claim it is equally important to teach that science is compatible with pro-survival value systems. Not one of these people says that science proves there is no god. > Have you actually read any of Gould or Dawkins' recent works? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061106/6c0b944b/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au Mon Nov 6 23:27:42 2006 From: c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au (Colin Geoffrey Hales) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:27:42 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <20061106221611.GC6974@leitl.org> References: <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> <7641ddc60611060901l15ea6bcdh3fd4bbc138c99f58@mail.gmail.com> <20061106221611.GC6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <3247.139.168.42.79.1162855662.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 12:01:41PM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ### Jeez, Eugen, you sound depressed. Reading libertarian-leaning > > No, just not irrationally exhuberant. You might or might not remember > that just prior to the .bomb I wasn't exactly exhuberant, either. > Where others saw the gleaming outskirts of the Singularity, I only saw a > bubble about to pop. Well, I hate to repeat myself, but this one is > going to be a really Big One. The only thing I don't know for sure is > when exactly. Some say as early as 2007, some put that at 2012. > It's hard to tell, because it's punctuated equilibrium psychology > thing. In a number of different universes it has happened already. > Hi Eugene... I am still aiming for 2012. Although it is looking a little opimistic at the moment. So put me down for the 2012 timeslot with an option for 2015. My chip design proof of principle simulations will be done 2010 (end of my PhD - it's my project). Then chip fabrication for the first experiments to prove the chips are having experiences. After that it'll get let loose on humanity and 7 billion pairs of hands might give it a leg up. Although I still think we're gonna have trouble wanting them to be alive! The first creatures will be sort of single-cell-scientists. A bridge of them comparing notes, doing science on novelty (novelty to them, anyway). The scientists are all inside each other, able to compare experiences. Grafting human brains together to do the equivalent on humans has a few ethical hurdles! It all depends on whther the AGI that results can sort out the nanotech required for the subsequent versions of the chips. Until that is done they'll all be made with existing fabrication/embodiment techniques and no self-replication will be involved. So the exact timing is a bit debatable. There's going to be a big change to science next year, tho. A sort of Kuhnian shake-out. I'm madly pressing all those buttons right now. I suppose I'm pressing it here too. It's slowly sinking in. I'm hammering 3 other email forums (fora?) as best I can. I am on a leave of absence from my PhD until Jan and after that I won't have time to press that button any more. Don't think the science thing counts as a singularity, however. Although historians might view it that way. All good fun, regardless. :-) Colin Hales From randall at randallsquared.com Mon Nov 6 23:41:24 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:41:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3826AF26-6E76-4BB9-AA08-3EF4103D6E01@randallsquared.com> On Nov 6, 2006, at 6:08 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Randall Randall" >> No one is disputing that the copy survives, John. > > The original, discuss, the copy, discuss; for God's sake people > grow up! If > you really believe > in this putrid crap then one of 2 things about you must be true: > > 1) You reject the Scientific Method as Heartland does and believes > in the > sanctity of certain atoms. > > 2) You believe in the soul and you believe even Nanotechnology cannot > duplicate the soul. > > I believe both beliefs are incredibly fantastically comically > stupid, but > that's just my opinion I could be wrong. But I'm not. As far as I know, no one in this conversation believes in either your (1) or (2). One of three things must be true: 1) it may be that you didn't realize this (and that you need to ask Heartland what beliefs he actually *does* hold) 2) it may be that you are unwilling to accept any other position than they one you expect he holds, no matter what anyone says 3) it may be that you already knew that he doesn't really believe that (I'm including this one for completeness) For myself, I would say that the particular running process of Randall Randall that is now typing this email (which you'll see a copy of shortly) is the one that matters most to me, even if there are identical copies elsewhere. The fact that this copy and some other copy are bit for bit identical will not matter to me if this copy were to have something bad happen to it, any more than I would be consoled by the existence of other copies of a CD I own, were my copy to be broken in two. Nothing about the specific atoms matters; it's the process. The atoms in this process change out constantly, but the process continues. -- Randall Randall "'The police got all the best stuff. They?re crookeder than us,' one man said." - http://tinyurl.com/85ltr From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 23:49:56 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:49:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] all that concerns me is the future of education In-Reply-To: <06f401c7012c$ffbfb0d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061105001850.59776.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> <062801c70091$02bb8490$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240611050926l6a87c935p582c1dfe61c34f81@mail.gmail.com> <06f401c7012c$ffbfb0d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240611061549l10bf33d1r6668cb4dd9686b87@mail.gmail.com> On 11/5/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > We may actually be in agreement, but I am having difficulty with > > the terms you are using and how you are presenting your ideas. > > I hope I am misreading your intentions. > > Could be :-) Let's be open, frank, and honest, and---naturally--- > write as clearly as we can about our conjectures. > I think you clarified your position in another post to someone else. I remember thinking, "Ok, I WAS misunderstanding Lee." Thanks for responding to my last post on this topic though... Do you think "we" (ExI-members) are an exclusive bunch? Do you think there is reason to be so? I feel I am still on a probation of sorts with regard to posting here. I'm not really sure what the list mission is (vs. CSS-d for example) becuase the point is intentionally more broad-brush. I do enjoy socializing with the smart(er) kids because I so rarely get to do so in my day-to-day life. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 23:53:53 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:53:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sex, Power and Single H+er In-Reply-To: References: <15616726.275921162791214745.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <62c14240611061553o35f899c3n995444d91063232f@mail.gmail.com> On 11/6/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I will state that as of this date (6 Nov 2006) there is no conspiracy that > I am to my knowledge involved in. > Isn't that the problem with conspiracies? The ones you know about probably aren't conspiracies -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Mon Nov 6 23:59:26 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:59:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday Message-ID: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> I offer the following advance prediction: Initially, pollsters will predict that Democrats will take the House, but not the Senate. When the actual election results are reported, it will turn out that Republicans kept control of the House by a significant margin. There will be much anguished recrimination among Democrats, but few mainstream media sources will suggest that the election was stolen. Later, an eminent statistician will publish a study showing that there were significantly wider differences between polls and reported results in districts that use electronic voting machines. The story will not be taken up by the mainstream media. It will make a brief flurry in the blogosphere, then vanish. I could be wrong about all this. I hope I am. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Nov 6 23:59:42 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:59:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Religion worked for survival - Russel Wallace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061106235942.21550.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> No shortage of religion in the Mideast yet the region possesses an equal measure of nihilism & self hatred to ours. But as you imply, the Mideast birthrate is robust-- plenty of young boys born into religious families today to choose as their fate suicide bombing in the decade between 2020 and 2030. The greatest civilization that ever existed is "dying"? Can you prove it is "dying"? >Look at what happens > to modern cultures > where > religion is gone: they fall apart into self-hatred > and nihilism, birth rates > plummeting below extinction level, their people > rapidly headed for oblivion. > The greatest civilization that ever existed on this > planet is dying, in what > should have been its hour of triumph - dying not of > any external threat, but > of its own parasite memes; and who will pick up the > torch once we are gone?" > * > > > Really? I know an awful lot of atheists who are > very delighted with > life and this universe and consider life extremely > full > > > *If that works for them, great, though I will note > that most people who give > up belief in God, in order to find meaning in life, > need to substitute some > equivalent belief: aliens, the Singularity, > reincarnation or whatever*. > > > What fanatical religious preachers taught them > this, you may wonder? Why, > > some of the names are quite familiar. Gould, > Dawkins, Dennett. > > > > This is beyond the pale. > > I'm sorry it offends you to see things called by > their right names. > > Preach? There is no rational reason for believing > in God that I am aware > of. > > There's no rational reason for believing in the > Singularity either (yes, > like most myths it was inspired by some nuggets of > truth, but the vast bulk > of what's written about it is as much a fable as > Noah bringing two of each > animal aboard the ark). I don't see you going around > proclaiming this to be > irrational. * > * > Theism has done a great deal of harm. > > But far more good than harm. > > A parable, quoting from memory so the wording may > not be accurate, but the > gist of it is: > > Young man: "I can see no use for that fence, let's > get rid of it." > Old man: "Certainly not. Go and study the problem > some more, and when you > come back and tell me you _can_ see a use for it... > _then_ we can start > talking about whether to get rid of it." > > Superstitious and irrational thinking does even > more. How is it > preaching to say this is so? Again, what is your > beef? I don't see > anything you seem to be saying in the actual > article. > > > > It isn't about Dennett's article - if it were just > him, I wouldn't have said > anything. It's about the prevailing meme in Western > intellectual circles > these days that tearing down Christianity and its > value system is somehow a > rational or wise thing to do. > > Are you claiming that those who say what they > honestly thing about > religion and theism should be despised or censored > for saying it? > > > > *I have not advocated censoring anyone. What I think > should be done is this: > when Dawkins goes around using his science to preach > atheism, someone - it'd > have to be someone who'd be listened to, something > like a professor of > evolutionary biology at a well-known university > would be ideal - should > stand up and say: "Dawkins is of course entitled to > preach his religious > beliefs - in his capacity as a private citizen. > Science says nothing > whatsoever about the existence or nonexistence of > God, and it is a fallacy > to claim it as authority on either side of that > debate." > * > We all agree teaching science is important. I claim > it is equally important > to teach that science is compatible with > pro-survival value systems. > > Not one of these people says that science proves > there is no god. > > > > Have you actually read any of Gould or Dawkins' > recent works? > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061106/6c0b944b/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Nov 7 00:36:39 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:36:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> References: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> Message-ID: <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 06:59 PM 11/6/2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >I offer the following advance prediction: >Initially, pollsters will predict that Democrats will take the House, >but not the Senate. >When the actual election results are reported, it will turn out that >Republicans kept control of the House by a significant margin. You have assigned no probability to your forecast. Betting markets now give a 20% chance to the Republicans keeping the House, so if you assign a higher probability you should expect to make money betting on your prediction. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 01:04:17 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:04:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John K Clark (in response to Randall Randall): > In my thought experiment I removed precisely nobody, I EXCHANGED the position of > the brain > of you and your "vastly different" copy, and guess what; subjectively nobody > noticed, objectively nobody noticed, and even the universe didn't notice! > Leibniz says that means they are the same thing and if it's good enough for > Leibniz it's good enough for me. What is so holy about somebody noticing? If I didn't notice back in 2004 that Bush was reelected would that change the fact that he was reelected? And, yet again, I remind you that Leibniz never claimed any such thing (although I realize that these attempts are probably futile). John K Clark: > The original, discuss, the copy, discuss; for God's sake people grow up! If > you really believe > in this putrid crap then one of 2 things about you must be true: > > 1) You reject the Scientific Method as Heartland does and believes in the > sanctity of certain atoms. That is a lie and you know it. Apparently you invent this nonsense just so you can safely argue against it so when others read your posts you trick them into taking your side with the added bonus that the person who disagrees with you looks like a fool and you look like a hero. [and below is just one of many examples of what I'm talking about] John K Clark: > 2) You believe in the soul and you believe even Nanotechnology cannot > duplicate the soul. > > I believe both beliefs are incredibly fantastically comically stupid, but > that's just my opinion I could be wrong. But I'm not. Gee, you must be such a good guy for fighting these evil soul-believers. Meanwhile, I doubt Randall (or I) who you accuse of this believes in souls. Why can't you just accept that you just don't get it and move on? One, you're confused as to what "person" is. Two, you don't (or refuse to) understand the definition of "identity" yet none of this stops you from talking about "personal identity". If you recall, at the beginning of this particular chain of threads, I suggested you read this introductory and objective article on personal identity. You've almost certainly ignored it but I think you would benefit from familiarizing yourself with the topic before you start arguing about PI with other people. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/ Slawomir From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 01:23:04 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:23:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday References: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> Message-ID: Eliezer: >I offer the following advance prediction: > > Initially, pollsters will predict that Democrats will take the House, > but not the Senate. > > When the actual election results are reported, it will turn out that > Republicans kept control of the House by a significant margin. There > will be much anguished recrimination among Democrats, but few mainstream > media sources will suggest that the election was stolen. > > Later, an eminent statistician will publish a study showing that there > were significantly wider differences between polls and reported results > in districts that use electronic voting machines. The story will not be > taken up by the mainstream media. It will make a brief flurry in the > blogosphere, then vanish. > > I could be wrong about all this. I hope I am. Yes, I've thought about this recently and came to similar conclusions although I don't think Republicans will take the House by a significant margin. It would just look too ridiculous when compared with polling data. Another prediction. After Republicans take both House and the Senate by slim margins, Bush will start talking about the "political capital" again and how he intends to spend it. Slawomir From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Nov 7 01:28:29 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:28:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20061107012829.18542.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> You are probably right, even if not, then in a later election someone like a Newt Gingrich-- only younger-- will come along to mobilize the more cohesive Republicans. The conservatism of America in general and red states in particular is consistently underestimated by its nonconservative opponents. BTW what Kerry said was dumbass & asinine, but it will have a negligible effect on the election. I live in a red state and in some ways it is a 20th century state, and in some ways a 19th century state. It sure aint 21st century. > I offer the following advance prediction: > > Initially, pollsters will predict that Democrats > will take the House, > but not the Senate. > > When the actual election results are reported, it > will turn out that > Republicans kept control of the House by a > significant margin. There > will be much anguished recrimination among > Democrats, but few mainstream > media sources will suggest that the election was > stolen. > > Later, an eminent statistician will publish a study > showing that there > were significantly wider differences between polls > and reported results > in districts that use electronic voting machines. > The story will not be > taken up by the mainstream media. It will make a > brief flurry in the > blogosphere, then vanish. > > I could be wrong about all this. I hope I am. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for > Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Nov 6 23:57:24 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:57:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] young Leitl is born! (was extropian grandchildren..) Message-ID: <380-220061116235724667@M2W006.mail2web.com> CONGRATUATIONS 'gene! > > His baby boy, Laurin Leitl, was born 2 November. Mother Kiki and > > little Laurin are happy and healthy. > > > > Amara > > (godmother) Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Nov 7 01:51:13 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:51:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Some of my Recent Creations In-Reply-To: <20061106200529.99006.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061106200529.99006.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <34098.72.236.103.228.1162864273.squirrel@main.nc.us> > FYI: here's some of my recent output... > > * After an eight-year hiatus I picked up > pad n pencil and began attending some local > figure-drawing sessions. See some results: > > Short poses > http://iangoddard.net/sketchesQuick.htm > > Long poses > http://iangoddard.net/sketches.htm > Hm. *I'm* impressed! :) My mom used to do watercolors. Very pretty things. Have a number of them here in my home. Me, I can barely write! :))) Regards, MB From sentience at pobox.com Tue Nov 7 02:27:11 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:27:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > > You have assigned no probability to your forecast. Betting markets > now give a 20% chance to the Republicans keeping the House, so if > you assign a higher probability you should expect to make money > betting on your prediction. That's fair. Where would I put a quick bet on my prediction, legally? (If you happen to know.) -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Tue Nov 7 02:22:10 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:22:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <20061107012829.18542.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> <20061107012829.18542.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 11/6/06, Al Brooks wrote: > BTW > what Kerry said was dumbass & asinine, but it will > have a negligible effect on the election. A tangential note: I guess my being in grad school tends to make me live in kind of a bubble -- I had no idea what this comment about Kerry was referring to until I looked it up just now. The particularly funny thing is that I live a half-mile from Pasadena City College (where Kerry made the comment), and pass by it every day on my way to lab. I didn't even realize until now that Kerry had been in town. Hmm. -- Neil From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Nov 7 02:45:05 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:45:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] the self identity quest - summation to Bradbury, Wallace and Jef In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David, I'll mention again that your messages are at risk of being ignored if you don't use plain text (it's a gmail setting) and be as concise as possible. david ish shalom wrote: > I would advise you to check Joe Strout Fuzzy experience theory I'm pretty sure I came across his writing already and found it to be too fuzzy. Fuzzy or multivalued logic is okay with me, as long as it's crisply defined. > of the self - a summary in my site - since it is complementary > to your theory. Yet I would suggest that your "agency theory of the self" I proposed a theory of personal identity based on agency, but I don't say anything (there) about the nature of self. You are displaying the category confusion mentioned in my preface. It's a bit ironic that you, Slawomir, and others refer to Max's "Diachronic Self" as if you understand it but don't seem to understand the meaning or the significance of the word "diachronic" in the title. You need only ask Google and receive enlightenment (with a bit of serious analytical thinking on your part). > is strongly contributing to representing the self from the outside point of view Yes, I prefer the scientific method of describing systems from an increasingly objective "outside" point of view. I utilize the subjective point of view for issues of value and meaning. > and maybe only partly so from the inside qualia A key point of personal identity based on agency is that it provides a coherent framework with no need for any immeasurable externalities while recognizing the valid role of subjectivity in assigning meaning. "Qualia" is similar to "phlogiston" or "?lan vital" in that it serves no useful purpose other than to represent a particular erroneous or superfluous concept. Thinking in terms of qualia is related to the Cartesian bias I mentioned in the essay. > -"is it me who will wake up" point of view As mentioned in the essay, one can argue logically from the ontological basis that you are not the same as before you went to sleep. Perfectly valid -- within the ontological domain. Does it apply in real life? No not really--because how we perceive reality is a different domain. If you don't understand this you might want to google, or even just play around with examples in your mind. "Is that a cat?" No, because any observable cat is only an approximation of a Platonic ideal..., or "I can't know, since my only information is through my imperfect senses..." But we have no trouble recognizing a cat in a useful and effective way. If you get comfortable with thinking in terms of systems rather than Cartesian minds, most, if not all of these confusions fall away. We can never know a Self, but we certainly can model, predict, and respond to stimuli within our environment. > - yet I have to delve on this more - and from this respect, > maybe Max Mores The Diachronic Self, come better for our rescue. > Further I would suggest that all these theories of the self are > complimentary and all of them, including yours give credence to > the identity capture feasibility. I think identity capture *does* make sense. So do many people on this list. It's easy for me because I don't have to wonder how you're going to capture the soul or unique essence of a person. You don't have to sell us on the idea. Note that I responded earlier saying that I think you're aiming in the right direction but falling short of the target. But I AM NOT aware of any technology at hand, other than possibly cryonic preservation, that has a reasonable chance of capturing the essential complexity of a human identity. That's why I asked you whether you really believed that this software that you are promoting is going to be "perfect" solution. - Jef From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Nov 7 03:27:52 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:27:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061107032752.59745.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Don't worry about it-- only autodidact futurists such as myself care about an unconscionable remark a washed-up (Kerry is now finished) politician makes. But here's a prediction for the 2008 election: even if a Democrat or Independent wins the executive branch that year, the other branches will remain conservative because the red states dominate the US; how many states are there that are not red? several n. eastern seaboard states (NY; NJ; MA; CT; VT; RI) and a few other states scattered around the country. Not too good. "Neil H." wrote: A tangential note: I guess my being in grad school tends to make me live in kind of a bubble -- I had no idea what this comment about Kerry was referring to until I looked it up just now. The particularly funny thing is that I live a half-mile from Pasadena City College (where Kerry made the comment), and pass by it every day on my way to lab. I didn't even realize until now that Kerry had been in town. Hmm. -- Neil --------------------------------- Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Nov 7 02:29:56 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:29:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> References: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> Message-ID: <0J8C003UQ9LV4V00@caduceus1.gmu.edu> > > You have assigned no probability to your forecast. Betting markets > > now give a 20% chance to the Republicans keeping the House, so if > > you assign a higher probability you should expect to make money > > betting on your prediction. > >That's fair. Where would I put a quick bet on my prediction, legally? >(If you happen to know.) http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/ But there may not be time for you to get an account before the election is over. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From hibbert at mydruthers.com Tue Nov 7 03:07:13 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:07:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> References: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> Message-ID: <454FF861.9090109@mydruthers.com> > That's fair. Where would I put a quick bet on my prediction, legally? > (If you happen to know.) For play money, you could start at foresight exchange and trade as quick as you can set up an account, though the initial allowance is low. http://www.ideafutures.com/ And they have claims on who will control the senate, but not the house: http://www.ideafutures.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=RSen06 For real money, quick isn't possible. The real-money betting sites all require deposits (by mail or bank transfer) before betting. The main sites are: Iowa Electronic Markets (IEM). Apparently legal; they have a no-action letter from the CFTC. You can deposit up to $500. http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem TradeSports, in Ireland, supports Americans betting on politics. They believe they are legal, but it's not possible to say so with confidence. The recent federal gambling law only explicitly applies to gambling on sports, but there are lots of other laws. https://www.tradesports.com/ Betfair is British or Irish, I think. They seem to have decided that their focus on sports makes them too attractive a target, and they're not currently accepting deposits from Americans. Unless you're an experienced gambler, their interface won't make any sense to you. (They use American-style gambling odds rather than percentages.) http://betfair.com Chris -- C. J. Cherryh, "Invader", on why we visit very old buildings: "A sense of age, of profound truths. Respect for something hands made, that's stood through storms and wars and time. It persuades us that things we do may last and matter." Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org http://mydruthers.com From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Nov 7 03:38:41 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:38:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Its going to be a done deal soon Message-ID: I will not comment on the recent EY vs. RH discussion. I will claim the platform of "I don't know (now)" I will point out that it will be known about 24 hours from now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Tue Nov 7 03:39:32 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:39:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <20061107032752.59745.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061107032752.59745.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <454FFFF4.2000909@goldenfuture.net> For those who are interested in what the 2008 election might look like (according to the electoral college, not just a popular vote), take a gander here: http://www.surveyusa.com "on *Monday, 11/13/06*, SurveyUSA will release the results 60 presidential pairings, in 50 states. That?s 3,000 separate, exclusive, copyrighted statewide poll combinations ? results that handicap the 2008 presidential election with breathtaking, and sometimes unexpected, clarity, to a level of precision never before contemplated. Some head-to-head pairings produce Electoral landslides. Other pairings produce the closest Electoral College results since Reconstruction. But there is learning from every match-up. And this learning is indispensable if you have a stake in who will be the *44th President of the United States*." 6 days and counting... Joseph Al Brooks wrote: > Don't worry about it-- only autodidact futurists such as myself care > about an unconscionable remark a washed-up (Kerry is now finished) > politician makes. > But here's a prediction for the 2008 election: even if a Democrat or > Independent wins the executive branch that year, the other branches > will remain conservative because the red states dominate the US; how > many states are there that are not red? several n. eastern seaboard > states (NY; NJ; MA; CT; VT; RI) and a few other states scattered > around the country. Not too good. > > > */"Neil H." /* wrote: > > A tangential note: I guess my being in grad school tends to make me > live in kind of a bubble -- I had no idea what this comment about > Kerry was referring to until I looked it up just now. The particularly > funny thing is that I live a half-mile from Pasadena City College > (where Kerry made the comment), and pass by it every day on my way to > lab. I didn't even realize until now that Kerry had been in town. > > Hmm. > > -- Neil > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Nov 7 03:40:38 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:40:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <62c14240611061940r77d39112xc174c827d9f4e795@mail.gmail.com> On 11/6/06, Heartland wrote: > almost certainly ignored it but I think you would benefit from > familiarizing > yourself with the topic before you start arguing about PI with other > people. > "arguing about pi" there's nothing to argue about, it's the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle :) My wife's aunt is a physics teacher who often hosts thanksgiving dinner, so a few years ago I asked: What's the formula for determining thanksgiving dessert? Answer: 2(pi)r > 1 (She has no understanding of a "small slice" of pie, so I must request an arc of the whole measuring 22.5 degrees) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Nov 7 03:54:25 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:54:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] I apologize for being snappish Message-ID: I want to publicly apologize for my overly critical tone in some of my most recent emails. I allowed my frustration over years of apparent lack of progress on some very old topics to cause me to be excessively and generally critical in response to individuals who are in no way responsible for the weight of my frustration. I'll try to tone it down now. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Nov 7 03:57:31 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:57:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] [private message] speaking of electoral college In-Reply-To: <454FFFF4.2000909@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Bush as you know didn't steal the election in 2000, the rules on a tie allow for an election to be settled in court. My commie friends say "but that's so subjective"; of course it is-- that's what politics is mostly, the whims of the electorate the moment they are in the voting booths; then they change a little by the next election until after many generations the situation does substantially change. You're old enough to remember the '80s, right? Things have changed little since then. Joseph Bloch wrote: For those who are interested in what the 2008 election might look like (according to the electoral college, not just a popular vote), take a gander here --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Free Uniden 5.8GHz Phone System with Packet8 Internet Phone Service -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Nov 7 03:32:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:32:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <6A1AAFF4-6433-4118-B3F0-8EEB0A9D81EF@mac.com> Message-ID: <20061107033237.14537.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Samantha, Samantha writes: ..."No, I don't think so. I went through a "good" public school system that had nearly nothing for me. It was geared to some average, more numerous students' needs. I am not even at the stratospheric top of the intelligence chart. I knew more than a few really bright kids who dropped out out of boredom, frustration, feeling utterly alien to the entire scene and most of their "peers". A minority of them managed to release their brilliance into world to some (but I can't help believe diminished) degree regardless. Many of the withered or became very misshapen long before they even discovered what their capabilities were. By the time you can label the "extremely capable" in a non-mundane environment where their capabilities get noticed you have begged the question. Much potential is wasted before it can ever get to such an environment." I couldn't agree more. The current American public school system is a monumental disaster of epic proportions. Having graduated from a typical high school not too long ago, I can admit that my "hard time" in that prison nearly managed to sap the very last ounce of my intellectual curiosity. Frankly, it's remarkable that I have retained *any* scholarly interest whatsoever. I definitely don't think I'm a genius, but I have no doubt that I could have achieved far more by this time, if I had not been driven to levels of near-hatred for the various subjects being "taught" (read: "forced on me"). I'm not saying that public education in general is a bad thing. I do believe it's important. But our system needs *major* changes at the fundamental level. We need to start experimenting *now* with wreckless abandon - I don't think it could possibly get much worse than it currently is. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Samantha Atkins wrote: On Nov 5, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Mike writes > >> On 11/5/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > >>> Here is my solution: segregation. Segregation today, >>> segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. >>> Right now in California, everyone needs segregating: >>> because the white kids can't keep up with the Asians, >>> and many of them conclude that math, English, and >>> science are for smart kids, not them. As the whites can't >>> keep up with the Asians, the Hispanics can't keep up >>> with the whites, and the blacks can't keep up with the >>> hispanics, so we ought to go back to... yes, segregation. >> >> Why does it have to be racist and sexist? Why can't we >> 'segregate' (to use your negatively overloaded term) along >> dimension of performance capability? > > Oh, I agree. I was being a bit flippant, but as Robert has > just said, there is a point at least insofar as gender is concerned. > As for racial segregation, it really isn't practical anymore. For > one thing, it would just be politically (and probably socially) > impossible. For another, unlike the case of sex (gender), there > are a lot of people who are intermediary between races. And > you know what problems that would create! Guess again on gender being completely binary. > >> There ARE white kids who are smarter than the "average" >> asian, so why hold them to a lower standard due to genetics? > > Of course. But the point is that kids in schools can tend to > identify their capabilities in terms of everyone around them. > Not all kids to be sure. The extremely capable will be fine > no matter what. > No, I don't think so. I went through a "good" public school system that had nearly nothing for me. It was geared to some average, more numerous students' needs. I am not even at the stratospheric top of the intelligence chart. I knew more than a few really bright kids who dropped out out of boredom, frustration, feeling utterly alien to the entire scene and most of their "peers". A minority of them managed to release their brilliance into world to some (but I can't help believe diminished) degree regardless. Many of the withered or became very misshapen long before they even discovered what their capabilities were. By the time you can label the "extremely capable" in a non-mundane environment where their capabilities get noticed you have begged the question. Much potential is wasted before it can ever get to such an environment. - samantha - samantha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Sponsored Link For just $24.99/mo., Vonage offers unlimited local and long- distance calling. Sign up now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Tue Nov 7 03:48:10 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:48:10 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <454FF861.9090109@mydruthers.com> References: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> <454FF861.9090109@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <455001FA.3090108@posthuman.com> Chris Hibbert wrote: > > For real money, quick isn't possible. The real-money betting sites all > require deposits (by mail or bank transfer) before betting. > > The main sites are: > > TradeSports, in Ireland, supports Americans betting on politics. They > believe they are legal, but it's not possible to say so with confidence. > The recent federal gambling law only explicitly applies to gambling on > sports, but there are lots of other laws. > https://www.tradesports.com/ > I was just looking at this site and they say you can do instant deposits with a credit card. But I don't have an account with them or have any experience with so YMMV. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brian at posthuman.com Tue Nov 7 03:46:20 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:46:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> References: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4550018C.7050409@posthuman.com> tradesports.com is also running an active GOP Senate control item in their Politics section. This is based in the UK. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brian at posthuman.com Tue Nov 7 03:49:23 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:49:23 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> References: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> Message-ID: <45500243.8050609@posthuman.com> I forgot your claim was regarding the House not Senate. Tradesports also has a House bet still active. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From ken at javien.com Tue Nov 7 03:26:11 2006 From: ken at javien.com (Ken Kittlitz) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 20:26:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> References: <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20061106201906.041d9870@127.0.0.1> At 06:27 PM 11/6/2006 -0800, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >Robin Hanson wrote: > > > > You have assigned no probability to your forecast. Betting markets > > now give a 20% chance to the Republicans keeping the House, so if > > you assign a higher probability you should expect to make money > > betting on your prediction. > >That's fair. Where would I put a quick bet on my prediction, legally? >(If you happen to know.) If you'll settle for reputation karma rather than real money, you can try the Washington Stock Exchange: Disclaimer: I'm a co-founder. --- Ken Kittlitz http://www.javien.com From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Nov 7 04:35:29 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:35:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <20061107033237.14537.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061107043529.89402.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> What makes it even sadder is educators mean well but they can't comprehend how a system that might work well for tractor parts and deep frying vats at fast food franchises doesn't work well for education. You install a new clutch on a tractor and it works fine. Install students in a motley classroom, with disruptive behavior not uncommon, and you cannot expect uniformly favorable results. I talked with an old man who taught school in the 1940s and was very enthusiastic about education-- didn't have the heart to tell him today isn't 1949, what worked when Truman was president doesn't necessarily work now. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Free Uniden 5.8GHz Phone System with Packet8 Internet Phone Service http://www.getpacket8.net/yahoo2 From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Nov 7 04:50:04 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:50:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> <06c701c70128$57f91610$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <07b901c70228$4cf94360$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Randall writes >> But I say that these [very low order pain & fright reactions] >> are only "lower-order" aspects of one, >> and are not representative of who I truly am. If the scenario >> becomes less graphic, [no tiger bounding into the room or >> no Nurse Ratchet with a big needle] and one of [Lee's >> duplicates or the Lee original] must press a button >> and be disintegrated, then all of us would be indifferent as to >> who did so. If the button were in the room, we'd all reach >> for it, with the understanding that the last 999,999 would >> not be disintegrated. No instance would actually care a >> whit. > > Whereas all million units of Randall (using the below exchange > as my guide) would be trying to figure out how to avoid button > pressing at all. By hypothesis, one would be selected at random and perish, as of course you understand. >>> If you don't agree that the runtime lost would indeed be >>> infinitesimal, >> >> But it's not infinitesimal: it's one whole unit of John Clark or >> Lee Corbin. > > If you're willing to use this argument, then everything I would > say can be rephrased as "unit" rather than "person", and my own > concern is that this particular unit of Randall Randall continue. Slawomir and you agree with at least one other poster whose name I've temporarily forgotten: you value the instance rather than the pattern. But you do have to contend, I still think, with all sorts of crafty experiments drawn up by John Clark and those like us. True, Randall, I have seen you try to rebut these. But look at John Clark's posts just now; they clearly do away with your instance, but it's still clear that you survive by any normal meaning of words. > I'm not sure that this terminology change actually adds anything, > however. "Unit" (which I just used) is the same as the more common "instance". It does clarify. It states what you and the people who agree with you would do in certain thought experiments. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Nov 7 05:06:40 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:06:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <07e501c7022a$d2c1d9b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> John, getting really acerbic, writes > 2) This random number stuff, as near as I can tell, was designed to counter > the runtime theory, a theory NOT proposed by me, therefore I felt no great > need to defend it. Personally I can't see why running the same program a > million trillion billion times is much better than running it just once. So if it's true that there is an extremely similar (only a trillion or so atoms different with slightly different pattern) copy of you running on a planet of Alpha Centauri, it's okay if it or you die? Surely you demur. Okay, so it's only 3 atoms different, and the difference in pattern is also incredibly tiny. This is in effect running the same program twice, once here and once at Alpha Centauri. You don't think that it benefits your pattern to have both instances continue? And if there is, a billion years from now, a certain-to-execute EXACTLY identical copy of you that leads 10^10^145 light years from here an EXACTLY similarly life, then it's okay for you here, now, to die? After all, your words: "I can't see why running a program [twice] is better than running it once." You're sure now? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Nov 7 05:16:22 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:16:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] all that concerns me is the future of education References: <20061105001850.59776.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com><062801c70091$02bb8490$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240611050926l6a87c935p582c1dfe61c34f81@mail.gmail.com><06f401c7012c$ffbfb0d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240611061549l10bf33d1r6668cb4dd9686b87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <07f601c7022c$1a525b50$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike Dougherty > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:49 PM > On 11/5/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Let's be open, frank, and honest, and---naturally--- > > write as clearly as we can about our conjectures. > > I think you clarified your position in another post to > someone else. I remember thinking, "Ok, I WAS > misunderstanding Lee." Thanks for responding to > my last post on this topic though... You're very welcome. > Do you think "we" (ExI-members) are an exclusive bunch? > Do you think there is reason to be so? Yes to both. But only "exclusive" in that most people are either bored by these subjects or don't have the technical background for them or are too dumb to grapple with them. But everyone is free to come and contribute, of course, and hopefully they will---like I have---learn something from it. > I feel I am still on a probation of sorts with regard to posting here. Really? I can't fathom why. > I'm not really sure what the list mission is (vs. CSS-d for example) > becuase the point is intentionally more broad-brush. CSS-d? What's that? See---I may get to learn something already from you. > I do enjoy socializing with the smart(er) kids because I so rarely > get to do so in my day-to-day life. :) You're probably too modest. In any case, I would expect that every time one joins a new list, it takes a while to get "up to speed" with the ideas being focused on by the old-timers. The fact that I haven't time to get on others lists, and undergo a utterly different new learning experience, is only sad for me. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Nov 7 05:34:31 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:34:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is References: <20061107033237.14537.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <083e01c7022e$a2bc2960$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jeffrey writes---there are several equally good narratives I could could enquire further about, but his is handy--- > Having graduated from a typical high school not too long ago, I can > admit that my "hard time" in that prison nearly managed to sap the > very last ounce of my intellectual curiosity. Frankly, it's remarkable > that I have retained *any* scholarly interest whatsoever. I definitely > don't think I'm a genius, but I have no doubt that I could have > achieved far more by this time, if I had not been driven to levels > of near-hatred for the various subjects being "taught" (read: "forced on me"). What sort of ideal situation do you have in mind? Would you enjoy the way they teach in Russia or Japan (the results there are pretty impressive in many ways). Again, I fear we have the usual phenomenon when idealists speak up. They compare the real against the ideal, and--- guess what?---the real always falls short of their imaginings. Where in the world, or in what historical epoch, do you think that things would have been better for you? Here I am taking a *realist* approach: don't compare the real against a nebulously imagined ideal, but compare the real to any other real anywhere or at any time. > I'm not saying that public education in general is a bad thing. > I do believe it's important. But our system needs *major* > changes at the fundamental level. We need to start experimenting > *now* with wreckless abandon - I don't think it could possibly > get much worse than it currently is. Couldn't get worse than it is? Now *I'm* the idealist. I can easily imagine it being much worse. But I'm mainly a realist still: you think that almost all education in history wasn't much much worse? Well, think again. It was. And it's worse throughout most of the world too (some very significant and interesting countries excepted). Lee P.S. to all the rest of you idealists. Just tell me anything real where education was or is so much better than here, or in the west generally. We should do it here like it was done where? Or by whom? From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Nov 7 05:57:40 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:57:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <083e01c7022e$a2bc2960$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061107055740.14028.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Having a weak stomach, hearing about metal detectors in schools makes me queasy. So let's say in the decade of the '20s metal detectors might not work anymore because students are bringing new plastic weapons into school. Not to be alarmist, the situation may very well stabilize or improve during the next decade; yet given how we wait until a situation gets really gnarly, perhaps bad schools in bad neighborhoods-- do good schools exist in bad neighborhoods?-- will assume SF proportions. > Couldn't get worse than it is? Now *I'm* the > idealist. I can > easily imagine it being much worse. But I'm mainly > a realist > still: you think that almost all education in > history wasn't much > much worse? Well, think again. It was. And it's > worse throughout > most of the world too (some very significant and > interesting countries > excepted). > > Lee > > P.S. to all the rest of you idealists. Just tell me > anything real where > education was or is so much better than here, or in > the west generally. > We should do it here like it was done where? Or by > whom? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near historic lows: $150,000 loan as low as $579/mo. Intro-*Terms https://www2.nextag.com/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Nov 7 05:57:27 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:57:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Detectives and red herrings (was Survival tangent) References: <20061102082308.30427.qmail@web37204.mail.mud.yahoo.com><8d71341e0611031444w6b27e817o85cd287a58458c2c@mail.gmail.com> <057501c6ffdf$33394920$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <087401c70231$b31d8da0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Slawomir wrote ----- Original Message ----- From: "Heartland" To: "Lee Corbin" ; "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 7:34 PM > At this meta-level the philosophers of personal identity implicitly or explicitly > answer this single fundamental question: "What defines a person?" > > Philosophers searching for the essence of what a person really is follow the > reductive process that initially goes something like this: > > Things->Body->Brain > > But then, someone like Lee Corbin comes along and claims this is not enough and > extends the process: > > Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs > > But then, Jef Allbright comes along and says this is not enough/correct and decides > to extend this process further still until it looks like this: > > Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs->Agency Mind you, apparently Jef is still working on his statement, which a number of us are eager to hear, unless I missed it. > Meanwhile, I look at both of these reductive processes and can't help but comment: > "You've already missed a crucial exit and are heading for an inevitable dead end." > Here's my version of the reductive process: > > Things->Body->Brain->Mind->Process->Presence > > At this moment you, dear reader, are probably asking yourself: "What the hell is > Presence?" Well, the short version is that it's an "instance of awareness, > perception, sensation, etc". I might provide more details if there's enough > demand. I know from experience that these ideas are quite hard to > convey since it requires the reader that he think in 4-D *and* abandon the habit of > thinking that Person=VMBs, among other things. The most important thing to realize > is that Presence supervenes on the physical. I want to make sure this is clear > right from the start to counter knee-jerk accusations of promoting existence of > "souls". There are no souls, okay? (That goes especially for you, John K Clark.) I'm sorry to say so, but I am wary of investing time in a new abstract theory about all this. The right road is to undertake simple thought experiments. This is because real philosophy is *prescriptive*. It should tell us what to do. The elaborate theories, in my opinion, come later, are merely descriptive, and are of secondary importance. Are you sure that you are satisfied with your answers to some of our scenarios? I had the feeling---probably wrong since there have been so many emails---that we didn't get to the bottom of the scenarios involving you being replaced by a copy in the middle of the night on each night for the preceding three years. Now, accepting that this is the case---we have videotape proof that this has been going on---you then go to bed tonight with great, great trepidation? I guess you do, because by your lights you are about to die. But guess what: tomorrow you wake up after all---(or, that is, your copy does). But this goes on day in and day out, day in and day out, week after week, month after month, and year after year. Very soon you do *not* go to bed each night scared to death that you're going to die. You find that you have other problems in life. The whole being-copied thing (despite the video proof) comes to feel a bit academic. Eventually you'd be willing to have an extra replacement occur in an afternoon nap, in exchange for say, $100,000, money that you might need to have an important medical operation performed a few weeks hence, or to save a cousin's life. Your intuition would soon change, and even these video-taped records of you being replaced each night by a duplicate would fade into a kind of irrelevancy. When you thought about what happened yesterday, your intuition would scream at you "THAT HAPPENED TO *ME*, NOT TO SOMEONE ELSE". You would not be able resist this intuition for long. The end result is that you'd become a patternist. Lee From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Nov 7 06:18:43 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 01:18:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is Message-ID: <12174561.407491162880323993.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Lee Corbin wrote: >Again, I fear we have the usual phenomenon when idealists >speak up. They compare the real against the ideal, and--- >guess what?---the real always falls short of their imaginings. Lee, are you tarring everyone with the idealist's brush? Boy, and here I thought I had made a case for 1) "School" is for "schooling" the masses -- get what you need and get the rest of your education elsewhere and 2) Maybe the problem is not within the institution, but within ourselves... But it would be nice to allow people to vent their experiences and traumas as well. And if you can't do it on a list like this, where could you? Like the high-IQ societies I researched, I would guess most of us felt misunderstood by family and/or peers through most of our childhoods. And maybe still do now. If not, then you were damned lucky. But I don't disagree with you. Education everywhere is fraught with problems. And we're not the majority. We're a tiny, tiny minority. I had an education vent on my blog when I was recuperating from the back thing. With two kids in the CA public system, you just can't help it sometimes. I just re-read it and it's not my best work to date, that's for sure. And I can't even blame the Hillbilly Heroin -- I was off it! But it does cover some of the issues we're covering. It's called "Son of Sunrise Semester." Did anybody on the list watch that as a kid? I'd love to know how it affected you if you did. http://pj-manney.blogspot.com/ Respectfully, PJ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Nov 7 06:19:47 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:19:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except References: <14545876.369241162848958726.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <08a701c70235$101089b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Pjmanney writes > Please let me preface this to say that I happen to fall in the Gould/Postman > camp that believes IQ is a bogus measure of intelligence. Among psychometricians, those of Gould's opinions are a tiny minority. Read Pinker's "The Blank Slate" for a completely unbiased analysis. But read Jensen, or Richard Lynn, or several other books I could recommend if you want the tables, charts, and rigorous stats. I especially recommend the reviews of Jensen's book "The g-Factor" on Amazon, if you don't want to plow through the statistics yourself. Read through the reviews over and over until they cease to shock you. And the correlation with other abilities really isn't disputable any longer. > So whether IQ is going up or down (i.e. the Flynn effect) is largely irrelevent. > To me, what is relevant is how the supposedly intelligent are applying their > intelligence and are adapting to a changing world. And as always, some > people rise to the occasion and others don't, regardless of their supposed IQ > scores or talents or the success or failure of their own parents... Quite so. But you really cannot get away from this truth: people with IQs less than 110 or 120 can very, very seldom handle any kind of cognitively demanding work at all well. > "The Outsiders," is considered a classic analysis into the world of ultra-high IQ. > > http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html > > In it, he describes the work of Lewis Terman, who demonstrated the behavioral > thresholds between levels of tested intelligence and the sad fact that after certain > IQ thresholds are past -- in the case of this work, an IQ of 170 -- the odds of > "success" as defined as using one's IQ in your life/work that benefits both the > person and/or society and brings self-satisfaction, are few. Frankly, the number > of ultra-high IQ people who burn out is amazing. I witnessed a number myself. First point: IQs above 170 are so rare that nothing that is true about them matters. Second point: is it really true (not that it matters, really) that there is a *greater* chance of burnout if your IQ is above 170 than if it is above 150? Failure to reach potential, and washing up one way or another, happens in every statum. That is, is the *probability* really greater for stratospheric IQs? > So maybe "School" wasn't the culprit. Maybe these kids had other > issues that led to their "failure to perform." I suspect that that's mostly the case. > And let's not forgot other psychological issues. Substance abuse, > depression, bi-polar, schizophrenia, etc. I've know a few who fell > off the supposed IQ ramp because of these. And I'm sure those > with more acute autistic spectrum disorders have a hard time, too. Absolutely. > I know the social aspects of primary and secondary school probably > sucked for most of us. Really smart people often don't function well > with people who don't understand what we're talking about. RIGHT YOU ARE! This is a very important point. Dean Keith Simonton in his book "Greatness" explains that it is seldom that people who are about 20 IQ points lower than you are can even understand you. He uses this idea very convincingly to explain why British PMs are smarter on average than U.S. presidents. The former need to impress other MPs, the latter only to impress the average American voter. Lee > It is not a public (or private) school's job to create a functional, > well-honed mind. It is the job of the parents and the child. Both > have to want it. If you have the mind and mental health to succeed, > school only 'kills' if you let it. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Nov 7 06:33:08 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:33:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except References: <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org><077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <08ad01c70236$c111fea0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eugen writes first about education. In another post I'll reply to his remarks concerning how totally Doomed we are. > Genes are meaningless, if you're looking at poorly socialized kids > with a migrant background entering the school system, which is already > contaminated with a couple of decades of similiar toxic problems. > Teaching is traditionally a well-paid high-prestige job in Germany, > but the schools have gotten so bad it's hard to find new personnel, > especially in hard sciences. I have to take your word for it in the case of Germany. Very interesting. Perhaps others will comment. But bad in what way? Compared to German schools of the 80s? Of the 50s? Just how have they deteriorated. Dropping standards to accomodate immigrants? > For genes to wield their full potential you need a stable, supportive > environment even pre-birth, and an educational system which challenges > each kid individually. Ah, another idealist off in dream-land. Please, stick to what is feasible. > The genes have remained basically the same, Yes the genes have stayed the same. But the skills that are needed have not. We don't need manual laborers so much anymore. >> And furthermore, contrary to what Eugen states, the limiting factor >> *is* what is between the ears. Researchers on intelligence admit, > > Correct, but irrelevant. The bottlenecks are elsewhere. As long as > the environment is the same no amount of perfect genes will matter. > You don't need perfect genes to be a highly productive individual. > Yes, for some things you need genius, but only in trace amounts. Right. I'm not talking IQ 150 and above. There are so few of them anyway. And they're very idiosyncratic to boot. I'm talking about the great dearth of people between 120 and 150 that are in such short supply. Only 1 person in 20 is as smart as George Bush (IQ about 125 or so). And you can dream-up all the ideal schools you want, and you aren't going to change this. Only GE or eugenics can change this. If in the 1870s the west had listened to Francis Galton instead of Karl Marx, the west wouldn't be in the predicament it's in. Lee From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Nov 7 06:49:15 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:49:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <12174561.407491162880323993.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <20061107064915.1037.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Sure it's within ourselves-- but when ten year olds bring weapons to numerous schools you might tend to wonder: 'are there specific systemic problems that need remedies from those authorized to make changes in the school system? ' >[...] 2) Maybe the problem is not within the > institution, but within ourselves... > Respectfully, > PJ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link For just $24.99/mo., Vonage offers unlimited local and long- distance calling. Sign up now. http://www.vonage.com/startsavingnow/ From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Nov 7 06:51:52 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:51:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Detectives and red herrings (was Survivaltangent) In-Reply-To: <087401c70231$b31d8da0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee wrote: > Slawomir wrote > > Things->Body->Brain > > > > But then, someone like Lee Corbin comes along and claims > this is not > > enough and extends the process: > > > > Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs > > > > But then, Jef Allbright comes along and says this is not > > enough/correct and decides to extend this process further > still until it looks like this: > > > > Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs->Agency I feel silly even considering such a precarious ontology, let alone refuting it. Slawomir, it's the category error again. I said nothing about *synchronic* personal identity, namely how we determine a unique person. I did propose a theory based on agency providing a more coherent and encompassing understanding of *diachronic* personal identity, namely how we determine that two separate observations are of the same person. As I said earlier, it is ironic that people glibly refer to Max's thesis while demonstrating lack of understanding of this key title word. > > Mind you, apparently Jef is still working on his statement, > which a number of us are eager to hear, unless I missed it. Lee, I sent it to the list Sunday afternoon. Looking forward to your comments. - Jef From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Nov 7 05:57:27 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:57:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Diversity Re: Just curious, it's not natural! Message-ID: <20061107055728.71135.qmail@web37213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Al Brooks wrote: >Homosexuals want the right of making serious medical >decisions (as Terry Schiavo's husband had in her >case); they want full inheritance rights; >etc. They want, in short, complete marital parity with >straights. Why shouldn't they get them? I didn't object to the legal rights of homosexuals as much as I wouldn't object against a transgender that lives with a guy or a girl for 10 years. Nobody can argue that any coupling generates better spending habits, shared responsibilities as well as an easier lifestyle. >But 86 percent of Americans believe in a God, >and from everything I've seen the religious still >dominate society. So by saying, "great, i'm smarter, i know better, i have an IQ of this, my opinion is better, it's more logical", it won't change a damn thing. Until you are able to reach a majority, you can't accomplish anything. Choosing to ignore or criticize a behavior is not going to make it any wiser. Finding relevant associations within a pattern will generate the best answer. What I am arguing is the relevant factor between the word "marriage" and a male/female relationship. Don't you associate the word "marriage" with procreation? I do and until a transgender can give birth, I, as a heterosexual female, have every right to decide that I don't want that word changed. This is from a historical point of view. Can X+X create Y? No. X+Y=Y+X. Everything else under is simply formality. With future technology, my opinion might change. When a trangender gives birth then I could see how the equation would change. >In the back of my mind I always-- every day-- think of >what Richard Brookhiser wrote, "...the intrusion of >previous eras into their successors... our notions of >warfare and masculinity were shaped by the era of >hunting and gathering". The definitions of masculinity and femininity change all the time. Not all masculinity was shaped by the era of hunting and gathering. Many sorts of different male figures lived that bared no comparison to the hunting and gathering age. Bill K: * What is the real work to be done on this planet?...It's to make ourselves more aware, to remind ourselves that our essential nature is nonviolent, and to increase the amount of compassion and cooperation on the planet. * Fear is a belief in your inadequacy to deal with something. * A limit can be either a frontier or a boundary. * Because your existence in time and space is unique, there are lives that only you can touch. * Don't let what you are being get in the way of what you might become. * What a fabulous moment, to realize that no word or thought can truly describe you. Ofcourse, in a "Unique" sense. I would call this poetry. Olga Bourlin wrote: Al Brooks wrote: >But 86 percent of Americans believe in a God, >and from everything I've seen the religious still >dominate society. >>Yes, sad ... ain't it? Why sad? Do you have a better solution? Do you think science will spontaneously explode and people will suddenly just believe in cryonics? No preaching, no believing, no memes, no memories..poof, science prevails? I find that highly unlikely. How do you propose to explain to the population that regards religion in such a high esteem that " yes, sad..ain't it, that your not as smart as me, I know better,", how is that explaining anything but looking for a contradiction? >Agreed. We could arrive at an expression such >as "gayiage" in the place of marriage. It would make >sense on grounds of diversity as well-- a diversity >of terminology. I don't think it would be my right to name their "Union". I'm not in that circumstance. Ben wrote: >>>Are you sure you mean what you say here? You >>>actually feel that somebody's use of a word in a >>>way that you disagree with, is a violation of your >>>rights? Yes I do. I'm assuming then that you can tell me what your thoughts are regarding the word "marriage". Is it just a word without any symbols or associations? It doesn't bother you in the least that a "Union" can represent transgender marriage, gay marriage, lesbian marriage, heterosexual marriage, whatever goes..as long as the legal ramifications remain the same? Throughout history, did the word "marriage" ever refer to 2 men or 2 women? If you want to create evolution don't use names that have been around for 2000 years and try to change, use the word "Singularity" to create something different. Spike wrote: >I know of an example of this, two XYs, both >anatomically ambiguous, one raised male, the other >raised female, the state of Oregon asked no questions. Your point being? Samantha wrote: >Says who? The Law? The law is a matter of societal >convention. The law once said that no female could >vote and that slavery was ok. >That did not make it right. Actually, it is my right "now" to say that I can vote. My point was that "procreation", the last I heard is still a woman's choice. My definition of procreation is the choice that I and my partner, (who are both heterosexual) have chosen to engage in a partnership based on love, respect, honesty and have chosen to procreate to keep my meme, belief and memories alive. Are you saying that this is not associated with the word "marriage"? Samantha wrote: >Because you have no such right. You have no right to >decide the word marriage is only for people like >yourself and not others. and what "right" do they have to decide that it has numerous definitions? >Why should you have any such right? What makes you >think you do? and what makes it ok to think that "they" do? Just curious Anna:) ?Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.? Albert Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Nov 7 06:44:09 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:44:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <083e01c7022e$a2bc2960$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061107064409.47192.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Lee, First of all, I'll 'fess up to being an idealist. :-) Under unremarkable circumstances I would probably choose to lean closer to being a hybrid idealist-realist. ;-) But when a Singularity may be in the wings, I feel compelled to fully and openly express my ideals because it is not impossible that some of them may be independently duplicated or at least approximated at some point in the future. And I admit to exaggerating when I wrote: "We need to start experimenting > *now* with wreckless abandon - I don't think it could possibly > get much worse than it currently is." You are correct. It could obviously become much worse ... ranging to non-existent. I was mostly just trying to emphasize the desperate need to improve the situation which you can be sure is very, very far from "ideal". ;-) Perhaps, one of the first changes could be an optional specialization program beginning around 7th grade or so, where a student can choose to focus on a specific "strand" of study (eg. science, engineering, arts, writing, etc. - depending on their interests) that would comprise most of the classroom time. If I'm not mistaken, Australia already uses a mild version of this program. Another large target is the excessive and tedious "busy work" that all to many teachers seem to rely upon. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich P.S. I do realize that there *are* caring and hard-working teachers and administrators here in America, and I'm grateful for their efforts. Lee Corbin wrote: Jeffrey writes---there are several equally good narratives I could could enquire further about, but his is handy--- > Having graduated from a typical high school not too long ago, I can > admit that my "hard time" in that prison nearly managed to sap the > very last ounce of my intellectual curiosity. Frankly, it's remarkable > that I have retained *any* scholarly interest whatsoever. I definitely > don't think I'm a genius, but I have no doubt that I could have > achieved far more by this time, if I had not been driven to levels > of near-hatred for the various subjects being "taught" (read: "forced on me"). What sort of ideal situation do you have in mind? Would you enjoy the way they teach in Russia or Japan (the results there are pretty impressive in many ways). Again, I fear we have the usual phenomenon when idealists speak up. They compare the real against the ideal, and--- guess what?---the real always falls short of their imaginings. Where in the world, or in what historical epoch, do you think that things would have been better for you? Here I am taking a *realist* approach: don't compare the real against a nebulously imagined ideal, but compare the real to any other real anywhere or at any time. > I'm not saying that public education in general is a bad thing. > I do believe it's important. But our system needs *major* > changes at the fundamental level. We need to start experimenting > *now* with wreckless abandon - I don't think it could possibly > get much worse than it currently is. Couldn't get worse than it is? Now *I'm* the idealist. I can easily imagine it being much worse. But I'm mainly a realist still: you think that almost all education in history wasn't much much worse? Well, think again. It was. And it's worse throughout most of the world too (some very significant and interesting countries excepted). Lee P.S. to all the rest of you idealists. Just tell me anything real where education was or is so much better than here, or in the west generally. We should do it here like it was done where? Or by whom? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Free Uniden 5.8GHz Phone System with Packet8 Internet Phone Service -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue Nov 7 07:23:58 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 23:23:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <08a701c70235$101089b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <14545876.369241162848958726.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <08a701c70235$101089b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <21AA27CF-5EA0-4D8E-AD33-99FEBCF62525@ceruleansystems.com> On Nov 6, 2006, at 10:19 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > RIGHT YOU ARE! This is a very important point. Dean Keith Simonton > in his book "Greatness" explains that it is seldom that people who > are about > 20 IQ points lower than you are can even understand you. He uses this > idea very convincingly to explain why British PMs are smarter on > average > than U.S. presidents. The former need to impress other MPs, the > latter > only to impress the average American voter. Here's a serious question then with respect to this hypothesis: is there evidence that the average US President was more intelligent prior to 1913, and if so what kind of average discrepancy are we talking about? And does it account for basic differences in the process that determines who gets to be an MP and who gets to be a Congressman that bias the selection of the two populations a PM or President had to interact with? J. Andrew Rogers From jonkc at att.net Tue Nov 7 07:22:48 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 02:22:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <3826AF26-6E76-4BB9-AA08-3EF4103D6E01@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: <003b01c7023d$95c7ac20$25094e0c@MyComputer> Randall Randall Wrote: > I would say that the particular running process of > Randall Randall that is now typing this email > (which you'll see a copy of shortly) A copy? A copy! That just won?t do, send me your ORIGINAL E mail! And tell me, are you satisfied with what happened to you from yesterday to today, and would you be horrified to know the same sort of thing was going to happen between today and tomorrow? > The fact that this copy and some other copy are bit for bit identical will > not matter to me Well then explain to me exactly what will matter to you. What exactly do you mean by survival? I have told you exactly precisely what I mean, I have survived into tomorrow if there is someone there who remembers being me and he sees no subjective discontinuity. For me that?s the end of the story, but it?s not good enough for you, so tell me what am I?m missing? Don?t just tell me you want that future person to be ME, don?t tell me you want ME to continue, I want to know what the hell that means. I want you to be as crystal clear in your survival specifications as I am. I have offered this challenge on this list for over a decade and all I hear is ?but it just wouldn?t be me?. Childish. > Nothing about the specific atoms matters Glad to hear you say that, even though I know you don?t really believe it. > it's the process. So what process is your identical copy that thinks it?s you missing? No need to answer I already know, it?s missing certain sacred atoms. John K Clark From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 08:09:30 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 03:09:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Detectives and red herrings (was Survival tangent) References: Message-ID: Slawomir wrote: >> > Things->Body->Brain >> > >> > But then, someone like Lee Corbin comes along and claims >> this is not >> > enough and extends the process: >> > >> > Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs >> > >> > But then, Jef Allbright comes along and says this is not >> > enough/correct and decides to extend this process further >> still until it looks like this: >> > >> > Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs->Agency Jef: > I feel silly even considering such a precarious ontology, let alone > refuting it. > > Slawomir, it's the category error again. I said nothing about > *synchronic* personal identity, namely how we determine a unique person. > I did propose a theory based on agency providing a more coherent and > encompassing understanding of *diachronic* personal identity, namely how > we determine that two separate observations are of the same person. But Jef, I *know* that you are talking about diachronic personal identity, and I *know* that your logic allows identity sharing among *many* agents. I also strongly suspect your motivation for "agency" which is to save "patternism" from failing when considering identity with respect to (changing) patterns over time. That's why Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs->Agency is warranted. Your "agency" is just another layer of abstraction or an "improvement" on top of the heap of "improvements" constructed by patternists. Even though I applaud your motivation for "agency" I'm afraid I have to file it under SBA (suicide by abstraction), sorry. I simply can't accept survival as intangible and abstract as this. Slawomir From jonkc at att.net Tue Nov 7 08:10:02 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 03:10:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <005e01c70244$26a64110$25094e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > What is so holy about somebody noticing? If anything in the universe is holy it's believing you're not dead. In my thought experiment objectively nobody noticed anything, subjectively nobody noticed anything, and even the universe noticed nothing, but trivial stuff like that is not good enough for Heartland. OK I left out God, but I don't believe in God. Me: >>You reject the Scientific Method as Heartland does and believes in the >>sanctity of certain atoms. You: >That is a lie and you know it. It's not a lie. You maintain there is this huge astronomical difference between you and your copy but the scientific method can see no difference at all, zero squat nada zilch goose egg. > If you recall, at the beginning of this particular chain of threads, I > suggested you read this > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/ I started to read it but then I encountered 7, count them, 7 sentences in a row that ended in question marks! I plowed on but after about 2 minutes it was clear to me that whoever had written this was not wiser about these matters that I am so there was no reason to read further. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 7 08:14:23 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:14:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <08ad01c70236$c111fea0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> <08ad01c70236$c111fea0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061107081423.GJ6974@leitl.org> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 10:33:08PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > Eugen writes first about education. In another post I'll reply to his > remarks concerning how totally Doomed we are. You know, I always chuckle when I leaf through "Collapse". Those fools, they never saw it coming, despite the signs being so damn obvious. It was always so predictable. But, hey, it can't happen to us, because we all have read the book and track the ecology, economy and social stats daily, and collectively act intelligently and proactively, and have been doing it for a while. Right? > I have to take your word for it in the case of Germany. Very > interesting. Perhaps others will comment. Most of Germany has the triple Hauptschule, Realschule and Gymnasium system. I'm only dealing with problems in Gymnasium, which are really mild using U.S. public school standards for a yardstick. But still, much has changed since I exited the system 1987. I am told the same applies to the decade or two that have gone before. > But bad in what way? Compared to German schools of the 80s? Yep. > Of the 50s? Just how have they deteriorated. Dropping standards I don't know where exactly the peak was, I presume it was 1950s/1960s. > to accomodate immigrants? Immigrants are driving the problem, but there are several other reasons for the current malaise. I don't have much time to cover them here, I'm afraid. > > For genes to wield their full potential you need a stable, supportive > > environment even pre-birth, and an educational system which challenges > > each kid individually. > > Ah, another idealist off in dream-land. Please, stick to what is > feasible. Hey, I thought my standards of having stable families, low crime and violence rate were reasonable. I'm glad I didn't grow up where you did. As to personal educational system, it can't be too hard to bin kids, and treat high-potentials accordingly. And, you know, we have this personal notebooks by now required at an earlier and earlier age, and of course I don't have to tell you what really good educational software (caveat: I have never seen something remotely approaching that description yet) can do. > > The genes have remained basically the same, > > Yes the genes have stayed the same. But the skills that are needed To recap, my point was that genes are good enough, since constant gene pool and deteriorating capabilities illustrate the problems lie elsewhere. Completely ordinary, even slightly dumb people can do wonderful things, if properly motivated. Don't tell me you don't know that most of a Ph.D. e.g. in life sciences is hard human servo work. Ph.D. these days means only a seal of approval that the person can learn, and work hard, so he probably can be further taught on the job in an industrial research environment. Little more. > have not. We don't need manual laborers so much anymore. Funny, I don't have seen too many busy robots on the street lately. And I *have* heard that the industry has been complaining about the quality of Gymnasium folks lately. You probably don't realize how damning that statement is. Believe me: this is *bad*. Really Bad. These are manual labor slots which can't be filled because young people don't have the skills. > Right. I'm not talking IQ 150 and above. There are so few of them > anyway. And they're very idiosyncratic to boot. I'm talking about > the great dearth of people between 120 and 150 that are in such > short supply. You're still looking only a single scalar as a metric. I wish we had IQ 100 people who were motivated and capable. From what I see in the job market (I can't help, since I happen to be stuck in a reasonably menial, low-paid position), the requirements are a set of a very specific skills, a particular age, and willingness to work hard very long hours for as little as possible (don't tell me you don't know wages have been falling in numerical value, nevermind such irrelevant things that EUR has lost half of its value in only six years -- if you look at its relative value to the US$ you will realize just how deep into the crapper US$ has gone since 1971, or so). So, if IQ is not relevant in the broad job market, we're obviously looking at niches -- I wouldn't mind a hyperbright PI one bit, obviously. In fact, I wouldn't mind a reasonably bright politician at all, provided she's reasonably capable. > Only 1 person in 20 is as smart as George Bush (IQ about 125 or so). Excellent. Would you hire George Bush, and trust him with anything important? See, IQ is not worth so very much now, isn't it. > And you can dream-up all the ideal schools you want, and you aren't > going to change this. Only GE or eugenics can change this. What can I say, you're still missing the mark widely. Look at Ashkenazi eugenics. You'll probably think the results like http://www.masada2000.org/nobel.html are sure due to IQ alone. But please read http://www.masada2000.org/Powerful-Jews.html especially the very last line. Yeah, sometimes it's that simple. > If in the 1870s the west had listened to Francis Galton instead of > Karl Marx, the west wouldn't be in the predicament it's in. The Old West (EU and North America) has exactly the same structural problems. Asian tigers/dragons are not yet burdened with them, and I'm really looking forward to what they will do in the next three decades. However, if we pull a new and improved rehash on 1930s, they wouldn't do so very much, and resulting ecological decline and warfare (very possibly biological and nuclear) will make progress difficult at best. Such things don't happen overnight, so anyone with a bit of statistics, economics and history should have figured it out at least 25 years ago. No doubt many did, but nobody cared, and guess what -- collectively, we still don't give a damn. Now that unfortunately gives "Collapse" more signficance than you're willing to give it credit. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jonkc at att.net Tue Nov 7 08:32:08 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 03:32:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <07e501c7022a$d2c1d9b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <014801c70247$5ca26a70$25094e0c@MyComputer> "Lee Corbin" > So if it's true that there is an extremely similar (only a trillion or so > atoms different with slightly different pattern) copy of you running on a > planet > of Alpha Centauri, it's okay if it or you die? Yea yea Alpha Centauri, I've been hearing this argument for years. I'll just repeat a post I sent to the list way back in 1999: An exact duplicate of the earth, and it's entire ecosystem, is created a billion light years away. The duplicate world would need some sort of feedback mechanism to keep the worlds in synchronization, non linear effects would amplify tiny variations, even quantum fluctuations, into big differences, but this is a thought experiment so who cares. In the first two cases below the results would vary according to personalities, remember there's a lot of illogic even in the best of us. 1) I know all about the duplicate world and you put a 44 magnum to my head and tell me in ten seconds you will blow my brains out. Am I concerned? You bet I am because I know that your double is holding an identical gun to the head of my double and making an identical threat. 2) I find out that for the first time since the Big Bang the worlds will diverge, in 10 seconds you will put a bullet in my head but my double will be spared. Am I concerned? Yes, and angry as well, in times of intense stress nobody is very logical. My double is no longer exact because I am going through a traumatic experience and my double is not. I'd be looking at that huge gun and wondering what it will be like when it goes off and if death will really be instantaneous. I'd be wondering if my philosophy was really as sound as I thought it was and I'd also be wondering why I get the bullet and not my double and cursing the unfairness of it all. My (semi) double would be thinking "it's a shame about that other fellow but I'm glad it's not me". 3) I know nothing about the duplicate world, a gun is at both our heads and we both are convinced we're going to die. One gun goes off, making a hell of a mess, but the other gun, for inexplicable reasons misfires. In this case NOBODY died and except for undergoing a terrifying experience I am completely unharmed. The real beauty part is that I don't even have to clean up the mess. The bottom line is we don't have thoughts and emotions, we are thoughts and emotions, and the idea that the particular hardware that is rendering them changes their meaning is as crazy as my computer making the meaning of your post different from what it was on yours. John K Clark From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Nov 7 09:28:06 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:28:06 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: <003b01c7023d$95c7ac20$25094e0c@MyComputer> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <3826AF26-6E76-4BB9-AA08-3EF4103D6E01@randallsquared.com> <003b01c7023d$95c7ac20$25094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <8d71341e0611070128p3484c6ccj9420ca7e656e1123@mail.gmail.com> On 11/7/06, John K Clark wrote: > > So what process is your identical copy that thinks it's you missing? No > need > to answer I already know, it's missing certain sacred atoms. > In fairness, John, while I agree with you that the patternist view is true [1], there's more to the threadist view than you're seeing. It's not about the atoms, or a supernatural soul. It's about unbroken continuity of thought process. And the rationale, as far as I can see, is that it's the closest match to the usual/intuitive meaning of "identity". And it's a fair attempt at that, I just don't subscribe to it because I think like with the whole "why don't we feel motion when the Earth goes around the Sun" thing, intuition isn't the right tool here in philosophical principle even though it is for practical purposes. But I don't think the threadists are being hopelessly irrational, I just disagree with them. I've had a friendly conversation with a threadist, where we both agreed the following: 1) He admitted his philosophy maybe meant he died each night when he went to sleep. In practice he simply ignores this for obvious reasons, but he admits the logic. 2) He wants gradual rather than destructive-scan uploading, and if it's ever in my power to provide it for him I will. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Nov 7 09:28:44 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:28:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611070128p3484c6ccj9420ca7e656e1123@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <3826AF26-6E76-4BB9-AA08-3EF4103D6E01@randallsquared.com> <003b01c7023d$95c7ac20$25094e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0611070128p3484c6ccj9420ca7e656e1123@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0611070128u622b5ea2ud7d77ad1c98b9101@mail.gmail.com> I forgot the footnote: [1] I don't agree that changes in the last few seconds make a difference - my view is closer to Lee Corbin's on that - but that's another matter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Nov 7 09:34:02 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:34:02 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611070128p3484c6ccj9420ca7e656e1123@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <3826AF26-6E76-4BB9-AA08-3EF4103D6E01@randallsquared.com> <003b01c7023d$95c7ac20$25094e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0611070128p3484c6ccj9420ca7e656e1123@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0611070134l5a0618c1h476815c3a42818@mail.gmail.com> ...of course intuition is _not_ the right tool for practical purposes, for many values of intuition. Meh. But I hope my meaning is semi-clear anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Nov 7 09:49:00 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 04:49:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [private message] speaking of electoral college In-Reply-To: <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> References: <454FFFF4.2000909@goldenfuture.net> <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 11/6/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > You're old enough to remember the '80s, right? Things have changed little > since then. > Oh but some of us remember the '70's and even the '60s and we are longing to bring back those days -- when people truely cared and positioned themselves as such. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Nov 7 10:00:06 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 05:00:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><3826AF26-6E76-4BB9-AA08-3EF4103D6E01@randallsquared.com><003b01c7023d$95c7ac20$25094e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0611070128p3484c6ccj9420ca7e656e1123@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006a01c70253$89a40f40$25094e0c@MyComputer> Russell Wallace Wrote: > It's about unbroken continuity of thought process. I agree. Stop a brain from operating for a billion years and then start it up again and subjectively nothing has happened, it's as continuous as continuity can be. > intuition isn't the right tool here I agree yet again. Intuition whines "but it just wouldn't be me" but logic and the Scientific Method says it is you. I'll put my money on logic and science. > He admitted his philosophy maybe meant he died each night when he went to > sleep. If true then dieing is a trivial phenomenon. I don't believe death is trivial. > He wants gradual rather than destructive-scan uploading That superstition is almost as silly as the sacred atoms crap. John K Clark From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Nov 7 10:11:28 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 02:11:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <26B1670E-0EBC-407E-AC2B-A654492C6FA1@mac.com> On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:15 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Eugen wrote > >> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 07:29:41PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > >>> The Singularity (or its preceding technological innovations) need >>> above all to get people smarter, especially the great hordes of >>> children today who simply are incapable of difficult technical work, >>> and who will (because of IQ limitations) perform rather poorly >>> whatever they try to do that is of any use. >> >> I try to avoid me-toos, but above passage can't be overemphasized. >> The issue isn't differences in issued equipment between the ears. >> Motivation is the key, and almost all current education environments >> (nevermind prior poor parenting) actively demotivate. > > Since Eugen wrote this, a number of people have chimed in to agree. > I ask, where is the evidence that the key problems are current > educational > environments or poor parenting? Are there studies? > What is the worth of these studies though? How has their methodology been vetted? > The studies---your anecdotes aside---report what I said they did, > namely that it's genes 50%, peers 50%, parents 0%, and schools, 0%. > (I should add, to be careful, that these are determinants of adult > personality. But I think that it applies to contributing technically > to society too.) This seems highly unlikely and suspicious. How would genes be that well separated out from environmental factors. In environmental factors how exactly would the contribution from parents and schools be teased out so cleanly from that of peers? It looks a good deal to pat on the face of it, doesn't it? > > And furthermore, contrary to what Eugen states, the limiting factor > *is* what is between the ears. Researchers on intelligence admit, > however, that intelligence is like money. It really doesn't matter > how much you have so long as you have enough. > > But the overwhelming part of the populace does *not* have enough > cognitive ability, not enough for today's technical needs. > So, a bit down the road we can fix that, yes? > And even in your anecdotes, from dyslexia to "boredom and > frustration" causing dropping out, we could segregate :-) those > with certain proclivities and try to specialize the instruction > they're > given. That would be a good idea. But many kids simply rebel, They simply rebel with no reason at all? > and unless you provide very expensive tutoring (with a touch of > compulsion), they're not going to use all their potential anyway. > You can suggest remedies. That would be nice. But why not > point to somewhere among the 6 billion people where the problem > as you see it *has* been solved? > > Eugen continues, rather obscurely: > >> Not only does demographics limit the quantity, the quality has been >> going down monotonously since middle last century, or even before. > > What do you mean by this? IQ has been going up (cf. Flynn effect). > You could fool me by what I see of people around me in multiple walks of life. Maybe they started scoring IQ on the curve. >> The job market does the rest to discourage entering technical fields. >> The message is certainly loud and clear enough, and it's being heard. > > How does the job market discourage entering technical field? > I'm not following you. > If you want to do cutting edge R&D the well-renumerated opportunities are thin on the ground. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Nov 7 10:24:17 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 02:24:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <079401c70199$64625b20$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> <8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0611060005g5ac79cdeie540449406ec95b7@mail.gmail.com> <079401c70199$64625b20$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <45D0A95C-CCDF-46F9-849E-1A3EDE839FBC@mac.com> On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:45 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Russell writes > >> Religion worked for survival. Look at what happens to modern >> cultures where religion is gone: they fall apart into self-hatred and >> nihilism, birth rates plummeting below extinction level, their people >> rapidly headed for oblivion. The greatest civilization that ever >> existed >> on this planet is dying, in what should have been its hour of >> triumph - >> dying not of any external threat, but of its own parasite memes; >> and who will pick up the torch once we are gone? > Civilization rise up and die in certain predictable political and economic, especially economic patterns. Many countries in Europe have already risen, fallen and managed to rise to some extent again. Just because the US is rounding the cusp toward a downturn does not mean it is TEOTWAWKI. It certainly does not mean that the cycle reaches this point because religion has lost its hold. That is a laughable theory. > You bring up the gravest problem of all, a real one that is not > going away, > unless a technological miracle happens quickly. > > Europe is finished. A Muslim civilization will replace it. > No way. This is utter nonsense. The Muslims can't manage to come into the 21st century. Science and technology is too hard to reconcile with the faith, especially as it blends with law and politics. Without that the Muslims will never be strong enough to prevail. There is too much admiration for blind fate and utter vengeance toward all who seem to threaten it. I am saddened to see it here of all places. > But in North America, the situation is less clear. > > An elite in North America can continue to "run things" for a very long > time yet. This is because as the class structure of the country > becomes > more pronounced, the lower classes shall respond to direction, just as > they do in Mexico today, whereas in Europe, the Muslims have superior > cohesion and superior will. > Really you think Muslims are superior? In what way? They band together? The threaten, kill and destroy when angered? This is superior in a way that matters in this time of accelerating change? How so? The Muslims as Muslim statists are a dying culture unable to cope with the speed and type of changes around them. The must either transform into something quite different and far less religiously based or become irrelevant. This seeming belief in raw human mass and unreasoning zealotry is very unsettling. > Now, more and more people in the west are coming to see the danger, > and so resistence, even in Europe, may mount, and in interesting ways. > Prognostications, anyone? > Yes. Religion will be seen more and more in Europe especially as senseless and not to be afforded automatic respect. Religious based violence and intolerance will come to be opposed vigorously. > - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 7 10:36:08 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:36:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] KILLTHREAD: Re: Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: References: <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20061107103608.GO6974@leitl.org> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 08:04:17PM -0500, Heartland wrote: > That is a lie and you know it. Apparently you invent this nonsense just so you can > safely argue against it so when others read your posts you trick them into taking > your side with the added bonus that the person who disagrees with you looks like a > fool and you look like a hero. > > Gee, you must be such a good guy for fighting these evil soul-believers. Meanwhile, > I doubt Randall (or I) who you accuse of this believes in souls. Why can't you just > accept that you just don't get it and move on? One, you're confused as to what > "person" is. Two, you don't (or refuse to) understand the definition of "identity" > yet none of this stops you from talking about "personal identity". Folks, this periodically recurring thread has run well beyond diminishing returns, and I declared it terminated for time being. Please don't post further in this thread. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From brentn at freeshell.org Tue Nov 7 11:05:43 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 06:05:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Diversity Re: Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <20061107055728.71135.qmail@web37213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061107055728.71135.qmail@web37213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2006, at 0:57, Anna Taylor wrote: > My point was that "procreation", the last I heard is > still a woman's choice. My definition of procreation > is the choice that I and my partner, (who are both > heterosexual) have chosen to engage in a partnership > based on love, respect, honesty and have chosen to > procreate to keep my meme, belief and memories alive. > Are you saying that this is not associated with the > word "marriage"? What makes me curious is this: your whole post seemed to hinge on the fact that somehow procreation deserves some protected sandbox in which to happen, that sandbox referred to as 'marriage.' This, as I understand your opinion, justifies denying certain legal rights to couples that are not m/f pairings. Do you then also recommend denying the protection of marriage to childless couples or couples who are proven infertile? What about late-life marriages? (i.e. people who get married in their 60s) As a litmus for life-pairing and partnership, procreation seems like a pretty silly yardstick (says the guy with the 3-year old) Brent -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From alex at ramonsky.com Tue Nov 7 12:20:31 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:20:31 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hi folks References: <20061106004835.86004.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <2071.128.250.225.217.1162774829.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> Message-ID: <45507A0F.8010003@ramonsky.com> I remember you : ) Glad you're still around, hope you're still having fun. Best, AR ********** Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: >Hello all, > >You probably don't remember me. I've been off list since 2003. I thought >I'd have a look at things extropian and ....all the troops are still at >it! > >I trust you are all well.... > >cheers > >Colin Hales > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > From brentn at freeshell.org Tue Nov 7 15:05:49 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:05:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <26B1670E-0EBC-407E-AC2B-A654492C6FA1@mac.com> References: <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26B1670E-0EBC-407E-AC2B-A654492C6FA1@mac.com> Message-ID: <2FD77D6D-923A-4507-88A5-EF9458A286D0@freeshell.org> On Nov 7, 2006, at 5:11, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:15 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Eugen wrote >> >> >>> Not only does demographics limit the quantity, the quality has been >>> going down monotonously since middle last century, or even before. >> >> What do you mean by this? IQ has been going up (cf. Flynn effect). >> > > You could fool me by what I see of people around me in multiple walks > of life. Maybe they started scoring IQ on the curve. IQ is, as others have pointed out, an incomplete measurement. Someone here, perhaps Eugen, suggested a concept of 'effectiveness' as a complement to IQ. I think that what Samantha is observing is not so much a dumbing down of society as a 'motivating down' of society. > >>> The job market does the rest to discourage entering technical >>> fields. >>> The message is certainly loud and clear enough, and it's being >>> heard. >> >> How does the job market discourage entering technical field? >> I'm not following you. >> > > If you want to do cutting edge R&D the well-renumerated opportunities > are thin on the ground. Oh, and its even worse than that! :) Remuneration is the least of your worries. No matter where you do R&D, you're becoming increasingly constrained in how you do it and what you do it on. I am a researcher in the central R&D facility in a medium-sized private company. Any research I do has a less than 1% chance of ever being published - patents and trade secrets only, please! - and I am financially incentivized to only focus on short-term product-focused development. The fact that I'm working on a long-term research project is because of sheer cussedness and a belief that ultimately, my research will pay off big for the company - but that's my and my colleagues' choice to gamble with our careers. Add to that the disparity in pay even between an experienced, successful inventor/ researcher and a entry-level "profitable-growth strategist," and the result is a huge flight in manpower and talent out of R&D and into more lucrative positions. That, to me, is a clear example of how the job market discourages entry into a technical field - although, more properly, it discourages remaining in a technical field. You also see a lot of bachelor's level engineers and scientists opting for law and business schools these days, without any intervening stint working in a technical field. This trend has been commented on in C&E News as well as in Physics Today. All little off topic for this - I'm also one of the folks at my company who have a responsibility for licensing and acquiring intellectual property. What I observe is that universities are increasingly pressuring professors to focus on patentable research, in order to generate revenue for the university. The anarchocapitalist take would be that this is a good thing, since these institutions should be self-funding, but I argue, with ample evidence, that investments in basic and fundamental research have been necessary to drive these more applications focused advances. With the universities biasing themselves this way, I have become quite concerned with future progress in science and technology -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Nov 7 15:01:07 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:01:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Diversity Re: Just curious, it's not natural! References: <20061107055728.71135.qmail@web37213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009901c7027d$8e65c3f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Anna Taylor" Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:57 PM > What I am arguing is the relevant factor between the word "marriage" and a male/female relationship. Don't you associate the word "marriage" with procreation? No. Some heterosexual couples cannot procreate; furthermore, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who do not want to rear children. And, besides, heterosexual women past menopause are still allowed to marry, n'est-de pas? Olga From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Nov 7 16:41:02 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:41:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Detectives and red herrings (was Survivaltangent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Slawomir wrote: > I also strongly suspect your motivation for "agency" > which is to save "patternism" from failing when considering > identity with respect to (changing) patterns over time. That's why > Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs->Agency is warranted. Your > "agency" > Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs->is just > another > layer of abstraction or an "improvement" on top of the heap > of "improvements" > constructed by patternists. Even though I applaud your > motivation for "agency" I'm afraid I have to file it under > SBA (suicide by abstraction), sorry. I simply can't accept > survival as intangible and abstract as this. Slawomir, once again, we're talking about two different things. I've recognized your point all along, and I've demonstrated (with your agreement) that I can state your point back to you, perhaps more concisely than you can state it yourself. My goal in this discussion is not to prove you're right or wrong; such is not possible even in principle. My goal is to improve the clarity and breadth of our thinking on this topic and it's a frustratingly wasteful (to me) effort to keep sliding back and rehashing the same rickety old conceptual structures thinly disguised under a coat of new words. Let me state (my understanding of) our positions so we all feel clearly heard, and perhaps to lay a clean solid foundation upon which future discussion can *grow*. Slawomir's position: Survival of one's personal identity is strictly dependent on continuation of the physical constituents of the mind-producing process. While some people talk as if they could survive indefinitely by means of copies of themselves to overcome loss due to aging or accident, they overlook or deny the simple ontological truth that a copy is, by its very definition, not the same as the original. John's position: Survival of one's personal identity is quite perfectly achievable in theory, and will become so in practice when we have acquired the technological means to make an effective working copy of a person's identity. Neither substrate nor continuity matter in this endeavor, as long as the process which constitutes one's mind is faithfully reproduced and running. Copy and Original *are* identical when there is no measurable functional difference. Lee's position: Survival of one's personal identity is absolutely possible in theory and will become absolutely achievable if and when we have technology enabling us to run copies of the pattern that constitutes the mind including (but not necessarily limited to) its values, beliefs and memories. While it's an obvious mathematical truism that a copy is absolutely identical to the original (in all ways that matter) at the instant of copying, it is also true that values, beliefs and memories naturally change over time so it is vitally important to survival of one's personal identity that copies be made before too much change has accumulated. Beyond that point, the original person should be considered effectively lost and dead. Jef's position: The Self that one imagines might survive independently of changes in its environment is an illusion (albeit a convenient one) because the self exists only in terms of its interactions with its environment. As an agent acting within a given environmental context, what is best from the point of view of that agent is not necessarily survival but that it influences its environment so as to promote its own values into the future, in effect acting to create a future world matching the model it would like to see. To the extent that the future world contains an entity representing Self, then it can be said that Self "survived." To the extent that multiple agents represent Self, then it can be said that they are indeed Self. Corrections, questions, comments...dirty jokes? - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Nov 7 16:57:12 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:57:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611070128p3484c6ccj9420ca7e656e1123@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell Wallace wrote: > I've had a friendly conversation with a threadist, > where we both agreed the following: > > 1) He admitted his philosophy maybe meant he died > each night when he went to sleep. In practice he > simply ignores this for obvious reasons, but he > admits the logic. > > 2) He wants gradual rather than destructive-scan > uploading, and if it's ever in my power to provide > it for him I will. The moral problem with accepting others' irrational thinking (and yes, we all do it, for fundamental reasons of limited knowledge and computational resources) is that irrational thought leads to less than optimum actions which effect the world that we all share. This is not to say that we should demand rationality (again, it's fundamentally limited) but it is to say that we should discard the na?ve belief that the irrationality of others is solely "their own business." - Jef From george at betterhumans.com Tue Nov 7 17:11:36 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:11:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Art projects on the moon Message-ID: Here's an exhaustive list of potential art projects on the moon: http://mobile.orbit.zkm.de/?q=orbitnavigation/tag/439 I discovered the link via this article on Moon Activism: http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/009092.php Cheers, George From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Nov 7 18:31:58 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:31:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0611060005g5ac79cdeie540449406ec95b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> <8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0611060005g5ac79cdeie540449406ec95b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0E091F9A-4E68-49A7-83C5-A99826711CA3@mac.com> On Nov 6, 2006, at 12:05 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 11/6/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Did you actually read the piece? It is beyond me how you go from > the gentle thoughtful ruminations on actual good that just saved > this man's life as compared to the claimed good of religious acts > like prayer to the evils of communism. There in nothing whatever > of force in Dennett's remarks yet you act as if there is. > > I did not claim there was anything of force in Dennett's remarks; in > the text you quoted, I was agreeing with Eliezer that the most > precise analogy would be with "a theologian who *peacefully argues > with you*, for what he conceives to be your own benefit, that you > are committing a mortal sin by denying the existence of God." This is not the tone of your earlier remarks. I am glad you are calming down. > >> As for who's being more irrational, whatever your opinion of >> religion, it worked. Look at the results once religion is gone: the >> prime examples of evolution in action are precisely those who >> believe in evolution. If I believed in God I'd say He had a wicked >> sense of humor. >> > > What do you mean "it worked"? What worked exactly? I am really at > a loss as to what you meant by this paragraph. > > Religion worked for survival. What worked was largely the demise or defanging of religion. Individual and market freedom, freedom of thought, science and technological progress all owed some of their existence to religion losing power. To rewrite history as religion being what made things work is rather remarkable. If this is so then societies with the deepest religious cohesion should be most successful. This is not what history generally shows. > Look at what happens to modern cultures where religion is gone: they > fall apart into self-hatred and nihilism, birth rates plummeting > below extinction level, their people rapidly headed for oblivion. > The greatest civilization that ever existed on this planet is dying, > in what should have been its hour of triumph - dying not of any > external threat, but of its own parasite memes; and who will pick up > the torch once we are gone? > Many factors start the decline of a civilization. I see no evidence that a decline in religiosity is in the least primary. > Really? I know an awful lot of atheists who are very delighted with > life and this universe and consider life extremely full. > > If that works for them, great, though I will note that most people > who give up belief in God, in order to find meaning in life, need to > substitute some equivalent belief: aliens, the Singularity, > reincarnation or whatever. Yeah? Show some data. > >> What fanatical religious preachers taught them this, you may >> wonder? Why, some of the names are quite familiar. Gould, Dawkins, >> Dennett. >> > > This is beyond the pale. > > I'm sorry it offends you to see things called by their right names. > I see a ranting opinion backed by nothing but hand-wringing and bluster. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Nov 7 17:38:14 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:38:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Art projects on the moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061107113609.0451d258@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 11:11 AM 11/7/2006, you wrote: >Here's an exhaustive list of potential art projects on the moon: >http://mobile.orbit.zkm.de/?q=orbitnavigation/tag/439 > >I discovered the link via this article on Moon Activism: >http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/009092.php Just goes to show that postmodernism didn't infect the future-oriented brains of Nam June Paik and Rauschenberg :-) Cheers Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Nov 7 19:05:44 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:05:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The bone-dry Moon (was: Art projects on the moon) Message-ID: As an aside to the Art Projects on the Moon post, if you hear a space agency (NASA, ESA, ASI, ...) official say that we can use the resources on the Moon such as WATER for our lunar bases, then call him on it. Few planetary scientists believe that there is water on the Moon to use (and it is significant that no subsequent mission has confirmed Clementine's findings). The background to that story is here: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/14apr_moonwater.htm Amara From sentience at pobox.com Tue Nov 7 19:10:52 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:10:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <4550018C.7050409@posthuman.com> References: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> <4550018C.7050409@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <4550DA3C.9030000@pobox.com> FYI: I didn't get around to making the bet, partially because there didn't seem to be time, but also because I was looking over the historical track records of these markets and was re-impressed by their apparent accuracy. If the assessed probability is 20% that the Republicans keep the House, the bettors must not be taking any electronic shenanigans into account, and maybe neither should I... I guess we'll see. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Tue Nov 7 19:19:38 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:19:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Myth of the Rational Voter Message-ID: <4550DC4A.7090900@pobox.com> http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/ -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Nov 7 20:24:20 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:24:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Schools, was speaking of electoral college In-Reply-To: References: <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <454FFFF4.2000909@goldenfuture.net> <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061107135915.03d1bff0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:49 AM 11/7/2006 -0500, you wrote: >On 11/6/06, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> >wrote: >>You're old enough to remember the '80s, right? Things have changed little >>since then. > >Oh but some of us remember the '70's and even the '60s and we are longing >to bring back those days -- when people truely cared and positioned >themselves as such. I can one-up you a bit. I was born in 1942. So some of my memories go back to the late and even the mid 40s. Informed by my interest in EP, I am not so sure that "people truely cared and positioned themselves as such" more in the past than they do today. In some cases (such as the FBI) the myth and the reality as we now know it were miles apart. Times certainly have changed since the late 40s in a number of ways, particularly with schools. (My experience with public school spanned from fall of 1948 to spring of 1960.) Because my Dad was in the military I was in 8 schools during this time. 48 1st Barnet, Arlington VA. 49 2nd 50 3rd Stonewall Jackson Arlington VA. 51 4th Texas near Lubbock and Washington Heights in Japan 52 5th Washington Heights 53 6th Sagama Hara Japan 54 7th Wakefield Jr/Sr High School Arlington, Virginia 55 8th 56 9th 57 10th Tombstone AZ 58 11th Prescott AZ 59 12th School teacher was one of the few occupations smart women could go into in those days and the children benefited from it. The quality of the schools varied considerable. The worst was Tombstone where one morning the FBI took our chemistry teacher away. 5th was the most fun because the class had a set of encyclopedias and the teacher let me sit quitely in the back are read them. 9th I read an organic chemistry textbook I still have. 11th grade English for some (probably random) reason was packed with the smartest kids in the school. Fascinating discussions. My oldest kids started school in the mid 70s, my youngest graduated from Palo Alto High School in 2000. I could write more or possibly get the kids to write about their experiences if there is interest. Keith Henson PS. I went through about a dozen high school libraries in the San Jose area around 1995 looking at the books of my childhood (Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov and others) to see if the failure of those books to be read after some point in the early 70s was widespread, similar to what I had noticed in my daughter's middle school. It was. I have no theory as to why. From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Nov 7 20:30:46 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:30:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults and evolutionary psychology (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061107153038.03ddabf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> As some of you know, I have been engaged in a project for the last eleven years that (among other things) made me a refugee and has cost a lot more than your average PhD. It motivated me to study EP and the strange things that can happen to human minds sort of like a cancer patient might learn a lot about his particular flavor of cancer. Among other things I have followed the adventures of a relatively young Australian woman for several years talking to her through IRC. She is now out of the cult. She and her daughter are doing fine. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/61744a9f93620dc8?hl=en& Down the thread there is a very interesting analysis of the cult coercions by another one who escaped. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/c60c3de47f8442b4?hl=en& Of course all this need explanation in terms of psychological traits that evolved during the time our ancestors lived in hunter gatherer bands. I thought some of you might be interested in the source material for my postings here. Keith Henson From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Nov 7 20:38:55 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:38:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] School libraries and skiffy References: <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <454FFFF4.2000909@goldenfuture.net> <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061107143737.0215eea8@satx.rr.com> At 03:24 PM 11/7/2006 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: >PS. I went through about a dozen high school libraries in the San Jose >area around 1995 looking at the books of my childhood (Heinlein, Clarke, >Asimov and others) to see if the failure of those books to be read after >some point in the early 70s was widespread, similar to what I had noticed >in my daughter's middle school. It was. I have no theory as to why. The stories, settings and "Golden Age" voice were too antique? No cool kid, nor even a nerd, wanted to read skool library books? Those books were by then abundantly available in 2nd hand pb form, and had already been read or acquired or handed down? Bah--them kids today? Damien Broderick From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue Nov 7 20:42:27 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:42:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Some of my Recent Creations Message-ID: <20061107204227.93087.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> MB wrote: >> Short poses >> http://iangoddard.net/sketchesQuick.htm >> >> Long poses >> http://iangoddard.net/sketches.htm >> > > Hm. *I'm* impressed! :) My mom used to do > watercolors. Very pretty things. Have a > number of them here in my home. Me, I can barely > write! :))) Thanks! I've never been able to deal with watercolor and admire people who can! The water has a mind of its own and you have to learn to work with it. For me, if I'm not happy with a piece, I feel terrible. So I've never put myself through the anguish necessary to master watercolors. BTW, from this computer on campus I can see that one of the pages that viewed okay for me at home does not show the graphic from here. So I corrected the code (btw, you can use Explorer to access and edit your website via FTP, which comes in handy when you're away from home). Here's the corrected page: http://iangoddard.net/nude09.htm It's a bad habit I have of usually ignoring hair. ~Ian ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment! http://www.LowerMyBills.com/lre From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Nov 7 21:51:03 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:51:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] preliminary consensus is... In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061107143737.0215eea8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20061107215103.10732.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Due to a lack of intelligence and variation in the intelligence of students, not much can be done with education. However the alienation involved in education can be ameliorated with: vouchers. charter schools. homeschooling. Since extropians want maximum choice, having school choice is self-evidently desirable; therefore this motion is passed, session is adjourned until the next election. --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Get a free Motorola Razr! Today Only! Choose Cingular, Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, or T-Mobile. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Nov 7 22:15:38 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:15:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Some of my Recent Creations Message-ID: I agree, congratulations on your fine artwork, Ian. Ian Goddard iamgoddard at yahoo.com >Thanks! I've never been able to deal with watercolor and admire people >who can! The water has a mind of its own and you have to learn to work >with it. For me, if I'm not happy with a piece, I feel terrible. So >I've never put myself through the anguish necessary to master >watercolors. But watercolor can be such fun (maybe you take the medium too seriously) My Zoo: (with advice from (1)) http://www.amara.com/zoo/zoo.html Amara (1) Watercolor for the Artistically Undiscovered (Klutz S.) http://www.amazon.com/Watercolor-Artistically-Undiscovered-Klutz-S/dp/1878257447/ From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Nov 7 22:43:40 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:43:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except Message-ID: <21684711.482321162939420353.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >What can I say, you're still missing the mark widely. Look >at Ashkenazi eugenics. You'll probably think the results like >http://www.masada2000.org/nobel.html are sure due to IQ alone. But >please read http://www.masada2000.org/Powerful-Jews.html >especially the very last line. Yeah, sometimes it's that simple. As an Ashkenazi, I can say, Yes. It is that simple. Take a good look at that Nobel list. Beyond being mind boggling, it demonstrates that you have to be motivated to want it. And the entire Jewish culture is based on the concept of motivated education -- be it studying the Talmud or the physics book. We are motivated to learn at the earliest ages. And defend our knowledge and our thoughts, be it in the classroom or around the dinner table. Frankly, my dinner table was way tougher than any classroom. A punchline to my "killer school" dyslexia story: As you can imagine, my parents were beyond horrified to find out I had this problem that we could have been dealing with all these years, but were unaware of it. Beyond wanting to murder the teachers, my grandmother said: "Ach mein Gott, you COULD have been a doctor!" My father said: "Oh my God, you COULD have been a rocket scientist!" Nobody, not even my mother, wanted me to be a lawyer. Such were their expectations for me, as good Jews. I didn't have the heart to tell them that either scenario would have still been pretty unlikely... PJ From benboc at lineone.net Tue Nov 7 22:32:57 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:32:57 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Diversity Re: Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45510999.5010102@lineone.net> Anna wrote: Ben wrote: >>Are you sure you mean what you say here? You >>actually feel that somebody's use of a word in a >>way that you disagree with, is a violation of your >>rights? >Yes I do. I'm assuming then that you can tell me what >your thoughts are regarding the word "marriage". >Is it just a word without any symbols or associations? Well then, i'm sorry, but i'm going to have to violate your rights! My thoughts regarding the word? - well, of course the word has symbols and associations, in my mind, otherwise i wouldn't be able to use it. But they are very personal to me, in the sense that these symbols and associations are useful only to me, and would likely be incomprehensible to anyone else. Apart from that, yes, it's just a word. What it means is a matter of consensus. Language changes all the time, even the French can't change that. No one of us has any 'right' to determine what a word should mean to other people. > It doesn't bother you in the least that a "Union" can >represent transgender marriage, gay marriage, lesbian >marriage, heterosexual marriage, whatever goes..as >long as the legal ramifications remain the same? Absolutely. I fail to see why anyone could object to that. Why should it bother me, or anyone else? A 'Union' is the business of the parties involved, and nobody else. If they want their association to have a legal status, why should anyone try to prevent it? If a commonly understood word is applied to that union, then everyone will know what legal status it has. It grieves me that someone who has been living with a partner for many years, in a loving and caring relationship, can be denied things like visiting rights in hospital if their partner is ill, just because they aren't 'married', because they both happen to be male (or female). This concept of marriage makes you belong in a family together. Why on earth would anyone want to deny people this if they want it? It's beyond me. >Throughout history, did the word "marriage" ever refer >to 2 men or 2 women? Is that relevant? Look at the word 'gay'. It has changed with time. Things change. Bloody good thing too, or Transhumanism would be totally meaningless. >If you want to create evolution don't use names that >have been around for 2000 years and try to change, use >the word "Singularity" to create something different. Do you think the word 'marriage' has been around that long? and with the same meaning all that time? I don't know if it has or not, but i'd tend to doubt it. Still, it's irrelevant, as i said above. This has got nothing to do with the singularity, it's just about common humanity. ben zaiboc From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Nov 7 23:18:06 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:18:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is Message-ID: <12771592.485741162941486366.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Wed Nov 8 00:09:06 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:09:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Detectives and red herrings (was Survivaltangent) References: Message-ID: > Slawomir wrote: > >> I also strongly suspect your motivation for "agency" >> which is to save "patternism" from failing when considering >> identity with respect to (changing) patterns over time. That's why >> Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs->Agency is warranted. Your >> "agency" >> Things->Body->Brain->Pattern->VBMs->is just >> another >> layer of abstraction or an "improvement" on top of the heap >> of "improvements" >> constructed by patternists. Even though I applaud your >> motivation for "agency" I'm afraid I have to file it under >> SBA (suicide by abstraction), sorry. I simply can't accept >> survival as intangible and abstract as this. Jef: > Slawomir, once again, we're talking about two different things. I've > recognized your point all along, and I've demonstrated (with your > agreement) that I can state your point back to you, perhaps more > concisely than you can state it yourself. Jef, I can report back to you that this frustration is mutual. I feel that whenever I write X, you read G; I write Y, you read C (and keep insisting I support G and C). I'll quickly add that, IMO, this is probably an honest mistake. In any case, when you say that, "I can state your point back to you, perhaps more concisely than you can state it yourself" you're assuming unbelievably high degree of confidence in your correct understanding of what I'm saying, and I must tell you that the longer we talk to each other the more I realize that this high confidence that you display is unwarranted. When you tell me that I don't understand your point, I tend to accept that as sufficient evidence that I don't understand what you're saying. And if I tell you that you don't understand what I'm talking about, perhaps it would be a good idea to treat this as evidence that you don't understand. It's just a suggestion. It's hard to achieve progress in any discussion when people fail to realize what they argue about in the first place. Jef: > Let me state (my understanding of) our positions so we all feel clearly > heard, and perhaps to lay a clean solid foundation upon which future > discussion can *grow*. > > Slawomir's position: > Survival of one's personal identity is strictly dependent on > continuation of the physical constituents of the mind-producing process. First of all, "personal identity" is a bit of a red herring. Ultimately I'm interested in defining life and necessary conditions to extend life which is at least one meta-level above discussions about personal identity. Second of all, I fear that someone might read "physical constituents" and think "atoms" (J.K.Clark) instead of "energy across space and time." So a less misleading message should be: "Life is an *instance* of process. It exists for the duration of that instance. Subsequent instantiations of the same *type* of process do not extend existence of previous instances." Jef: > While some people talk as if they could survive indefinitely by means of > copies of themselves to overcome loss due to aging or accident, they > overlook or deny the simple ontological truth that a copy is, by its > very definition, not the same as the original. That part is fine. Slawomir From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Nov 8 01:18:03 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:18:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <12771592.485741162941486366.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <20061108011803.53177.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Do schools need to teach arts and sports at all?-- can't students learn those subjects in their free time? [...]a student can choose to focus on a specific "strand" of study (eg. science, engineering, arts, writing, etc. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Talk more and pay less. Vonage can save you up to $300 a year on your phone bill. Sign up now. http://www.vonage.com/startsavingnow/ From brentn at freeshell.org Wed Nov 8 01:29:18 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 20:29:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <20061108011803.53177.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061108011803.53177.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2006, at 20:18, Al Brooks wrote: > Do schools need to teach arts and sports at all?-- > can't students learn those subjects in their free > time? > There is ample evidence that music, e.g., complements growth of math skills. This is anecdotally comfirmed by the fact that a large number of my colleagues at my alma mater, the NC School of Science and Math, were band geeks. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Nov 8 01:42:46 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:42:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061108014246.95547.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> What about sports?; don't children get plenty of exercise and teamwork skills on their own, after hours? Is it wise to spend hundreds (or is it thousands?) per capita on gymnasiums, fields, equipment, and phys ed instructors? > There is ample evidence that music, e.g., > complements growth of math > skills. This is anecdotally comfirmed by the fact > that a large number > of my colleagues at my alma mater, the NC School of > Science and Math, > were band geeks. > > B ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link $200,000 mortgage for $660/mo - 30/15 yr fixed, reduce debt, home equity - Click now for info http://yahoo.ratemarketplace.com From pj at pj-manney.com Wed Nov 8 01:50:05 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:50:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is Message-ID: <29288068.490681162950605734.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> You're kidding us. Right? PJ >What about sports?; don't children get plenty of >exercise and teamwork skills on their own, after >hours? >Is it wise to spend hundreds (or is it thousands?) per >capita on gymnasiums, fields, equipment, and phys ed >instructors? From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Nov 8 02:29:12 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 18:29:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <29288068.490681162950605734.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <20061108022912.27082.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> No, am not kidding. I honestly do not know if government provided physical education is necessary. Not everyone knows these things. --- pjmanney wrote: > You're kidding us. Right? > > PJ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Nov 8 02:06:01 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:06:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is Message-ID: <380-220061138261795@M2W103.mail2web.com> From: pjmanney >>What about sports?; don't children get plenty of >exercise and teamwork skills on their own, after >>hours? >>Is it wise to spend hundreds (or is it thousands?) per >>capita on gymnasiums, fields, equipment, and phys ed >>instructors? >You're kidding us. Right? Sports and athleticism are essential for a solid, complete curriculum of knowledge-gaining, interaction, and developing technical skill as well as personal and social skils. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From brentn at freeshell.org Wed Nov 8 03:12:56 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:12:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <20061108014246.95547.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061108014246.95547.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2006, at 20:42, Al Brooks wrote: > What about sports?; don't children get plenty of > exercise and teamwork skills on their own, after > hours? That depends on the socioeconomic status of the children you're talking about. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From brentn at freeshell.org Wed Nov 8 03:23:29 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:23:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <380-220061138261795@M2W103.mail2web.com> References: <380-220061138261795@M2W103.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2006, at 21:06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > > Sports and athleticism are essential for a solid, complete > curriculum of > knowledge-gaining, interaction, and developing technical skill as > well as > personal and social skils. > > Agreed, wholeheartedly. Overall bodily health affects the mind and its development. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Nov 8 03:24:53 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:24:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [private message] speaking of electoral college In-Reply-To: <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45514E05.2040706@goldenfuture.net> Huh? I was just pointing out a site that is about to give electoral college results for potential candidates. The whole "private message" thing in the subject line is confusing me. Joseph Al Brooks wrote: > Bush as you know didn't steal the election in 2000, the rules on a tie > allow for an election to be settled in court. My commie friends say > "but that's so subjective"; of course it is-- that's what politics /is > /mostly, the whims of the electorate the moment they are in the voting > booths; then they change a little by the next election until after > many generations the situation does substantially change. You're old > enough to remember the '80s, right? Things have changed little since then. > > > > > */Joseph Bloch /* wrote: > > For those who are interested in what the 2008 election might look > like > (according to the electoral college, not just a popular vote), take a > gander here > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sponsored Link > > Free Uniden 5.8GHz Phone System with Packet8 Internet Phone Service > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au Wed Nov 8 03:34:07 2006 From: c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au (Colin Geoffrey Hales) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:34:07 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except Message-ID: <1952.128.250.225.217.1162956847.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 12:01:41PM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ### Jeez, Eugen, you sound depressed. Reading libertarian-leaning > > No, just not irrationally exhuberant. You might or might not remember that just prior to the .bomb I wasn't exactly exhuberant, either. Where others saw the gleaming outskirts of the Singularity, I only saw a bubble about to pop. Well, I hate to repeat myself, but this one is going to be a really Big One. The only thing I don't know for sure is when exactly. Some say as early as 2007, some put that at 2012. > It's hard to tell, because it's punctuated equilibrium psychology thing. In a number of different universes it has happened already. > Hi Eugene... I am still aiming for 2012. Although it is looking a little opimistic at the moment. So put me down for the 2012 timeslot with an option for 2015. My chip design proof of principle simulations will be done 2010 (end of my PhD - it's my project). Then chip fabrication for the first experiments to prove the chips are having experiences. After that it'll get let loose on humanity and 7 billion pairs of hands might give it a leg up. Although I still think we're gonna have trouble wanting them to be alive! The first creatures will be sort of single-cell-scientists. A bridge of them comparing notes, doing science on novelty (novelty to them, anyway). The scientists are all inside each other, able to compare experiences. Grafting human brains together to do the equivalent on humans has a few ethical hurdles! It all depends on whther the AGI that results can sort out the nanotech required for the subsequent versions of the chips. Until that is done they'll all be made with existing fabrication/embodiment techniques and no self-replication will be involved. So the exact timing is a bit debatable. There's going to be a big change to science next year, tho. A sort of Kuhnian shake-out. I'm madly pressing all those buttons right now. I suppose I'm pressing it here too. It's slowly sinking in. I'm hammering 3 other email forums (fora?) as best I can. I am on a leave of absence from my PhD until Jan and after that I won't have time to press that button any more. Don't think the science thing counts as a singularity, however. Although historians might view it that way. All good fun, regardless. :-) Colin Hales From pj at pj-manney.com Wed Nov 8 03:45:13 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:45:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is Message-ID: <4637134.499241162957513893.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >No, am not kidding. I honestly do not know if >government provided physical education is necessary. >Not everyone knows these things. Websites and papers: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5336a5.htm http://www.aahperd.org/NASPE/pdf_files/pos_papers/pe_critical.PDF http://www.wirral.gov.uk/atoz/documents/The%20Health%20Benefits%20of%20Physical%20Education%20and%20Sport.pdf http://www.pecentral.org/professional/defending/benefits.html http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/pefrwk.pdf There is not much mention of the 'privitzation' issue of sports in these papers. But I can tell you from having had children in association league sports, like Little League and AYSO (American Youth Soccer Organization), that 1) not all kids can participate because of the costs involved; 2) not all parents can let them participate because of the parental involvement requirements or time commitments; 3) depending on the sport, the coach, etc., they can take up an amazing amount of a kid's time outside of school, which some kids might find difficult if they are involved in other pursuits, like the arts or tutoring or scouting or have excessive homework issues; 4) some of the parent-run leagues are very intense and some kids hate them. [My own son quit soccer and wouldn't join basketball because of the @#$hole parents involved in both in our town. One dad, who coached the opposing team, actually insulted my son after a game by telling him his successful blocking of all their attempted goals was bad, because his son's team lost. After the dad walked away, my son turned to me, with a look of total disgust and said, "I'm not playing next year." And that was that. I just wish these dads (and they are all dads in my experience) would let their kids be kids and stop living out their own dashed dreams. Ironically, my son is waiting for Jr. High and High School to join school football. He knows the players' parents are less involved in school sports and thinks he'll enjoy it more then.] If kids don't get physical activity at school, many kids won't get it at all. And they obviously need them, physically, mentally and emotionally. Respectfully, PJ From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 04:18:12 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 23:18:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] POL: Dems will take the house Message-ID: This has been in the wind for a while, but its satisfying to see CNN make it "official". They are now predicting the Democrats will take the U.S. House of Representatives. The Senate may still be possible as well though it appears to be more difficult. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Nov 8 05:09:42 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:09:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] speaking of electoral college In-Reply-To: <45514E05.2040706@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20061108050942.21982.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> Sorry, Joseph, tried to send you a private message but it went to extropy-chat as well. Anyway so much conspiracy theory exists that to this day millions (yes, millions) think Bush stole the 2000 election. It may be ancient history yet it demonstrates how so many don't understand America isn't a democracy, it's a democratic republic-- the electoral college is part of this. >Joseph Bloch wrote: > Huh? I was just pointing out a site that is about to > give electoral > college results for potential candidates. > > The whole "private message" thing in the subject > line is confusing me. > > Joseph > > > Al Brooks wrote: > > > Bush as you know didn't steal the election in > 2000, the rules on a tie > > allow for an election to be settled in court. My > commie friends say > > "but that's so subjective"; of course it is-- > that's what politics /is > > /mostly, the whims of the electorate the moment > they are in the voting > > booths; then they change a little by the next > election until after > > many generations the situation does substantially > change. You're old > > enough to remember the '80s, right? Things have > changed little since then. > > > > > > > > > > */Joseph Bloch /* > wrote: > > > > For those who are interested in what the 2008 > election might look > > like > > (according to the electoral college, not just > a popular vote), take a > > gander here > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Sponsored Link > > > > Free Uniden 5.8GHz Phone System with Packet8 > Internet Phone Service > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed Nov 8 05:10:35 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:10:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Some of my Recent Creations Message-ID: <20061108051035.84282.qmail@web52601.mail.yahoo.com> Amara wrote: > I agree, congratulations on your fine artwork, Ian. Thanks Amara! I enjoyed viewing your photos. http://www.amara.com/photo/photo.html They're truly stunning and show such a sophisticated sense of balance and design. And concurrent poetic content, such as here http://www.amara.com/photo/mistsoftime.html , makes for a powerful full-sensory experience! >> I've never put myself through the anguish necessary >> to master watercolors. > > But watercolor can be such fun (maybe you take the > medium too seriously) You're right! I should approach art with a more playful attitude. In my teens and early twenties I did a lot of freewheeling abstract art. I just let my imagination fly free, never knowing where it might go. I don't have any of that online. Of course forms of visionary-enhancement popular back in those days made non-abstract art almost impossible to do! %^) > My Zoo: (with advice from (1)) > http://www.amara.com/zoo/zoo.html Such a combination of free-style artistic design and thought pointing to a higher dimension of art as a medium of inner self-exploration and realization. Truly inspirational! Thanks again Amara! ~Ian ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link For just $24.99/mo., Vonage offers unlimited local and long- distance calling. Sign up now. http://www.vonage.com/startsavingnow/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Nov 8 05:15:39 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:15:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is In-Reply-To: <4637134.499241162957513893.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <20061108051539.59705.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> Great reply, PJ, never would expected anything so comprehensive. Thankyou. I brought this all up after reading Milton Friedman's statement concerning school performance being "deplorable". Friedman is a solid economist, not a crank, so when he says 'deplorable' it's disturbing. > Websites and papers: > > http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5336a5.htm > > http://www.aahperd.org/NASPE/pdf_files/pos_papers/pe_critical.PDF > > http://www.wirral.gov.uk/atoz/documents/The%20Health%20Benefits%20of%20Physical%20Education%20and%20Sport.pdf > > http://www.pecentral.org/professional/defending/benefits.html > > http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/pefrwk.pdf > > There is not much mention of the 'privitzation' > issue of sports in these papers. But I can tell you > from having had children in association league > sports, like Little League and AYSO (American Youth > Soccer Organization), that 1) not all kids can > participate because of the costs involved; 2) not > all parents can let them participate because of the > parental involvement requirements or time > commitments; 3) depending on the sport, the coach, > etc., they can take up an amazing amount of a kid's > time outside of school, which some kids might find > difficult if they are involved in other pursuits, > like the arts or tutoring or scouting or have > excessive homework issues; 4) some of the parent-run > leagues are very intense and some kids hate them. > [My own son quit soccer and wouldn't join basketball > because of the @#$hole parents involved in both in > our town. One dad, who coached the opposing team, > actually insulted my son after a game by telling him > his successful blocking of all thei! > r attempted goals was bad, because his son's team > lost. After the dad walked away, my son turned to > me, with a look of total disgust and said, "I'm not > playing next year." And that was that. I just wish > these dads (and they are all dads in my experience) > would let their kids be kids and stop living out > their own dashed dreams. Ironically, my son is > waiting for Jr. High and High School to join school > football. He knows the players' parents are less > involved in school sports and thinks he'll enjoy it > more then.] > > If kids don't get physical activity at school, many > kids won't get it at all. And they obviously need > them, physically, mentally and emotionally. > > Respectfully, > PJ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Try Netflix today! With plans starting at only $5.99 a month what are you waiting for? http://www.netflix.com/Signup?mqso=80010030 From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 8 05:44:27 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:44:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity Message-ID: <093501c702f8$f88577f0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> On Sun Nov 5 15:34:33, Jef posted the analysis we'd been looking to. I wish to deal with it in two parts, one now and one tomorrow. Although Jef wrote a later absolutely marvelous post that mostly skillfully summarized differences between our various positions---and one that I think was exceedingly accurate---it's clear (to me) that in *this* essay here he didn't understand *my* position. To wit, Jef writes in his Sunday Nov 5 piece, http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-November/030329.html , > Lee wrote > > I *admit* that! Too much change kills one. It changes you > > into someone else. Notice here I did say "too *much* change". > Lee, I presented the little story of Aging Alice in order to demonstrate > the incompleteness of the "patternist" view...While I agree that > this holds for any given instant (t=0), and that it supports the view > that an identical copy of a person is essentially that same person, this > definition appears to fail *immediately* and progressively with > increasing divergence of two instances of the same person. > (1) You have stated that as change accumulates with age, > at some point a person must be considered to have become > a different person. I never intended to say at *some* particular point t=t0. > (2) You have stated that one should consider any copies of > oneself as being exactly the same person regardless of some > non-zero amount of space, time and accumulated experience, > so it is clear that in your theory, personal identity > persists through some significant amount of change. Yes, but only to a *degree*, which is a continuous variable. > 3) So in your theory it seems either that there must be some t>0 > dividing point, or that your definition of personal identity is > internally contradictory. Why can't it be a slow continuous change? I have always emphasized "close duplicates" as being you more than significantly different duplicates, e.g. ones made from you many years ago. > (3a) You seem to claim a sort of mathematical or > objective purity to your theory, so I would ask > you, at what point is a person no longer the > same person? And I would retort, "at what exact point during dusk does it become dark?", or "at what point does one become middle-aged?" > (4)Failing (3a), would you agree that personal identity > (other than for the trivial case at t=0) can not be > stated essentially in terms of some objective physical > measure (ideal or practical), but that personal identity > must necessarily be assigned as the result of some subjective > evaluation (which of course is likely to have a strong > correspondence with observables)? No, I do not agree. First, it *can* be stated in objective terms, just as in my example "nighttime" and "middle age" are objective phenomonena. Just because some quality lacks a *precise* point of definition does not detract from its reality. "Hot" and "cold" have been replaced, and objectively so, by the temperature scale. But this does not mean that "hot" and "cold" are meaningless. I draw your attention to *similarity*. Similarity of state, I contend, is objective, and metrics can be defined that attempt to capture the degree of objective similarity between two things. True, we may have different metrics, but they tend to be themselves similar in the measurements they yield. Thus an earlier version of you, say from last month, is objectively different from you now, and is objectively less different from you than was your ten year old self. (P.S. sorry if I've repeated myself too much in this post.) Lee > Please let me know your response to the preceding and > of your agreement or disagreement with any of its premises > or conclusions. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 8 05:52:36 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:52:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Detectives and red herrings (was Survivaltangent) References: Message-ID: <094401c702fa$3e74f3c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Here is Jef's very fine analysis of our positions: > Let me state (my understanding of) our positions so we all feel clearly > heard, and perhaps to lay a clean solid foundation upon which future > discussion can *grow*. [Hear, hear!] > > Slawomir's position: > Survival of one's personal identity is strictly dependent on continuation > of the physical constituents of the mind-producing process. While some > people talk as if they could survive indefinitely by means of copies of > themselves to overcome loss due to aging or accident, they overlook > or deny the simple ontological truth that a copy is, by its very definition, > not the same as the original. > > John's position: > Survival of one's personal identity is quite perfectly achievable in theory, > and will become so in practice when we have acquired the technological > means to make an effective working copy of a person's identity. Neither > substrate nor continuity matter in this endeavor, as long as the process > which constitutes one's mind is faithfully reproduced and running. Copy > and Original *are* identical when there is no measurable functional difference. > > Lee's position: > Survival of one's personal identity is absolutely possible in theory and will > become absolutely achievable if and when we have technology enabling us > to run copies of the pattern that constitutes the mind including (but not > necessarily limited to) its values, beliefs and memories. While it's an obvious > mathematical truism that a copy is absolutely identical to the original (in all > ways that matter) at the instant of copying, it is also true that values, beliefs > and memories naturally change over time so it is vitally important to survival > of one's personal identity that copies be made before too much change has > accumulated. Beyond that point, the original person should be > considered effectively lost and dead. Bravo! It seems that *here* you've ennuciated my position with great accuracy! > Jef's position: > The Self that one imagines might survive independently of changes in its > environment is an illusion (albeit a convenient one) because the self > exists only in terms of its interactions with its environment. As an > agent acting within a given environmental context, what is best from the > point of view of that agent is not necessarily survival but that it > influences its environment so as to promote its own values into the > future, in effect acting to create a future world matching the model it > would like to see. To the extent that the future world contains an > entity representing Self, then it can be said that Self "survived." To > the extent that multiple agents represent Self, then it can be said that > they are indeed Self. > > Corrections, questions, comments...dirty jokes? I think that skillful efforts like this one someone's part are incredibly helpful, so thanks! Lee P.S. Apologies if I've made the formatting worse: it occurred to me while I was doing it that I'm not using fixed-font, and many readers probably are. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 8 06:02:54 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:02:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent) References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <07e501c7022a$d2c1d9b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <014801c70247$5ca26a70$25094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <094d01c702fb$f09a2830$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> John writes > "Lee Corbin" > >> So if it's true that there is an extremely similar >> (only a trillion or so atoms different with slightly >> different pattern) copy of you running on a planet >> of Alpha Centauri, it's okay if it or you die? > > An exact duplicate of the earth, and it's entire ecosystem, is created a > billion light years away. The duplicate world would need some sort of > feedback mechanism to keep the worlds in synchronization, No! I'm talking about a complete accident (cf. "Luckiest Man in the Universe" by Max More). For my purposes they do *not* need to be kept in synch (and how could they be, as you say?) It just so happens that at *this* moment, the John Clark there and the John Clark here differ by only a few trillion atoms. Like you and the you of half an hour ago. > 2) I find out that for the first time since the Big Bang the worlds will > diverge, in 10 seconds you will put a bullet in my head but my double will > be spared. Am I concerned? Yes, and angry as well, in times of intense > stress nobody is very logical. I admitted the same a few days ago about a Bengal Tiger jumping into my room. > My double is no longer exact because I am going through a traumatic > experience and my double is not. I'd be looking at that huge gun Oh, let's please revert to just the abstract knowledge that one of you is to be disintegrated instantly. > My (semi) double would be thinking "it's a shame about that other fellow but > I'm glad it's not me". He shouldn't think that. He should say instead, "It's a pity that my runtime has just been halved. (I'm not even sure yet that I'm the one on Earth or the one near Alpha Centauri.)". It *was* you. It was just "you" at a different place, but an exceedingly *similar* you. It's a red-herring, really, to discuss absolutely "exact" duplicates. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 8 06:16:50 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:16:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders (was Re: it's all understandable, except) References: <14545876.369241162848958726.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <08a701c70235$101089b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <21AA27CF-5EA0-4D8E-AD33-99FEBCF62525@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <095301c702fd$a09d3ff0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Andrew writes > On Nov 6, 2006, at 10:19 PM, Lee Corbin wrote [to PJ] >> RIGHT YOU ARE! This is a very important point. >> Dean Keith Simonton in his book "Greatness" explains >> that it is seldom that people who are about 20 IQ points >> lower than you are can even understand you. He uses >> this idea very convincingly to explain why British PMs >> are smarter on average than U.S. presidents. The former >> need to impress other MPs, the latter >> only to impress the average American voter. > > Here's a serious question then with respect to this hypothesis: is > there evidence that the average US President was more intelligent > prior to 1913, and if so what kind of average discrepancy are we > talking about? I don't know! And I sure wish I did. But the change probably came with the election of Jackson, which was more democratic. We may surmise---as I think Simonton did---that before 1828 the Presidents were smarter. Now, in my opinion, incidentally, this is not necessarily a defect in the American system. The president is not God. He or she has policy formulations determined by the best staffs that he or she can find. A good judge of character and ability to delegate is probably more important than a very high IQ. Reagan was more successful than Carter, and Roosevelt was more successful than Hoover, though in each case I strongly suspect the last mentioned in each case of having a much lower IQ than the former. Hoover was probably the brightest U.S. president of all, but he embraced even before Roosevelt the same government-meddling policies that caused the great depression. (This is the Austrian view.) If only Harding or Coolidge could have remained president just a bit longer (so writes Paul Johnson, IMO the world's greatest living historian), a great deal of evil in the 20th century would have been averted. > And does it account for basic differences in the process that > determines who gets to be an MP and who gets to be a > Congressman that bias the selection of the two populations > a PM or President had to interact with? I'm assuming that Simonton was suggesting that MPs are very parallel to Congresspeople. Both need to impress their constituents and be understandable to them. The only difference I think there is, as I mentioned, is the secondary one of how the final leader is determined. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 8 06:35:20 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:35:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Educational Environments (was Re: it's all understandable, except) References: <638d4e150611041749n1a3c2907xd32d00ff60a11df6@mail.gmail.com> <05ec01c7008a$ab914660$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26B1670E-0EBC-407E-AC2B-A654492C6FA1@mac.com> Message-ID: <095601c70300$285bd9e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > ...Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Since Eugen wrote, a number of people have chimed >> in to agree. I ask, where is the evidence that the key >> problems are current educational environments or poor >> parenting? Are there studies? > > What is the worth of these studies though? How has their > methodology been vetted? The IQ studies are extremely solid. Again, I suggest people read the Amazon reviews of "The g-Factor" over and over until they ceased to be shocked by them. I infer that the Judith Rich Harris studies are absolutely solid too. She makes a terrific case in her book "The Nurture Assumption", and it's a fact that the researchers all applaud. See "The Blank Slate" by Pinker for a summary, or, I'm sure web references exist. >> The studies---your anecdotes aside---report what I said they did, >> namely that it's genes 50%, peers 50%, parents 0%, and schools, 0%. >> (I should add, to be careful, that these are determinants of adult >> personality. But I think that it applies to contributing technically >> to society too.) > > This seems highly unlikely and suspicious. How would genes be that > well separated out from environmental factors[?]. It's marvelous to read about, say in "The g-Factor" how cleverly it can be done. There are all manner of ingenious studies crafted by numerous researchers over the last century, and by comparing them, a great deal can be deduced. Moreover, it all paints the same picture. So something similar must be arousing the admiration of the academics who support Judith Rich Harris. > In environmental factors how exactly would the contribution from > parents and schools be teased out so cleanly from that of peers? One huge tool is twin-studies of course. It's amazing how many there have been. Also, very clever studies have shown that SES does not at all strongly contribute to IQ. As I'm reading Jensen, I'm really impressed with his open-mindedness and thorough testing of alternate hypotheses. > It looks a good deal too pat on the face of it, doesn't it? I confess that I had more reservations---yes, it does look pat--- before I read "The g-Factor" than after. And Jensen's is by no means the only book. There are horror stories about how hard it is to find a publisher. After "The Bell Curve", they're all scared to death. >> And furthermore, contrary to what Eugen states, the limiting factor >> *is* what is between the ears. Researchers on intelligence admit, >> however, that intelligence is like money. It really doesn't matter >> how much you have so long as you have enough. >> >> But the overwhelming part of the populace does *not* have enough >> cognitive ability, not enough for today's technical needs. > > So, a bit down the road we can fix that, yes? We hope. First. people have to admit it's a problem. Even if they did---which they do not---we are talking what? the usual thirty years for anything to happen? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 8 06:46:37 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:46:37 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Detectives and red herrings (was Survivaltangent) References: Message-ID: <095f01c70301$da6b8a80$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef also wrote a summary of his own position: ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:41 AM > Jef's position: > The Self that one imagines might survive independently of changes in its > environment is an illusion (albeit a convenient one) because the self > exists only in terms of its interactions with its environment. Well, you may qualify this in the next statements, but this does make it sound that if I take a sudden vacation to Tokyo (where I've never been), and immerse myself as much as I can with what's going on there---including intensely studying the language---then while I am there I am someone else. But I say, on the contrary, that because the VBM are still so much the same, it's really *me* in Tokyo, not someone else. > As an agent acting within a given environmental context, what is > best from the point of view of that agent is not necessarily > survival but that it influences its environment so as to promote its > own values into the future, in effect acting to create a future world > matching the model it would like to see. Wow! That sounds very idealistic to me (in the sense of willing to give up something). "Survival" is what I'm talking about, as you know. Suppose that I determine that Eliezer or someone can more effectively "promote my values into the future" than I can. So I should agree to stop being me, and let there be two of him? No way! Call me selfish, but these VBM are going to stick around if they can help it, especially the memories. > To the extent that the future world contains an > entity representing Self, then it can be said that > Self "survived." To the extent that multiple agents > represent Self, then it can be said that > they are indeed Self. I agree. But it's absolutely mandatory from my perspective that things supposed to be Myself have my *memories* in order to be me. The values and beliefs are definitely secondary, though important, in my opinion. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 8 06:59:32 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:59:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett References: <380-220061153192746796@M2W040.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0611031439w5d25b799k1dc4618d05e054a4@mail.gmail.com> <454BD34B.6070504@pobox.com> <8d71341e0611031603t5e86a6c8r315894f13309c6a1@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0611060005g5ac79cdeie540449406ec95b7@mail.gmail.com> <079401c70199$64625b20$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <45D0A95C-CCDF-46F9-849E-1A3EDE839FBC@mac.com> Message-ID: <097001c70303$b858c8c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > [Lee wrote] >> Europe is finished. A Muslim civilization will replace it. > > No way. This is utter nonsense. The Muslims can't manage to come > into the 21st century. Science and technology is too hard to > reconcile with the faith, especially as it blends with law and > politics. Without that the Muslims will never be strong enough to > prevail. But in western democratic countries, all they need are votes. And they're getting them, and already have many politicians courting those votes. In a contest between one side with higher tech but lower willpower, the higher-technological, more sophisticated side always wins IF the contest is brief. But long contests are historically always won by the side with greater will power. (E.g. America's difficulty winning in Iraq, Britain's difficulty winning against Colonial America, etc., etc.) >> But in North America, the situation is less clear. >> >> An elite in North America can continue to "run things" >> for a very long time yet. This is because as the class >> structure of the country becomes more pronounced, >> the lower classes shall respond to direction, just as >> they do in Mexico today, whereas in Europe, the >> Muslims have superior cohesion and superior will. > > Really you think Muslims are superior? In what way? They band > together? The threaten, kill and destroy when angered? This is > superior in a way that matters in this time of accelerating change? > How so? You could be right: the technological changes could come so soon and be so abrupt that you and I get uploaded, and the reigning AIs of Earth parent the Muslims as much as they parent you and me. But if it doesn't happen soon, then it won't be the first time that a more backward people overcame a more advanced one (e.g. Mongols and China, Huns and Romans, etc., etc.) > The Muslims as Muslim statists are a dying culture > unable to cope with the speed and type of changes > around them. Who says they're dying? Look at Lebanon. It used to be Christian. Not any more. Look at France; soon it'll go the way Lebanon did. Lee From jonkc at att.net Wed Nov 8 07:09:22 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:09:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Some of my Recent Creations References: <20061106200529.99006.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <019101c70305$1b250800$64084e0c@MyComputer> Ian you're good, you're damn good. I'd give a million bucks to have half your talent, and that's not just a figure of speech I mean it quite literally. One of my most painful memories was me in the first grade when the teacher asked us to draw something, I forget what. I thought I'd done a pretty good job but then the teacher told us to hand in our pictures by passing them to the student ahead of us. I was at the head of the class so I saw what my fellow students had drawn and my heart filled with despair, each and every drawing was better than mine, not just a little bit better but INCOMPARABLY better. Up to then I'd been a argent little bastard but suddenly I learned I was not the best at everything, in fact I sucked world class. If the gods were kind they would have given me a hell of a lot more artistic ability or just a bit little less; as it is I had just enough to realize how badly I sucked but not enough to do anything about it. Salieri was to Mozart as I was to Salieri. Fortunately I have other talents but if art was all there was in the world I'd be in a home for the retarded right now. John K Clark From pj at pj-manney.com Wed Nov 8 07:15:07 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:15:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders (was Re: it's allunderstandable, except) Message-ID: <15677946.506311162970107667.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Lee wrote: >> Here's a serious question then with respect to this hypothesis: is >> there evidence that the average US President was more intelligent >> prior to 1913, and if so what kind of average discrepancy are we >> talking about? > >I don't know! And I sure wish I did. But the change probably came >with the election of Jackson, which was more democratic. We may >surmise---as I think Simonton did---that before 1828 the Presidents >were smarter. > >Now, in my opinion, incidentally, this is not necessarily a defect in >the American system. The president is not God. He or she has policy >formulations determined by the best staffs that he or she can find. >A good judge of character and ability to delegate is probably more >important than a very high IQ. Reagan was more successful than >Carter, and Roosevelt was more successful than Hoover, though >in each case I strongly suspect the last mentioned in each case of >having a much lower IQ than the former. Hoover was probably >the brightest U.S. president of all, but he embraced even before >Roosevelt the same government-meddling policies that caused the >great depression. (This is the Austrian view.) If only Harding or >Coolidge could have remained president just a bit longer (so writes >Paul Johnson, IMO the world's greatest living historian), a great >deal of evil in the 20th century would have been averted. Actually, I'd vote for the first Roosevelt, Teddy, as the smartest US President after the Founding Fathers period. He was a true polymath -- a historian, a scientist, a naturalist, a writer. He was a great communicator, able to talk to anyone, of any type, and be understood. And an unbelievably savvy politician and diplomat to boot, who actually listened to the people and did what he believed they wanted and needed doing. His progressive stances were downright prescient. And he had balls of steel to stand up against his entire Republican party and Gilded-Age Wall Street, who owned them even back then, to do what he believed was right. If I could clone a politician right now and run him for president in 2008, it'd be him. I'd even vote Republican for the first time in my life. TR, where are you??? There is much to be said that the electorate in the past was smarter as well and it had nothing to do with IQ. It had to do with the fact that the electorate read and paid what we might view today as excessive attention to politics. Political debates could be days long affairs in the 19th C. and were attended widely and reported on avidly. Consider the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example. The issues were complex and divisive and both men held the attention of the crowd for an entire day of debating, where each man could talk for up to 3 hours at a time! More importantly, they actually understood what the hell Douglas and Lincoln were arguing about! Neil Postman writes extensively on this subject in "Amusing Ourselves to Death." Read the chapters "Typographic America" and "The Typographic Mind." It's a beautiful, brilliant analysis of just how verbally literate the pre-visual (movie/TV/advertising) world was and how they actively used their literacy. This was the final flowering of the Enlightenment mind, here in the US. The downhill slide began with visual advertising at the turn of the 19th C. and its coffin was nailed by television. Before the slide, however, almost every free-born American could read and the political system took this as an assumption. And politics was played out accordingly. Of course, there was negative campaigning and mud slinging going on. I'm sure there was in Ancient Athens. But in the televisual world, instead of substantive debate, we now live on the sound-bite and the image. There's not much political substance there, because it's simply impossible to transmit the necessary information in those types of formats. We vote on the best smile, now. Just like Miss America. Even tonight's results are not about real substance. They are about "getting the bums out." No IQ necessary, from either voters or politicians. Just pure emotion. Respectfully, PJ From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Nov 8 09:52:48 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 01:52:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> References: <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <2DCC473D-A00D-4AD0-8D0C-645F76195076@mac.com> On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:25 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 03:15:18AM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Since Eugen wrote this, a number of people have chimed in to agree. >> I ask, where is the evidence that the key problems are current >> educational >> environments or poor parenting? Are there studies? > > If you've got poorly socialized children with a migrant background > as a majority, you will not be able to start schooling at a decent > level. It only goes downhill from there. Do you mean starting at K or 1st grade or later. If started early enough I don't think mere migrant background is such a problem. > I presume the answer to > that is to start saving for a private school -- but you will notice > that e.g. most of the U.S. doesn't do that, they do in fact quite > the opposite. Sending kids to private school packs a double penalty for the parents. Yet there are studies showing that private schools on average deliver about twice the education per dollar than public schools. > > A few days ago on the commute I heard on the propaganda channel > radio about the > current grand coalition slapping each other on the back, mutually > congratulating > themselves on their grand achievement. That being, that they have > reduced > the amount of new debt this year. To "only" 30 GEUR. Perhaps > too many people misunderstand what exponential functions (compounded > interest) means, especially if each third EUR already silently > vanishes into > the debt hole. > >> The studies---your anecdotes aside---report what I said they did, >> namely that it's genes 50%, peers 50%, parents 0%, and schools, 0%. > > Genes are meaningless, if you're looking at poorly socialized kids > with a migrant background entering the school system, which is already > contaminated with a couple of decades of similiar toxic problems. > Teaching is traditionally a well-paid high-prestige job in Germany, > but the schools have gotten so bad it's hard to find new personnel, > especially in hard sciences. > Again I don't think being from a migrant family means you are poorly socialized on poor school material per se. > For genes to wield their full potential you need a stable, supportive > environment even pre-birth, and an educational system which challenges > each kid individually. The genes have remained basically the same, > it's the parenting and schools (peers are an integral part of the > school) which have been failing. > It is largely government run schooling, cultures where no one is left to be with the kids much of the time, and a culture that is becoming ever more cynical and apathetic that are imho primary factors in the problem. >> And furthermore, contrary to what Eugen states, the limiting factor >> *is* what is between the ears. Researchers on intelligence admit, > > Correct, but irrelevant. The bottlenecks are elsewhere. As long as > the environment is the same no amount of perfect genes will matter. > You don't need perfect genes to be a highly productive individual. > Yes, for some things you need genius, but only in trace amounts. > Unlike Galt's Gulch and Vinge's visions a small group of supergeniuses > without the vast pyramid of support can do only very little. > Our concerns are that that supportive structure is failing. It's > hard to build buckyball circuits if there's almost no industry > and the state is effectively bankrupt (well, the state isn't, > but the citizens are left with the bill). > So what can we do to make things as much better as is possible? >> But the overwhelming part of the populace does *not* have enough >> cognitive ability, not enough for today's technical needs. > > Jobs in R&D are negligible in the old West. What's the point in > entering a challenging technical field if you know that 1) the > job market will be brutal 2) you're entering a field which is > not even lower middle class, by salary standards? > It is worse than that. The majority of the people by a considerable margin are incapable of understanding many of the issues they vote on. I don't think it is so largely a matter of raw intelligence as of severe undertraining and imho systematic mistraining. It does not help that the people have been conditioned and/or conditioned themselves to spend much of their free time being passively entertained by the idiot box or endlessly playing some video or computer game. The distribution of intelligence in say the US was no greater 100 years ago than today. Yet we used to be an extremely literate society where even the "common" person read books of some substance. > Bright people are not stupid. Who in their right minds would study > e.g. chemistry right now? Who would enter something so overhyped > as nanotechnology? > I would. In a heartbeat. Or what I did enter, Computer Science. If there is one thing I have learned in these decades of work it is that the amount of money is the least important part, within reason, for how you end up feeling about your life and what you have done with it. > > Have you looked at an engineer's entry level salaries? You > have noticed that the middle class is shrinking fast? And > that a Second Great Depression is at the door, and there's > not deus ex machina just-in-time fix to pull us out? > Given that a very large monetary crisis is imminent, what can we do individually and in small to large groups to insure as much of our own wellbeing and the preservation / continuation of as much of what is really important to us as possible. I believe and was one of the first here to say that a major financial crash is imminent. I believe that most of the so-called "war on terror" is a convenient excuse to jockey for hard assets while building up the capacity for draconian levels of power over the people at home before the s**t really hits the fan. So what can we do to make things better? What shall we do in preparation if it is too late to do much to stop it? What can we preserve and how? How can we increase the odds that as much as possible of what we most care about will not be lost? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Nov 8 09:57:19 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 01:57:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60611060901l15ea6bcdh3fd4bbc138c99f58@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> <7641ddc60611060901l15ea6bcdh3fd4bbc138c99f58@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <345660FC-6CEA-4D25-B06B-0A3428C8EDCB@mac.com> On Nov 6, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On 11/6/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Ability to play WoW doesn't make yourself good workplace >> material. > > ### OMG WTF! Warlocks own the workplace! Horde FTW! > > ------------------------------------------- > >> Have you looked at an engineer's entry level salaries? You >> have noticed that the middle class is shrinking fast? And >> that a Second Great Depression is at the door, and there's >> not deus ex machina just-in-time fix to pull us out? >> > > ### Jeez, Eugen, you sound depressed. Reading libertarian-leaning > economics blogs (Cafe Hayek, Marginal Revolution, Econlog) gives me a > totally different outlook, with the middle class shrinking by steady > attrition into the affluent class, and an economical revolution due to > disappearing manufacturing costs in the offing. Hayek and von Mises taught that the prevailing economics of today lead state to massive economic tragedy of necessity. Did you miss that part? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Nov 8 10:34:19 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:34:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Religion worked for survival - Russel Wallace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:23 PM, david ish shalom wrote: > Russel you write:..."there's no rational reason for believing in the > Singularity either (yes, like most myths it was inspired by some > nuggets of truth, but the vast bulk of what's written about it, is > as much a fable as Noah bringing two of each > animal aboard the ark). It is perfectly rational to note that > human intelligence is possible and quite likely in the not too distant future (unless we screw up badly). It is also perfectly rational to believe that a Vingean singularity will eventually result from such intelligence, especially if it is self-improving. Thus it is rational to be of the opinion that a Singularity is possible and possibly fairly soon. Thus the statement that there is no rational reason for believing such is demonstrably false. That some people get carried away is a different matter entirely. > I don't see you going around proclaiming this to be irrational. > David comment: for believing in the Singularity there are absolutely > rational reasons, yet to all the rest of what you say here I > heartily harmonize with, its wise and out of the box. i would add > that this tendency of many transhumanist to go against religion is > not contributing to transhumanism spreading to the vast masses of > humanity and just holding this crucial meme as marginal and rejected > by humanity at large. i am much surprised at Samantha, who has taken > a leading role in the transhuman religion group and now turns so > vehemently against what she was supporting there ?! > Yes, I worked for some time to wield religion into a tool consistent with and leading to transhuman goals. I came to the conclusion that religion is far too broken and loaded down with poisonous elements to be used this way. YMMV but I will live by what I have found by my own investigation. I do not give a fig whether "the public" shuts me out because I don't automatically respect their "revealed truth" (aka authoritarian fantasies) or not. The memes that need to be spread are not spread by tiptoeing around massive systematic delusion. I can only stand for what I perceive as true as I understand it. When my understanding changes the particulars of what I stand for must change. At no time did I believe that religion is primarily responsible for most of the good in the world or for "things working" generally. I was out to rewrite religion, to create a new religion that was not based on perpetuation of some dogma bit that used all the best in spiritual practices and religion to different ends. I even attempted to convince myself and others that such could be seen as the fulfillment and refinement of that which was essential in religions. I came to disbelieve that most of this was so. I came to the conclusion that only a more direct tying of our best aspirations to the reality and reason without a lot of religious inflation, much less casting the work in terms familiar to existing religions, even less trying to make common cause with them, will make the kind of difference I dream of seeing. I came to see existing religion as largely that which is in the way of most of our best hopes and dreams. I cannot make common cause with those sworn to oppose most of what we care about without putting ourselves and our share dreams at risk. I cannot seek the highest that I can honestly conceive of by perpetuating such a web of falsehoods and pretentious ignorance. > > We all agree teaching science is important. I claim it is equally > important > to teach that science is compatible with pro-survival value systems. > I don't believe religions are primarily pro-survival of anything especially but themselves. I don't believe that useful value systems are generally the invention or property of religions. > >Not one of these people says that science proves there is no god. > > > > Have you actually read any of Gould or Dawkins' recent works? Sure. They make some (partially flawed, partially reasonable) science based arguments about the very low probability of their being a God. That is not at all the same as a claim that science proves there is not. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 10:49:08 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:49:08 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: <2DCC473D-A00D-4AD0-8D0C-645F76195076@mac.com> References: <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> <2DCC473D-A00D-4AD0-8D0C-645F76195076@mac.com> Message-ID: On 11/8/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Given that a very large monetary crisis is imminent, what can we do > individually and in small to large groups to insure as much of our own > wellbeing and the preservation / continuation of as much of what is > really important to us as possible. I believe and was one of the > first here to say that a major financial crash is imminent. I believe > that most of the so-called "war on terror" is a convenient excuse to > jockey for hard assets while building up the capacity for draconian > levels of power over the people at home before the s**t really hits > the fan. > > So what can we do to make things better? What shall we do in > preparation if it is too late to do much to stop it? What can we > preserve and how? How can we increase the odds that as much as > possible of what we most care about will not be lost? > In the sense that the economy is always changing through the normal cycle of boom and slump, and investment sectors are always moving in and out of fashion, then there is always a financial crisis on the horizon somewhere. Some crises are worse than others, of course. If you are poor, or a wage slave with little savings, then there is little you can do. Just the normal state of trying to improve your situation, better job, better education, live more economically, etc. If you have some savings, then try to do the same as the rich folk, but to a lesser extent, obviously. The rich always get richer, regardless of the economic problems, because they have spare resources to take advantage of the situation. Politics is pretty irrelevant to them, apart from creating a secure environment within which they can operate to their best advantage. If the currency is heading for a collapse, then move out of cash and into real assets, or buy into a stronger currency. If property is over-valued and heading for a price crash, then sell your property portfolio before the price drops. If the share market is headed for a crash, then sell shares before the crash. If every investment in the country is going south, then invest abroad. After the crash happens, buy up loads of the now cheap stuff, shares, property, whatever. This is all business as usual for the rich folk. Buy cheap, sell dear. Crisis, what crisis? BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Nov 8 14:43:09 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 06:43:09 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity References: <093501c702f8$f88577f0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <098401c70344$391d7600$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> This is part II of my response to Jef's Sunday Nov 5 piece, http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-November/030329.html , Jef presents seven scenarios there. First, about scenario 3. Here is an excerpt: > #3 ...one copy will have blue skin and will also not feel hunger or > boredom, and incidentally it will die within a short time. From the > patternist point of view there are two different persons physically, > functionally, and in terms of values. I'm sorry to be bringing this up at this late date, but it's quite important to recognize the *primacy* of memories in the patternist view. The author Mike Perry, in his book "Forever For All", who believes as firmly as do I in the information theory of identity, puts quite a premium on memories as do I. Our moods can change, but we are still the same people. The change in a few superficial values or beliefs doesn't make one into someone else (in the patternist view). Even if the beliefs and values undergo rather drastic change, we say something like "you have renounced God", or "you have become so ruthless in the last years". I used to reiterate *memories* and *behavior dispositions* as vital to the patternist view. But VBM is close enough, IMO, so long as the primacy of memories is understood. In the case of #3, there is still just one person, who admittedly has changed some; perhaps he's as close to you as "the you of a few years" ago was. > #4 With the intention of contributing to the worthwhile social cause of > asteroid mining, but not being able to send my firstborn son, I step > into the duplicator box. I send my duplicate off as a free agent to > contribute to the cause, knowing that he will get a good pension and I > probably won't ever see him again. The patternist view would insist that > I was sending myself. The agency point of view would say I was sending > a different person with an extremely strong resemblance, carrying my > knowledge and skills. But he still remembers being you, mainly because he has all your memories. Suppose that after mining for a year, he learns that the original on Earth died, and he must return to take up Jef's role. This would then devolve to being nothing but a long vacation or work-assignment in another country. It happens to people all the time. They don't believe---and rightly so---that they're different people when they come back, or when they're gone away. Do you really think that the patternist view here is wrong? > #5 Ten years after sending said free agent to the asteroid mines, he > returns, informs me that he was converted to patternist thinking while > away, and now claims equal share of my property, my projects and my > wife. A patternist might claim (I remember Lee claiming this) that he > would in fact be me, and I should be happy to have doubled my runtime > and gladly find a way to share. Yes, it's still you, but only up to some percentage. Clearly he and the original have started to diverge. Would people tend to say "Oh, he's a almost entirely a different person now" or "He's still Jef, but wow, what a lot of strange behavior". > #6 A few days later, I learn that the real reason he returned from the > asteroid mines is that he had been accused of a plot to blow up an > asteroid belonging to the Bush family and had therefore been charged > with terrorism under penalty of death. Under patternist thinking, > should I turn myself in, or under agent-based thinking, should I tell > him he's in big trouble and might consider making a large political > contribution while in hiding? In my opinion, you'd never resort to terrorism or violence. So, again, it's a matter of degree. When you listen to him, perhaps he makes sense, or perhaps he really has gone off the deep end. You might think "he's still, like 60% me" or "he's only, like, about 20% me". Of course these numbers are only a poor attempt to render your feelings. Objectively speaking, there are differences here that are *real*, but we cannot at this time have a truly objective measure of them. Only you can answer your own question there---and even you probably have not provided yourself enough information. > #7 Remember Alice? Under patternist thinking according to Lee, she died > at some point even though someone continued on with her property, her > relationships, and her name. Under agent-based personal identity, > there's no question that we should see the 86 year old woman as a late > instantiation of the entity known to all, including herself, as Alice. > Furthermore, fifty years later, we would gladly interact with her > variants and doubles exactly as if they were Alice in various alternate > forms and places. I repeat my earlier correction (sorry). Under the patternist view, there was no *particular* point; it's completely gradual. As for me, I have great difficulty as would most people, in thinking of the 6 year old Alice and the 86 year old as one and the same person. They simply have too little in common. Or in scientific language, the similarity of structure is too sparse. But I don't really follow your "agency based" view in this example. Is it really true that they perform the same role in society? Please elaborate. Also, what if the 86 year old immersed herself for a few weeks doing asteroid mining, and spending all her spare time learning Japanese. When she returns, how likely is it that she'll say to the 6 year old version of herself, "Well my dear, you and I are the same person, of course, but while I was gone I was someone else entirely." The six year old will be baffled by even the claim---I think---that they are the same person at all. And be totally lost by this latest claim. Apologies for the places where I've not understood your views. Lee From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Nov 8 15:28:19 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:28:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Some of my Recent Creations In-Reply-To: <20061107204227.93087.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061107204227.93087.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061108092710.048f9610@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 02:42 PM 11/7/2006, Ian wrote: > >> Short poses > >> http://iangoddard.net/sketchesQuick.htm Nice. Reminiscent of Degas sketches. Well done. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Nov 8 17:21:49 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:21:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] [James.Hughes@trincoll.edu: [>Htech] Most 2003 US science grads not working in science] Message-ID: <20061108172149.GV6974@leitl.org> Since we were discussing IQ and job markets outside of manual labor. ----- Forwarded message from "Hughes, James J." ----- From: "Hughes, James J." Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:20:39 -0500 To: transhumantech at yahoogroups.com Subject: [>Htech] Most 2003 US science grads not working in science Reply-To: transhumantech at yahoogroups.com More than half of those who graduated with science bachelor's degrees in 2001 or 2002 were either employed outside of science and engineering or unemployed non-students by October 2003, according to a report released by the National Science Foundation. The report features numerous tables on the post-graduation work and education histories of science graduates. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06329/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Nov 8 17:58:39 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:58:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <20061107032752.59745.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061107032752.59745.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061108175839.GA4138@ofb.net> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 07:27:52PM -0800, Al Brooks wrote: > But here's a prediction for the 2008 election: even if a Democrat or > Independent wins the executive branch that year, the other branches > will remain conservative because the red states dominate the US; how > many states are there that are not red? several n. eastern seaboard Irrevelant to the House, which tracks population; the question is not how many states are 'red' but how many people live in the 'blue' states. > states (NY; NJ; MA; CT; VT; RI) and a few other states scattered CA, the most populous state in the country. IL, which is fairly high up there. If you go by regions, the usual breakdown is NE and Pacific Coast vs. South and Plains. -xx- Damien X-) From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 18:36:05 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:36:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [James.Hughes@trincoll.edu: [>Htech] Most 2003 US science grads not working in science] In-Reply-To: <20061108172149.GV6974@leitl.org> References: <20061108172149.GV6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 11/8/06, Eugen Leitl wrote:. > The report features numerous tables on the post-graduation work and > education histories of science graduates. But what do those tables say about those of us who selected not to graduate? Must Bill and I remain forever the unsurveyed outlyers? We don't get no respect. :-( Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Nov 8 19:40:32 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:40:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A vignette on incongruent points of view Message-ID: Respectful of (and in agreement with) the killthread, here's an excerpt from an offlist exchange with Lee that I thought might be of interest to the list. Two friends went to the ocean and later talked about their day. The first man talked about the wonderful feeling of the wind and the spray, exploring the fascinating tide pools, sea life and shells, and how he felt great joy in the experience bringing him such a feeling of being alive. He'd felt a bit concerned though, that his friend seemed almost as if he wasn't even there. The second man replied that he had reveled in the experience; that it stimulated thoughts of the power and immensity of the ocean in ironic contrast to the puny conceits of humankind, the realization that this great body of water both separated and connected the various peoples of the world, and how it provided the catalyst not only for biological life, but for the growth of culture and commerce. The first man thought "wtf?" and felt great pity for his friend. Is it possible to bridge such a gap in understanding of each other's point of view? Is there some way to show the the second man that he's living only a shallow imitation of a life? Oops, I meant the first man. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Nov 8 19:54:10 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:54:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] [James.Hughes@trincoll.edu: [>Htech] Most 2003US science grads not working in science] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Feel free to add me to your club roster. - Jef ________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:36 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [James.Hughes at trincoll.edu: [>Htech] Most 2003US science grads not working in science] On 11/8/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: . The report features numerous tables on the post-graduation work and education histories of science graduates. But what do those tables say about those of us who selected not to graduate? Must Bill and I remain forever the unsurveyed outlyers? We don't get no respect. :-( Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Wed Nov 8 20:24:33 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:24:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] An advance prediction for Tuesday In-Reply-To: <4550DA3C.9030000@pobox.com> References: <454FCC5E.1070808@pobox.com> <0J8C006D94D29060@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <454FEEFF.6070108@pobox.com> <4550018C.7050409@posthuman.com> <4550DA3C.9030000@pobox.com> Message-ID: <45523D01.1000003@pobox.com> Okay, looks like this hypothesis is falsified. At least for now, there are still real elections in the US. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au Wed Nov 8 22:33:01 2006 From: c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au (Colin Geoffrey Hales) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:33:01 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A vignette on incongruent points of view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1253.128.250.225.217.1163025181.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> > Two friends went to the ocean and later talked about their day. The > first man talked about the wonderful feeling of the wind and the spray, > exploring the fascinating tide pools, sea life and shells, and how he > felt great joy in the experience bringing him such a feeling of being > alive. He'd felt a bit concerned though, that his friend seemed almost > as if he wasn't even there. The second man replied that he had reveled > in the experience; that it stimulated thoughts of the power and > immensity of the ocean in ironic contrast to the puny conceits of > humankind, the realization that this great body of water both separated > and connected the various peoples of the world, and how it provided the > catalyst not only for biological life, but for the growth of culture and > commerce. The first man thought "wtf?" and felt great pity for his > friend. > > Is it possible to bridge such a gap in understanding of each other's > point of view? > > Is there some way to show the the second man that he's living only a > shallow imitation of a life? > > Oops, I meant the first man. > > - Jef Like two isotopes of carbon.... which one is the 'real' carbon? One lives in qualia. The other lives in concepts and abstractions from qualia. Personally I like them both. :-) Colin From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 8 23:37:26 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:37:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A vignette on incongruent points of view In-Reply-To: <1253.128.250.225.217.1163025181.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> References: <1253.128.250.225.217.1163025181.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> Message-ID: > The first man talked about the wonderful feeling of the wind and the > spray... An empiricist. > The second man replied that he had reveled in the experience; that it > stimulated thoughts of... A rationalist. > Is it possible to bridge such a gap in understanding of each other's > point of view? Let them each study Kant, that they might at least cite a common source of their confusions. :) -gts From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Nov 9 00:21:39 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:21:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A vignette on incongruent points of view Message-ID: <0J8F00INRT02X000@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 02:40 PM 11/8/2006, Jef Allbright wrote: >Two friends went to the ocean and later talked about their day. The >first man talked about the wonderful feeling of the wind and the >spray, exploring the fascinating tide pools, sea life and shells, >and how he felt great joy in the experience bringing him such a >feeling of being alive. He'd felt a bit concerned though, that his >friend seemed almost as if he wasn't even there. The second man >replied that he had reveled in the experience; that it stimulated >thoughts of the power and immensity of the ocean in ironic contrast >to the puny conceits of humankind, the realization that this great >body of water both separated and connected the various peoples of >the world, and how it provided the catalyst not only for biological >life, but for the growth of culture and commerce. The first man >thought "wtf?" and felt great pity for his friend. >Is it possible to bridge such a gap in understanding of each other's >point of view? >Is there some way to show the the second man that he's living only a >shallow imitation of a life? >Oops, I meant the first man. Why should how we feel or what we think about be determined by where we are? Why shouldn't two friends at the same place at the same time not think about different topics with different goals, if they have different personalities and backgrounds? You don't have to be the same as me to be my friend. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Nov 9 00:28:53 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:28:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] A vignette on incongruent points of view In-Reply-To: References: <1253.128.250.225.217.1163025181.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061108182458.021a0768@satx.rr.com> At 06:37 PM 11/8/2006 -0500, gts wrote: > > The first man talked about the wonderful feeling of the wind and the > > spray... > >An empiricist. an ESFP > > The second man replied that he had reveled in the experience; that it > > stimulated thoughts of... > >A rationalist. an INTJ (Yo!) > > Is it possible to bridge such a gap in understanding of each other's > > point of view? I doubt it. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Nov 9 00:41:30 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 16:41:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders References: <15677946.506311162970107667.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <09b501c70398$2a6a4b70$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> PJ writes > There is much to be said that the electorate in the past was smarter as well > and it had nothing to do with IQ. It had to do with the fact that the > electorate read and paid what we might view today as excessive > attention to politics. Yes, what changed it was sports, in the 1910s and 1920s as I understand it. Before sports became huge, the typical man's hobby was politics. > Political debates could be days long affairs in the 19th C. and were attended > widely and reported on avidly. Consider the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for > example. The issues were complex and divisive and both men held the attention > of the crowd for an entire day of debating, where each man could talk for up > to 3 hours at a time! More importantly, they actually understood what the hell > Douglas and Lincoln were arguing about! > > Neil Postman writes extensively on this subject in "Amusing Ourselves to Death." Yes, I recognized your description of the Lincoln-Douglas debates as emanating from that book. I too was struck by the *length* of the debates: First one man would speak for three hours, then the other for four, and then the first speaker had an hour to rebut. But over the years I've become a little more skeptical that when I read "Amusing Ourselves to Death." For one thing, remember the part where Postman describes the debates as big social events? The farmers would come for miles around to hear the speakers, but there were children running around everywhere, and I'm guessing that very few of the women listened at all. I go further to wonder just how attentive the men were. After six days straight planting or reaping, who can really say how much of those complex 19th century sentences were really understood by the audience? > Read the chapters "Typographic America" and "The Typographic Mind." > It's a beautiful, brilliant analysis of just how verbally literate the pre-visual > (movie/TV/advertising) world was and how they actively used their literacy. > This was the final flowering of the Enlightenment mind, here in the US.The > downhill slide began with visual advertising at the turn of the 19th C. and > its coffin was nailed by television. Okay, thanks for the pointer. Samantha added (at 1:52 am today in the thread "it's all understandable, except) > It does not help that the people have been conditioned and/or > conditioned themselves to spend much of their free time being > passively entertained by the idiot box or endlessly playing some > video or computer game. The distribution of intelligence in say > the US was no greater 100 years ago than today. True. > Yet we used to be an extremely literate society where even the > "common" person read books of some substance. I still very much doubt it, (having yet to read PJ's recommendation.) Not all that many people finished high school, as I recall. Yes, by 1906 literacy had improved upon 1856, but still poorer than today, I'd say. Lee > Read the chapters "Typographic America" and "The Typographic Mind." It's a beautiful, brilliant analysis of just how verbally literate the pre-visual (movie/TV/advertising) world was and how they actively used their literacy. This was the final flowering of the Enlightenment mind, here in the US. The downhill slide began with visual advertising at the turn of the 19th C. and its coffin was nailed by television. > > Before the slide, however, almost every free-born American could read and the political system took this as an assumption. And > politics was played out accordingly. Of course, there was negative campaigning and mud slinging going on. I'm sure there was in > Ancient Athens. But in the televisual world, instead of substantive debate, we now live on the sound-bite and the image. There's > not much political substance there, because it's simply impossible to transmit the necessary information in those types of > formats. We vote on the best smile, now. Just like Miss America. > > Even tonight's results are not about real substance. They are about "getting the bums out." No IQ necessary, from either voters > or politicians. Just pure emotion. > > Respectfully, > PJ From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Nov 9 01:09:37 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:09:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders Message-ID: <11571133.621691163034577585.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Samantha said: >> Yet we used to be an extremely literate society where even the >> "common" person read books of some substance. Lee Said: >I still very much doubt it, (having yet to read PJ's recommendation.) >Not all that many people finished high school, as I recall. Yes, by >1906 literacy had improved upon 1856, but still poorer than today, >I'd say. In the mid-19th C., they could all read the Bible, Lee. Every last one of them. Or they weren't goin' ta Heaven, 'cause in the beginning, there was the word. Immigration at the turn of the 20th century increased/skewed illiteracy percentages. Everyone also read "Uncle Tom's Cabin." You did hear about the American Civil War, didn't you? ;-) PJ From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Nov 9 01:11:54 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:11:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Some of my Recent Creations Message-ID: <20061109011154.85645.qmail@web52615.mail.yahoo.com> John K Clark wrote: > Ian you're good, you're damn good. I'd give a > million bucks to have half your talent, and that's > not just a figure of speech I mean it quite > literally. Wow, a million thanks John! ;) > One of my most painful memories was me in the first > grade when the teacher asked us to draw something, > I forget what. I thought I'd done a pretty good job > but then the teacher told us to hand in our > pictures by passing them to the student ahead of > us. I was at the head of the class so I saw what my > fellow students had drawn and my heart filled with > despair, each and every drawing was better than > mine, not just a little bit better but INCOMPARABLY > better. Up to then I'd been a argent little bastard > but suddenly I learned I was not the best at > everything, in fact I sucked world class. If the > gods were kind they would have given me a hell of a > lot more artistic ability or just a bit little > less; as it is I had just enough to realize how > badly I sucked but not enough to do anything about > it. Salieri was to Mozart as I was to Salieri. > Fortunately I have other talents but if art was all > there was in the world I'd be in a home for the > retarded right now. Before I go off sounding like a total egomaniac in my observations below, let me note that there are problems in each of my drawings, and the more I look at them the more I notice and thereby the more I learn what I need to do and avoid in the future. Perhaps I'm wrong, but talent may be only or mostly a result of practice. I used to draw all the time when I was a kid. I recall around age 11 trying more challenging drawings and the results not looking like accurate representations of their referents. So I felt bad about it and tried to understand what do I need to do to make them right, then I really worked at it. Later I also learned a lot from art professors. And of course I still have a lot of progress to make and there are so many illustrators far better than I can imagine. But my point is, I'm inclined to believe that 'talent' is mostly, if not entirely, acquired through consistent practice rather than being an innate gift. In recent years I've put myself in your seat (described above), but wrt to mathematics. Believe it or not, I managed to graduate high school without understanding what those letters are doing in math equations in algebra class. I'm totally serious! To be nice, the teacher gave me a C when I should have been given an F. I hated math and resisted all efforts to learn it. By all appearances I was 'math impaired'. I truly believed that I just couldn't do math. But the truth was that I simply refused to try. When facing some new math I confused the initial "I don't understand this" with "I *can't* understand this," and so I'd immediately throw in the towel. But in my late thirties I realized so many questions I had require a grounding in math. So a few years ago I went back to the local community college where I'd taken art classes previously. On my placement exam I scored in the high 90s, except for the math portion where I scored in the 27th percentile! And it wasn't because I'd forgotten math skills, it was because I never had them. Yet there I was with, of all things, the intention of focusing on math. Then I Aced all my math classes from prealgebra, through algebra, trig, up to calculus 1 (which is as high as I've gone). I've also Aced discrete math courses and 12 credits in logic (though I got a B in one logic course due to missing two big exam problems). To be sure, I'm still far from being mathematically adept(!!), and what I learn quickly fades if not reinforced (whereas I can go without drawing for 8 years and then pick up right where I left off). But my point is that it seems to me that being able to do something well is largely a function of effort and practice, and having 'talent' is what the output can look like given enough input. Ironically, everything in the philosophy section of my website I wrote before I ever really took a math or logic course. I hope to update that section sometime soon! My long-term goal is to contribute to the ongoing effort to capture human cognitive processes (thought, language, and maybe even consciousness) within a computational framework. I expect this is an effort that may take humanity a few more centuries. But I believe ultimately it can be done since I believe our brains are organic machines doing just that right now. I think logic research has a lot more to do with synthetic cognition than numerical mathematics. ~Ian http://iangoddard.net "A proposition can be true or false only in virtue of being a picture of reality." -- Wittgenstein ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Nov 9 01:42:58 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:42:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders In-Reply-To: <11571133.621691163034577585.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <20061109014258.73747.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> This country could elect a president in 2008 who is as smart as Herbert Hoover or Lincoln, someone who doesn't bounce around on a mattress with a White House intern, or something. Americans have to get over their nostalgia, so they don't feel obligated to vote for a guy, like Reagan or Bob Dole, who reminds them of their grandfathers. --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new house payment -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Nov 9 01:43:11 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:43:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Martine Rothblatt and "bemes" Message-ID: <28386055.624701163036591097.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 01:54:42 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:54:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity References: <093501c702f8$f88577f0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <098401c70344$391d7600$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee: > I'm sorry to be bringing this up at this late date, but it's quite > important to recognize the *primacy* of memories in the > patternist view. The author Mike Perry, in his book "Forever > For All", who believes as firmly as do I in the information theory > of identity, puts quite a premium on memories as do I. [snip] > I used > to reiterate *memories* and *behavior dispositions* as vital to the > patternist view. But VBM is close enough, IMO, so long as the > primacy of memories is understood. I sense that you and Jef are finally beginning to steer this debate in the right direction. So far you've argued about the conclusions which only revealed your positions and how these viewpoints differ, and now you are slowly moving towards discovery (or acknowledgment) of underlying assumptions that motivate your thinking. Eventually, this process should lead you to arguments not about the conclusions that follow from these assumptions but to arguments about these base assumptions. Hopefully, you'll discover that these assumptions are not sound and this will cause you to reexamine the foundation of your thinking in this area. Right now, it seems like you, Lee, claim that it is "M" in VBM (Values, Beliefs, Memories) that deserves the most attention while Jef insists that the "VB" part is more crucial. These are interesting choices and each perspective demands different conclusions. However, before you devote a lot of time and energy on getting tangled up in details, I would like to point out that these choices are completely arbitrary. Choosing arbitrary criterions for what constitutes a person is a widespread problem. The arguments I keep seeing here and elsewhere look something like this: "I choose X to be the most precious thing about me. You're wrong about conclusions that stem from Y because they differ from conclusion that stem from X and we all know that X is most important." (X is assumed to be correct before it is shown it is correct). I strongly believe that there should be *no room* for arbitrary choices at any point along the chain of logical inference. If X is more important than Y, then, before I can accept any conclusions *based* on X, I need to see the argument that comes before that which explains why X should matter most. Would it be possible to see such an argument from you, Jef or Lee? If you continue to debate each other long enough, the odds are pretty good that you'll have to construct and show these arguments to each other anyway. I hope you found these comments valuable. Slawomir From velvethum at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 02:14:16 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 21:14:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A vignette on incongruent points of view References: <1253.128.250.225.217.1163025181.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> <7.0.1.0.2.20061108182458.021a0768@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Jef: >> > Is it possible to bridge such a gap in understanding of each other's >> > point of view? I suggest evaluation of each point of view exclusively with respect to the *amount of tangible benefit* to the agent who adopts and acts according to that view. Slawomir From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Nov 9 02:51:24 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:51:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A vignette on incongruent points of view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Slawomir wrote: > Jef: > >> > Is it possible to bridge such a gap in understanding of each > >> > other's point of view? > > I suggest evaluation of each point of view exclusively with > respect to the *amount of tangible benefit* to the agent who > adopts and acts according to that view. Slawomir, wasn't the key point that each person's view of the value of that day was completely subjective? Would you please give an example of how you would perform tangible evaluation in such a case? - Jef From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Nov 9 03:04:21 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:04:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] POL: And the senate may go too! Message-ID: The news in Boston is that the senate is predicted to go to the democrats. Maybe wishful thinking. You be the judge. Robert From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Nov 9 03:42:36 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:42:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A vignette on incongruent points of view In-Reply-To: <0J8F00INRT02X000@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: Robin wrote: > At 02:40 PM 11/8/2006, Jef Allbright wrote: >> Is it possible to bridge such a gap in understanding of each other's >> point of view? >> Is there some way to show the second man that he's living only a >> shallow imitation of a life? >> Oops, I meant the first man. > > Why should how we feel or what we think about be determined by where > we are? Why shouldn't two friends at the same place at the same > time not think about different topics with different goals, > if they have different personalities and backgrounds? You > don't have to be the same as me to be my friend. In my relationships, as a heterosexual male INTJ, I have always been attracted to female ENFPs because their strengths are complementary to my own. It's not always easy, but the synergies are wonderful. ;-) As a technical manager I've always hired for complementary viewpoints and capabilities as well, but most qualified candidates in this field start with *NT*. As a related aside, I had intended in my recent reply to Russell to mention the rationalist appreciation of dissent and diversity. ****But how best to create a bridge to understanding across incongruent world views**** As an INTJ, I would prefer something similar to the mathematical work being done with fair division (cake slicing theory) but there I go exposing my Pythagorean tendencies again. - Jef From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Nov 9 04:05:17 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:05:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Detectives and red herrings (was Survivaltangent) In-Reply-To: <095f01c70301$da6b8a80$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <095f01c70301$da6b8a80$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240611082005w15573471h41c32599280f2233@mail.gmail.com> On 11/8/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > know. Suppose that I determine that Eliezer or someone can more > effectively "promote my values into the future" than I can. So I > should agree to stop being me, and let there be two of him? No > way! Call me selfish, but these VBM are going to stick around > if they can help it, especially the memories. > > > To the extent that the future world contains an > > entity representing Self, then it can be said that > > Self "survived." To the extent that multiple agents > > represent Self, then it can be said that > > they are indeed Self. > > I agree. But it's absolutely mandatory from my perspective that > things supposed to be Myself have my *memories* in order to > be me. The values and beliefs are definitely secondary, though > important, in my opinion. > > If you lose memories, do you lose your self? If as you age, you release your childhood attachments - even to the point where that which is traditionally referred to as wisdom prevails and you come to stop caring about others' definitions of PI because they have no bearing on your own - and that you have stated your own beliefs as clearly as can ever be expressed by language - is there a point where you turn away from the group and strive for a transcendent perspective? * you = the reader, rather than specifically Lee (having been the last one to post to this thread before I caught up) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Nov 9 04:26:11 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:26:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Some of my Recent Creations Message-ID: <20061109042611.77077.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> Natasha wrote: >> Short poses >> http://iangoddard.net/sketchesQuick.htm > > Nice. Reminiscent of Degas sketches. Well done. Thanks Natasha! As pro-modern as I am, there's something irreplaceable about look and feel of classical media. I'll be taking a course taught by Robert Liberace, one of the masters of our day whose work has the classical look and feel: http://robertliberace.com/ Check out this piece of his: http://www.theartleague.org/school/images/class_images/1356_11afigures%20copy.jpg A benchmark toward which I aspire! Thanks again Natasha. I'm honored to have such positive feedback from so many high-order folks here such as yourself. The path you've been blazing into the future is an inspiration! You and Max don't only talk the talk, but walk the walk, defining the Extropic life. Indeed, whenever I think of positive futures, I think of you two. It occurs to me that I can see you and Max as the stars of a philosophically meaningful and future-defining sci-fi movie. I hope someone in Hollywood can see that too! ~Ian http://iangoddard.net "A proposition can be true or false only in virtue of being a picture of reality." -- Wittgenstein ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Get a free Motorola Razr! Today Only! Choose Cingular, Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, or T-Mobile. http://www.letstalk.com/inlink.htm?to=592913 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment! http://www.LowerMyBills.com/lre From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Nov 9 05:00:52 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 21:00:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] And the senate may go too! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061109050052.45894.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com> The House is the main deal. Good news is for a few states, it looks promising, but those in red states don't care about the 21st century; don't care about life extension, transhumanism, posthumanism or extropianism; to them the 21st century is an abstraction-- while alcoholic beverages, baseball, football, and God are real. --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > The news in Boston is that the senate is predicted > to go to the democrats. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Free Uniden 5.8GHz Phone System with Packet8 Internet Phone Service http://www.getpacket8.net/yahoo2 From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Nov 9 09:10:34 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 01:10:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: References: <20061105203158.GJ6974@leitl.org> <077d01c70195$28852dc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20061106132548.GW6974@leitl.org> <2DCC473D-A00D-4AD0-8D0C-645F76195076@mac.com> Message-ID: On Nov 8, 2006, at 2:49 AM, BillK wrote: > On 11/8/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Given that a very large monetary crisis is imminent, what can we do >> individually and in small to large groups to insure as much of our >> own >> wellbeing and the preservation / continuation of as much of what is >> really important to us as possible. I believe and was one of the >> first here to say that a major financial crash is imminent. I >> believe >> that most of the so-called "war on terror" is a convenient excuse to >> jockey for hard assets while building up the capacity for draconian >> levels of power over the people at home before the s**t really hits >> the fan. >> >> So what can we do to make things better? What shall we do in >> preparation if it is too late to do much to stop it? What can we >> preserve and how? How can we increase the odds that as much as >> possible of what we most care about will not be lost? >> > > In the sense that the economy is always changing through the normal > cycle of boom and slump, and investment sectors are always moving in > and out of fashion, then there is always a financial crisis on the > horizon somewhere. Some crises are worse than others, of course. Yes. We are talking about one at least as bad although a good deal different from the Great Depression. > > If you are poor, or a wage slave with little savings, then there is > little you can do. Just the normal state of trying to improve your > situation, better job, better education, live more economically, etc. > I am not so sure. Even those with modest means and prospects may have talents that can be employed to shore up infrastructure and information resources safety to at least a small degree. Pooling resources with others could also make a lot of sense as a practice to master. > If you have some savings, then try to do the same as the rich folk, > but to a lesser extent, obviously. > In the event of a major disruption and at least potential social chaos we stand to lose a lot of information and technology and communications with one another. There are things that can perhaps be done to partially mitigate that that are not what rich folk generally do. > The rich always get richer, regardless of the economic problems, > because they have spare resources to take advantage of the situation. > Politics is pretty irrelevant to them, apart from creating a secure > environment within which they can operate to their best advantage. > This isn't very relevant to what I was hoping to get into. > If the currency is heading for a collapse, then move out of cash and > into real assets, or buy into a stronger currency. One part is protecting wealth as best as is possible. But I am also very concerned with protecting knowledge and infrastructure. This also can include plans for and producing alternative infrastructure. > If property is over-valued and heading for a price crash, then sell > your property portfolio before the price drops. > If the share market is headed for a crash, then sell shares before > the crash. > If every investment in the country is going south, then invest abroad. > > After the crash happens, buy up loads of the now cheap stuff, shares, > property, whatever. > > This is all business as usual for the rich folk. Buy cheap, sell dear. > Crisis, what crisis? > Crisis when social chaos is followed by martial law. Crisis when science and technology get blamed and a theocracy or "cultural revolution" blooms. Crisis when the "rich" are scapegoats and there are no concentrations of wealth left to recover with. Crisis when the financial infrastructure melts down making investment and trade on anything but a very small scale extremely difficult. Crisis through major warfare. Crisis if in the chaos a great deal of important capital goods (means of production), infrastructure (especially the Net) and knowledge are loss. It is about a hell of a lot more than being a savvy investor surfing whatever comes financially. - samantha From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Nov 9 14:10:21 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:10:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders In-Reply-To: <11571133.621691163034577585.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <11571133.621691163034577585.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <35037.72.236.102.94.1163081421.squirrel@main.nc.us> I suspect that literacy was rather more sharply divided into those who *did* read and those who did not - could not. Nowadays "everybody" *can* read a bit. Many can't read much. Witness the newspaper articles of 1900 or earlier vs. today. Heck, just look at magazine articles from the 40s or 50s vs. today. :( Check out the McGuffey readers... I do not think many of our public highschool students today would be able to make much sense of the Sixth Eclectic Reader, alas. Books were greatly valued, unlike today when most ordinary second hand books are sold by the box-lot at auction for mnimum bid... $5 or less. In the past, books were sometimes even listed for probate, because they were desirable, valuable, and treasured. Finishing highschool has little to do with being able to read, IMHO. There have been many fine writers and successful businessmen who never finished school. People can be quite well educated without official or government schooling. Regards, MB From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Nov 9 17:41:50 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:41:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders Message-ID: <24653130.692361163094110100.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> MB wrote: >I suspect that literacy was rather more sharply divided into those who >*did* read >and those who did not - could not. Nowadays "everybody" *can* read a bit. Many >can't >read much. Witness the newspaper articles of 1900 or earlier vs. today. Heck, >just >look at magazine articles from the 40s or 50s vs. today. :( MB is correct. But many people still can't read at all. I hate sending people to my blog over and over, but I wrote a blog called "Sisyphus in Mississippi" about an amazing article in the LA Times on Ronnie Wise, the retiring chief librarian of Bolivar County, Mississippi and the staggering illiteracy rates he has battled for decades. It will blow your mind, especially if you assume at least a base level of education is accomplished in the US. It's a wonderful piece (the article, that is!). I also ask a number of questions about the roll of literacy and future technology in this blog. >Books were greatly valued, unlike today when most ordinary second hand books >are >sold by the box-lot at auction for mnimum bid... $5 or less. In the past, >books >were sometimes even listed for probate, because they were desirable, valuable, and treasured. My father, who was a famous rare book collector, would absolutely agree with you in regards to the treatment of books in the past. They were treasured objects, because they were the keys to the imagination and knowledge. And they were expensive! >Finishing highschool has little to do with being able to read, IMHO. >There have been >many fine writers and successful businessmen who never finished school. People can >be quite well educated without official or government schooling. In fact, a huge percentage of the US pop. in the 19th c. had little to no formal schooling. Schooling and education, depending on the society involved, can have no relationship to one another. US history is filled with autodidacts. My own father is one. PJ From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Nov 9 18:08:42 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:08:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders In-Reply-To: <35037.72.236.102.94.1163081421.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <11571133.621691163034577585.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <35037.72.236.102.94.1163081421.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <0DB2F870-5750-429D-AC6A-0E4E4E0F7EE9@mac.com> On Nov 9, 2006, at 6:10 AM, MB wrote: > > I suspect that literacy was rather more sharply divided into those > who *did* read > and those who did not - could not. Nowadays "everybody" *can* read a > bit. Many can't > read much. Witness the newspaper articles of 1900 or earlier vs. > today. Heck, just > look at magazine articles from the 40s or 50s vs. today. :( Actually, according to some historical sources that I don't have at hand at the moment, iteracy was well over 90% at the turn of the last century in the US. - samantha From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Nov 9 16:31:49 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 10:31:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Martine Rothblatt and "bemes" In-Reply-To: <28386055.624701163036591097.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <28386055.624701163036591097.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061109092334.047c0d48@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:43 PM 11/8/2006, you wrote: >Hey, was anyone going to answer my question about Martine Rothblatt's >concept of "bemes" as a valid concept of future identity? Just some morning thoughts, but probably nothing of consequence to answer your question PJ: To be or not to be? We have to "be" to be a future identity. It seems that Bemes can take any form - and, because of this the very concept of how "identity" is configured is an issue. Identity as a set of "information pattern" or set of "information patterns" is an exciting topic. My talk at the Fourth Alcor Technology Conference on " A Talent for Living: Cracking Myths of Mortality" opened with and continued to focused on Shakespeare's line: http://www.natasha.cc/techtalk.htm ""To be, or not to be" wrote William Shakespeare in Hamlet in Act III, scene 1, "that is the question: ..."In my presentation at the aforementioned technology conference, I made a poetic statement based on my practice at that time, which was media-animation and poetry: "... To be?to live?is what we do. It is our talent, our business and our pursuit of well-being which we must carry out. The refinement of this built-in talent currently separates us from other life forms. It is our native, intrinsic talent, calling for the creative challenge to do something?anything?as long as we are "doing." To be, we must do. If not, we are busy dying. ... (pause with algorithmic images on scene) "When I think of our culture, I see it as a body of electronically connected data filtering messages into its appendages. Out into the capillaries of culture, our technology has become far more exacting and more robust than our biological bodies. Our biological bodies are far too inadequate to keep up with our ideas and the new landscapes we venture. From the telegraph to telecommunications, from the Net into Space, it is no longer just the written symbol?the word?being transported, we are the new transportees." I do not necessarily see identity as transportees or Martin's excellent Bemes as an entirely separate philosophical outlook than the transhumanist life view, but as an integral part of a complex extropic system. For example, Automorph Art is an extropic subset of Transhumanist Arts which developed in the 1990s and is intently based on "being as art." http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/art.html Because it is within the extropic genre, it is understood that his automorph being as art is the actually practice of improving oneself, which is inclusive of the positive ideas presented and described in Martine's philosophy of Bemes. So, as you can see, I see that Martine has a valuable idea. :-) However, I do not think it is separate from or counter to transhumanism, but included within transhumanism as a constructed category of interrelations, or at least a complimentary, valuable aspect thereof. Right now I am writing a paper on "SEx - Skin (as a symbol of the boundaries of identity) Exobody" for a conference in Brazil on the future of identity. ... Beme-ing forward - Natasha >PJ > > > >Robert writes > > > >> On 10/31/06, Lee Corbin > <lcorbin at rawbw.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > But what happened to *me* in there? I'm more than my memes, pal. > >> > Don't forget my memories. > > > >> Well memories are memes and at least some of them are essential > >> components of the survival and reproduction processes. > > > >Memories are memes??? That does violence to the concept so far > >as I understand it. Memories are more like raw data; for one thing, > >they're very seldom contagious. Beliefs are something else, and > >are indeed memetic. > > > >> > That's me, maybe. I don't want to "become", especially if the end > >> > product is not me. I would rather "are". As you put it. > >What about Martine Rothblatt's concept of "bemes?" > >www.imminst.org/conference/Martine.ppt > > >PJ >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Nov 9 19:55:19 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 14:55:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders In-Reply-To: <24653130.692361163094110100.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <24653130.692361163094110100.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <35189.72.236.103.253.1163102119.squirrel@main.nc.us> > But many people still can't read at all. I hate sending people to > my blog over and over, but I wrote a blog called "Sisyphus in Mississippi" about an > amazing article in the LA Times on Ronnie Wise, the retiring chief librarian of > Bolivar County, Mississippi and the staggering illiteracy rates he has battled for > decades. It will blow your mind, especially if you assume at least a base level of > education is accomplished in the US. It's a wonderful piece (the article, that > is!). I also ask a number of questions about the roll of literacy and future > technology in this blog. > > I would very much like to read this. Where is it? Sure there are illiterate folks in the US, that's why I put "everybody" in quotes... ;) In my childhood I knew an illiterate man (native US citizen) who could not write his name, had jobs and drove cars, fixed farm machinery, and had an ordinary IQ and life and family, but reading was something either he'd never been taught or never mastered, I don't know which. It was not a case of dyslexia, AFAIK, it was simply not learned. Never seemed to bother him. I cannot imagine being/staying illiterate. Regards, MB From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Nov 9 20:16:14 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:16:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders Message-ID: <10812988.714391163103374861.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >>I also ask a number of questions about the roll of literacy and >> future technology in this blog. >I would very much like to read this. Where is it? I'm a ninny. http://pj-manney.blogspot.com/ PJ From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Nov 9 20:04:50 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:04:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061109150438.0370d078@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:18 PM 10/31/2006 -0800, Lee wrote: >Robert writes > > > On 10/31/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > > But what happened to *me* in there? I'm more than my memes, pal. > > > Don't forget my memories. > > > Well memories are memes and at least some of them are essential > > components of the survival and reproduction processes. >Memories are memes??? That does violence to the concept so far >as I understand it. The essence of a meme is can the information be transferred. So a meme about how to tie shoes in a person's brain is a memory and a meme because the information can be transferred. But the other way around does not work because I cannot transfer my memory of looking out over the Grand Canyon to anyone else. Keith Henson From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Nov 9 21:05:58 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 22:05:58 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Sex, Power and Single H+er In-Reply-To: References: <15616726.275921162791214745.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <1521.213.112.92.120.1163106358.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Robert Bradbury wrote: >> Sex sells. (And somehow Sex + Anders sells even more. Why is that, >> Anders?) It is because humor also sells. I'm one big, walking joke. Add me to sex (and maybe something with calories) and I'm irresistible. > I > suspect someplace downstream there will be papers written on the topic of > "Anders vs. Swedish cultural history. Good or bad?" The paradoxical part > is > that there are going to be minds which will *think* about this. Poor minds. >> Power corrupts. (Absolutely!) >> > And the thing you have to be concerned with is whether Anders or I or > Eliezer will have it first. Gigawatts of power! Muhahahaha! >> And no one knows who they are. (If they did, they wouldn't be looking >> so >> hard for their identity!) >> > That is of course an interesting observation -- which of A.S./R.B./E.Y. > would give up their identity freely (or lay it out on the table for one to > fiddle with it?) I think I might open-source at least parts of my identity. When I said at Extro 3 that I wanted to become an Internet standard or a search engine, I meant it. > I will state that as of this date (6 Nov 2006) there is no conspiracy that > I > am to my knowledge involved in. The best conspiracies are secret even to their members. Today's achievements: demonstratic static electricity and Newton's first and third law to my niece. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Nov 9 21:01:12 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 22:01:12 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] 2-party-system = 1-dimensional politics (was polls again) In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60611060812v53ca1e64ob21140dacf399473@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60611040856t51a97100kb8a8a6e3430351fe@mail.gmail.com> <20061106035339.37606.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60611060812v53ca1e64ob21140dacf399473@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1398.213.112.92.120.1163106072.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> I don't think 1D politics is due to 2 party systems. I did a PCA analysis of Swedish politics (a 7 party system with proportional representation) and found that it was dominated by just a single principal component (see diagram at http://www.eudoxa.se/politics/dimensioner.html, text unfortunately in Swedish). This component was the block structure of the ruling center-left alliance, and the much smaller subsequent components may hold ideological differences but could as well just be particular patterns of party alliances. My basic setup was similar to this http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20040203-which_parliamentary_co-ordinate_are_you.html analysis of British politics, which uses majority voting and has a pretty strong tory-labour dimensionality. Here politics is also pretty 1D, but along simple left-right lines. Looking at co-sponsored bills in Sweden showed a far more complex network between the parliamentarians: http://www.eudoxa.se/politics/motioner.html When it comes to voting the policies have become 1D, but when they are still ideas and ideology they are quite multidimensional. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Nov 9 21:22:06 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:22:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] School libraries and skiffy In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061107143737.0215eea8@satx.rr.com> References: <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <454FFFF4.2000909@goldenfuture.net> <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061109161332.035eaae0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:38 PM 11/7/2006 -0600, Damien wrote: >At 03:24 PM 11/7/2006 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > > >PS. I went through about a dozen high school libraries in the San Jose > >area around 1995 looking at the books of my childhood (Heinlein, Clarke, > >Asimov and others) to see if the failure of those books to be read after > >some point in the early 70s was widespread, similar to what I had noticed > >in my daughter's middle school. It was. I have no theory as to why. > >The stories, settings and "Golden Age" voice were too antique? No >cool kid, nor even a nerd, wanted to read skool library books? Those >books were by then abundantly available in 2nd hand pb form, and had >already been read or acquired or handed down? Bah--them kids today? I have no idea. It sure would be an interesting project to research and find out. While science fiction fandom is not the same as science fiction readers, fandom has been aging only a bit less than a year/year. Keith PS One thing I didn't mention is the shear number of kids who were armed in my high school. In those days nobody thought a thing about knives and while not that many carried guns, I was among those who did. Especially during deer season, virtually all the guys who had pickup trucks had a gun rack with a rifle in it. Of course to *use* a gun or even a knife without extreme and justified provocation was unthinkable. From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Nov 9 21:21:24 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:21:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Martine Rothblatt and "bemes" Message-ID: <26113169.722631163107284594.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Nov 9 21:58:21 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:58:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] School libraries and skiffy In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061109161332.035eaae0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <454FFFF4.2000909@goldenfuture.net> <20061107035731.10776.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061109161332.035eaae0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <35222.72.236.102.121.1163109501.squirrel@main.nc.us> > PS One thing I didn't mention is the shear number of kids who were armed > in my high school. In those days nobody thought a thing about knives and > while not that many carried guns, I was among those who did. Especially > during deer season, virtually all the guys who had pickup trucks had a gun > rack with a rifle in it. > > Of course to *use* a gun or even a knife without extreme and justified > provocation was unthinkable. > My father had an unlocked gun rack full of various (unlocked) long guns. We used them for target practice, but never ever without permission... explicit permission for *that particular* time. It never occurred to us to take one and use it without permission. The very concept of using a gun for attack of any sort was beyond comprehension. I don't think anybody even considered such a thing. I certainly never heard anything like that. There were rifle teams at many public schools. A friend of mine from Mass. says he remembers going to school with his rifle for practice later. It was no big deal. Nobody got shot either. And all the guys had knives, even the quiet studious ones! Strange how times have changed. Are the students safer? duh... Regards, MB From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Nov 9 22:11:07 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:11:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SEX! (Re: Martine Rothblatt and bemes) Message-ID: <380-22006114922117195@M2W030.mail2web.com> Now that I have your attention - (Anders are your reading ..? Robert?) Can someonebody answer PJ's question? I want to hear your answers. N Original Message: ----------------- From: pjmanney pj at pj-manney.com Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:21:24 -0500 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Martine Rothblatt and "bemes"

Cool!? Thanks for your perspective.? Very groovy stuff!

I agree that Martine's ideas are transhuman and I like her take on "bemes"?a lot.? I caught her presentation at the IEET conference at Stanford in May?and thought it was?the most visionary and provocative thing I saw there.? But I also?thought I might run the idea by the "Identity Police" on the list and get their (varied)?opinions, because I know that no logical?inconsistancies would get past their eagle eyes.? ;-)

But I guess I got no takers.? :-(

Hope all is well with you, Natasha.

Thanks again,
PJ

? At 07:43 PM 11/8/2006, you wrote:

Hey, was anyone going to answer my question about Martine Rothblatt's concept of "bemes" as a valid concept of future identity?

Just some morning thoughts, but probably nothing of consequence to answer your question PJ:

To be or not to be?? We have to "be" to be a future identity.? It seems that Bemes can take any form - and, because of this the very concept of? how "identity" is configured is an issue.? Identity as a set of "information pattern" or set of "information patterns" is an exciting topic.

My talk at the Fourth Alcor Technology Conference on "

A Talent for Living: Cracking Myths of Mortality"? opened with and continued to focused on Shakespeare's line:???

http://www.natasha.cc/techtalk.htm

""To be, or not to be"
wrote William Shakespeare in Hamlet in Act III, scene 1,
"that is the question: ..."In my presentation at the aforementioned technology conference, I made a poetic statement based on my practice at that time, which was media-animation and poetry:

"... To be?to live?is what we do. It is our talent, our business and our pursuit of well-being which we must carry out. The refinement of this built-in talent currently separates us from other life forms. It is our native, intrinsic talent, calling for the creative challenge to do something?anything?as long as we are "doing." To be, we must do. If not, we are busy dying. ...

(pause with algorithmic images on scene)

"When I think of our culture, I see it as a body of electronically connected data filtering messages into its appendages. Out into the capillaries of culture, our technology has become far more exacting and more robust than our biological bodies. Our biological bodies are far too inadequate to keep up with our ideas and the new landscapes we venture. From the telegraph to telecommunications, from the Net into Space, it is no longer just the written symbol?the word?being transported, we are the new transportees."


I do not necessarily see identity as transportees or Martin's excellent Bemes as an entirely separate philosophical outlook than the transhumanist life view, but as an integral part of a complex extropic system.? For example, Automorph Art is an extropic subset of Transhumanist Arts which developed in the 1990s and is intently based on "being as art."? http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/art. html?? Because it is within the extropic genre, it is understood that his automorph being as art is the actually practice of improving oneself, which is inclusive of the positive ideas presented and described in Martine's philosophy of Bemes.

So, as you can see, I see that Martine has a valuable idea.? :-)? However, I do not think it is separate from or counter to transhumanism, but included within transhumanism as a constructed category of interrelations, or at least a complimentary, valuable aspect thereof.

Right now I am writing a paper on "SEx - Skin (as a symbol of the boundaries of identity) Exobody" for a conference in Brazil on the future of identity.? ...

Beme-ing forward -

Natasha






PJ

?
>Robert writes
>
>> On 10/31/06, Lee Corbin < lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But what happened to *me* in there? I'm more than my memes, pal.
>> > Don't forget my memories.
>
>> Well memories are memes and at least some of them are essential
>> components of the survival and reproduction processes.
>
>Memories are memes??? That does violence to the concept so far
>as I understand it. Memories are more like raw data; for one thing,
>they're very seldom contagious. Beliefs are something else, and
>are indeed memetic.
>
>> > That's me, maybe. I don't want to "become", especially if the end
>> > product is not me. I would rather "are". As you put it.

What about Martine Rothblatt's concept of "bemes?"

www.imminst.org/confere nce/Martine.ppt

PJ
_______________________________________________
extropy-cha t mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lis ts.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, P lanetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Nov 9 22:27:22 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 23:27:22 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] SEX! (Re: Martine Rothblatt and bemes) In-Reply-To: <380-22006114922117195@M2W030.mail2web.com> References: <380-22006114922117195@M2W030.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <4650.213.112.92.120.1163111242.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Now that I have your attention - (Anders are your reading ..? Robert?) > > Can someonebody answer PJ's question? I want to hear your answers. I liked the presentation a lot, and it was indeed the most visionary one. But I have a problem with the bemes concept which is actually kind of sex related: are bemes really replicators like genes or memes? Already memes are problematic as replicators since they are hard to delineate from surrounding cognitive structures, and bemes seem even harder to distinguish from other "being-like" things. Units of beingness is a great idea, but I'm not sure how to treat them. I think the concept would probably benefit by having a few analytic philosophers pick it apart and polish it. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Nov 9 22:18:19 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 14:18:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061109221819.8593.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> "...knowledge are loss"? This is complete alarmism. Crisis if in the chaos a great deal of important capital goods (means of production), infrastructure (especially the Net) and knowledge are loss. It is about a hell of a lot more than being a savvy investor surfing whatever comes financially. - samantha --------------------------------- Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Nov 9 22:48:45 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:48:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders In-Reply-To: <10812988.714391163103374861.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <10812988.714391163103374861.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <35356.72.236.102.121.1163112525.squirrel@main.nc.us> >>>I also ask a number of questions about the roll of literacy and >>> future technology in this blog. > >>I would very much like to read this. Where is it? > > I'm a ninny. > > http://pj-manney.blogspot.com/ > Thank you. The article on Mr. Wise was *fascinating*. The delta people owe him a great deal. Very impressive. I hope his future is happy, he's certainly done more than most. :) Regards, MB From velvethum at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 23:58:05 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:58:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A vignette on incongruent points of view References: Message-ID: >> Jef: >> >> > Is it possible to bridge such a gap in understanding of each >> >> > other's point of view? Slawomir: >> I suggest evaluation of each point of view exclusively with >> respect to the *amount of tangible benefit* to the agent who >> adopts and acts according to that view. Jef: > Slawomir, wasn't the key point that each person's view of the value of > that day was completely subjective? > Would you please give an example of > how you would perform tangible evaluation in such a case? As it is, it's not a good enough example to illustrate the difference between these two points of view because amount of tangible benefit is probably similar for each person after they returned from the beach, so let me extend this example further to the point where the difference should be visible. A year later the second guy finally makes a stunning observation: "The 'beauty' I saw on that day can be abstracted to beauty commonly experienced by people when they look at a painting or when they listen to music. Beauty is being experienced by millions of people everyday so my continued existence is not necessary to preserve beauty in the world." [and shoots himself in the head]. The first guy, however, continues to visit the beach where he enjoys sights and sounds of the ocean and playing with the soft yellow sand. After the second guy commits suicide the amount of tangible benefit for each guy will look like this: Guy #1: Amount of tangible benefit > 0 Guy #2: Amount of tangible benefit = 0 It would be irrational to adopt second guy's point of view because acting according to that view would inevitably lead to a smaller amount of tangible benefit over time when compared to the amount of tangible benefit that could be derived by embracing the first guy's point of view. Slawomir From velvethum at hotmail.com Fri Nov 10 00:04:31 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 19:04:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agency as Prime Determinant of Personal Identity References: <095f01c70301$da6b8a80$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Jef Allbright: >> As an agent acting within a given environmental context, what is >> best from the point of view of that agent is not necessarily >> survival but that it influences its environment so as to promote its >> own values into the future, in effect acting to create a future world >> matching the model it would like to see. Lee Corbin commenting on Jef's proposal: > Wow! That sounds very idealistic to me (in the sense of willing > to give up something). "Survival" is what I'm talking about, as you > know. Suppose that I determine that Eliezer or someone can more > effectively "promote my values into the future" than I can. So I > should agree to stop being me, and let there be two of him? No > way! I couldn't agree more. Jef's model is so abstract that it fails to capture the essence of survival. I tried to ask Jef about his definition of survival very early on in this discussion precisely because I knew he would run into this problem. We could say that the kind of survival Jef is talking about is being "experienced" by dead philosophers, for example, whose ideas, beliefs and values survive to this day by means of books and people who adopt beliefs and values contained in these books. The readers/followers live and act as philosopher's "agents" so it is suggested that the philosopher "survives" as well. Jef Allbright commenting on Lee's model: > Lee, I presented the little story of Aging Alice in order to demonstrate > the incompleteness of the "patternist" view...While I agree that > this holds for any given instant (t=0), and that it supports the view > that an identical copy of a person is essentially that same person, this > definition appears to fail *immediately* and progressively with > increasing divergence of two instances of the same person. Correct. What Jef is pointing out here is that Lee's model fails with respect to identity over time. If we compare two patterns of the same active brain at two different times, say, 1s apart, these two patterns are almost certainly going to be different. And if so, then we must either accept that we're dying every second or that we're not dying every second because patterns do not determine personal identity in the first place. In summary, Lee's objection pretty much disqualifies Jef's model while Jef's objection does the same to Lee's model. But, even though I see no tangible value in Jef's "agency", I can see how Lee's model could be modified to account for time and differences between patterns across time. Lee, let me know if you're interested in what that modification is. Slawomir From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri Nov 10 00:31:32 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:31:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A quick AGI question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061110003132.92410.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hey y'all, I'm trying to develop a personal understanding of the (very) elementary theory behind AGI, such that a mere mortal like me can understand intuitively, without having to digest mountains of literature. So I have a basic question, that I'll state using informal (and I'm sure inaccurate) terminology, but I hope I can get the idea across all the same. Q) If I understand correctly, the algorithms responsible for human thought are supplied by the physical arrangement of the "active" hardware of the human brain. So, is the premise behind AGI that the active *software* functions by pre-specifying the physical arrangement of the hardware (by specifying which transistors are active at what time for example) and that the AGI "thoughts" follow from this point onward? In other words, the actual "thoughts" of the AGI are always secondary to the hardware arrangement supplied by the software, and that in both cases it is *ultimately* the *hardware* that results in the mind? Is this an accurate basic understanding, or is this all just bass - ackwards? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brentn at freeshell.org Fri Nov 10 01:50:57 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 20:50:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropians at the EAS Message-ID: If any folks will be attending the Eastern Analytical Symposium next week, drop me a line. I'm giving an invited talk on stereology on Thursday afternoon. Brent -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Nov 10 02:27:35 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 21:27:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! (2) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061109150438.0370d078@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061109150438.0370d078@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <62c14240611091827q4357a979i314a2e89ede2c610@mail.gmail.com> On 11/9/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > because I cannot transfer my memory of looking out over the Grand Canyon > to > anyone else. > And the moment that becomes possible, it will find its way into a commercial and we'll all become sick of your memory of the Grand Canyon - no matter how beautiful or awe-insiping the original moment was to you. (sadly) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au Fri Nov 10 02:46:00 2006 From: c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au (Colin Geoffrey Hales) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:46:00 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A quick AGI question In-Reply-To: <20061110003132.92410.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061110003132.92410.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2621.128.250.225.217.1163126760.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> > Hey y'all, > > I'm trying to develop a personal understanding of the (very) elementary > theory behind AGI, such that a mere mortal like me can understand intuitively, without having to digest mountains of literature. So I have a basic question, that I'll state using informal (and I'm sure > inaccurate) terminology, but I hope I can get the idea across all the same. > > Q) If I understand correctly, the algorithms responsible for human > thought are supplied by the physical arrangement of the "active" hardware of the human brain. So, is the premise behind AGI that the active *software* functions by pre-specifying the physical arrangement of the hardware (by specifying which transistors are active at what time for example) and that the AGI "thoughts" follow from this point onward? In other words, the actual "thoughts" of the AGI are always secondary to the hardware arrangement supplied by the software, and that in both cases it is *ultimately* the *hardware* that results in the mind? > > Is this an accurate basic understanding, or is this all just bass - > ackwards? > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich > Hi Jeffrey, I'm not sure I have translated Jeff-speak into Colin-speak correctly, but I think your question may be answered as follows: Currently all artificial intelligence projects (AI and AGI) are based on software and are developed/operate without any knowledge of the physics of subjective experience or its role in learning, knowledge and intelligence. To have this information would require a solution to the physics of phenomenal consciousness (the so-called 'hard problem'). That physics is unknown. It is a property of brain material currently without any explanatory basis in science. Nor has its role been accounted for. So, whatever abstractions are enacted computationally in AI or AGI project software, currently the intelligence that results has either a) no internal life b) the internal life of a hot electrically noisy silicon rock (the computer hardware/substrate) c) an internal life that is related to the software in some way that the engineers involved cannot predict or have no idea about. and in all cases a role that is assumed irrelevent without a justified reason, for there's nothing else you can do whilst the physics remains mysterious. I hope that covers it. I think it does... regards, Colin Hales From pj at pj-manney.com Fri Nov 10 03:37:46 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:37:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SEX! (Re: Martine Rothblatt and bemes) Message-ID: <618670.751911163129866298.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Anders said: >I liked the presentation a lot, and it was indeed the most visionary one. >But I have a problem with the bemes concept which is actually kind of sex >related: are bemes really replicators like genes or memes? Already memes >are problematic as replicators since they are hard to delineate from >surrounding cognitive structures, and bemes seem even harder to >distinguish from other "being-like" things. Units of beingness is a great >idea, but I'm not sure how to treat them. I think the concept would >probably benefit by having a few analytic philosophers pick it apart and >polish it. I am the farthest thing from a philosopher that I can imagine, but I agree. I had an instinctual feeling that the metaphor behind "beme" was not really accurate from a 'reproductive' sense, but I don't trust my own opinions on philosophical subjects. My mind isn't wired that way. This is why I wanted to throw the idea into the pot, especially given the prexisting identity debate and our own armchair philosophy squad. There