From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Apr  1 03:00:30 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 13:00:30 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <20070331170212.GE9439@leitl.org>
References: <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> <20070328084252.GL1512@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30703280251h4029f072nf5f66dcf9f6f1458@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070328103951.GV1512@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30703280633u52208ea4i2c212c80bba382f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070328144011.GE1512@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30703282047h29a3ea5ar90bf784a715f61fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330201707.GU1512@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30703310639i41eecf43n10ef6faa3e7faae9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070331170212.GE9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30703312000v244ebfdq653bac5c29cd656e@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/1/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:39:15PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> >    OK, so you take the whole simulation (with an agent that can count)
> >    and run it on a system that is Turing-equivalent (I used an abacus
> >    above; a counter machine is Turing-equivalent and resembles an
> >    abacus). This running can take one of three forms: (a) the TM
> designer
> >    physically manipulates the machine; (b) the TM designer writes out a
> >    program and has an ignorant person who can follow instructions
> >    manipulate the machine; (c) the wind happens to manipulate the
> machine
> >    in the same way as the human would have. Does the program run and
> >    counting occur in each case?
>
> Sorry, as long as you won't touch the Hash Life scenario
> (observer + environment implemented in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashlife which
> is Turing complete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life), no
> dice.


A Life board will do, although it is more physically complex than a counter
machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_machine). We don't need to
discuss Hash Life because I am not looking at shortcuts to compute frames
out of sequence: let's assume that in general there aren't any. If Life is
Turing-complete, then there is some configuration of cells which will
compute the program "an oscillator driving a counter driving a comparator
driving a bomb detonator", all in a virtual environment. We can imagine a
physical Life board with little toggle switches in each square, such that
"up" corresponds to "black" and "down" corresponds to "white". If a human
operator ignorant of what this all means flicks the switches according to
the usual rules of life, does that constitute running of the program? What
about if the switches are operated in exactly the same combinations due to
random events, like a child playing with the board but having no knowledge
of the rules, as well as no knowledge of the program?

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070401/211c36e0/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Apr  1 08:52:30 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:52:30 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations
In-Reply-To: <006c01c773dd$a2e546d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org>
	<026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8d71341e0703262047p1794a517vc81774c49471eb13@mail.gmail.com>
	<02a901c77078$879c1c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30703280100u4bbfa1d0v2b76bfa358a79c74@mail.gmail.com>
	<033201c7714d$95bbecd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30703290501q29ef9ceeh10935ef586bd5535@mail.gmail.com>
	<004701c772fe$318e7db0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30703310606y3d8571cfh5020f6b750fd3bc4@mail.gmail.com>
	<006c01c773dd$a2e546d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704010152g77b8fd64pc1e8de9a2462dc31@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/1/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> >
> But a 10% salary increase at no cost would be worth having. I know, it
> looks like you are living only half as much, but if you can't
> tell the difference and no-one else can tell the difference, why not go
> for the salary increase? It would be analogous to the
> situation if teleportation became available. People would initially be
> reluctant to use it, but once they try it and see that they
> feel exactly the same as before - not at all as if they've died and been
> replaced by a copy - they will stop worrying about it. The
> obvious extension of this idea is to increase the zombie proportion so
> that you are only actually conscious, say, for one second in
> any year.
> <
>
> "It looks like you are living only half as much" --- the first part of the
> above statement ---
> seems correct to me. That is what is physically happening to the subject,
> no matter
> what the subject reports. Then you write "but if you [the subject] can't
> tell the difference",
> which shifts to the subjective mode. It is the properties of the
> subjective mode that
> are what this is all about ultimately, but to me it begs the question to
> introduce the
> conclusion so abruptly.


The subjective mode is the important part though, isn't it?  It presents
something of a paradox, because you feel that you are living a full life
when in fact you are not. What about the inverse situation where you are
granted an extra second of life for every second lived, but remember nothing
of that extra second? What about all the extra copies of you in branches of
the multiverse no longer in your potential future? I know that your view is
that copies are selves and it is just a matter of summing the total runtime.
This is a consistent way out of the paradoxes of personal identity raised by
the thought experiments with which we are familiar. My way is to deny that
there is any self persisting through time at all, but accept that there is
an illusion of this due to the way our brains have evolved, and "survival"
consists in maintaining this illusion.

And then you write "and no one else can tell the difference...".  But I
> think that that
> is false.  I believe that the scientists observing the phenomenon (a
> subject getting
> runtime) determine that there *is* no subject (he doesn't exist as a
> conscious entity)
> during those times in which his states are merely being looked up.  [To
> harp on my
> view of this, why even bother to look them up?  I.e., why move the static
> image
> into a certain register?  Why not leave it on disk or in RAM?  Wouldn't it
> still be
> the same thing?  The sequence still exists.  In fact, why do anything at
> all, since
> the patterns are out there already? But I see below you already jumped to
> the
> freewill/determinism quandry.]


How would the scientists know that there is no consciousness present when
the behaviour is the same? It is like trying to decide if a robot is
conscious.

     >>
>      It seems quite inescapable that conscious
>      robots could, and shortly will exist, and that it will be possible to
>      take such a program and single-step through its deterministic
>      execution.  And that such a program---either perhaps suffering
>      horribly or gaining a great deal of satisfaction---compels us to make
>      a moral choice.  But if rocks continue to be conscious whether
>      pulverized or not, as does any system that can take on many states,
>      (together with a fantastically loose definition of "system"), then of
>      what special status or value are humans and animals? Is caring for
>      another human being completely inconsequential because either
>      saving them from grief or inflicting grief upon them doesn't change
>      the platonic realities at all?
>      <<
>
> > This question can be applied to most multiverse theories: if everything
> > that can happen does happen, why should we bother doing anything
> > in particular?
>
> Because we increase the measure of favorable outcomes, the fraction
> of universes that develop in a desirable way. (Naturally, from a
> different viewpoint, it's just a machine that can act in no other way
> than it does, and the fraction of multiverses in which, say, I don't
> get killed in an auto accident is fixed.  Nonetheless, I think that I
> ought to drive as safely as I can.)
>
> > Even in a single universe, why should we worry about making
> > decisions when we know that the outcome has already been
> > determined by the laws of physics?
>
> To me,
> a totally deterministic program, say a weather forecasting program,
> has complete free will.  It takes in a huge amount of data, and after
> ruminating on it a long while, "decides" whether it's likely to rain or
> not tomorrow.   But that's all my brain does, too.
>
> So if I am predisposed to have great foresight and minimize my pain
> over the long run, then the measure of the universes that contain
> happy Lees is greater than it "otherwise" would have been.  In
> other words, it's good if I can allow memes such as prudence,
> civility, frugality, etc., to affect me. Or determine me.  Whatever.
>
> Although you probably already have your own explanations,
> to me, the basic error in the asking of such a question---
> like why should we worry about anything or exert ourselves---
> lies in its unconscious assumption that souls are possible, that not
> all events have causes, that there can be somewhere in the
> universe events that are completely uncaused (such as a
> decision that a certain human makes).  Once one has thoroughly
> purged oneself of the idea that such uncaused things can exist, and
> has internalized that we are all machines, only machines, and
> nothing else is conceivable then don't such questions lose their meaning?


The question is meaningless even without true randomness playing a part,
because the common sense view of free will (the sense of it we have when we
aren't concerned with analysing it) is that our decisions are neither
determined nor random, but something else; and there isn't anything else,
even in theory.

Returning to your example of driving to avoid an accident, imagine you are a
being in a Life simulation. You come to a point where you can either slow
down or keep going and run over a pedestrian. You decide to slow down,
because you think that running people over is bad and because you think you
have control over your life. In reality, you could not do other than slow
down: that was determined in the Life universe with the force of a
mathematical proof. Your feeling that you could have acted otherwise is
entirely illusory, as you could no more have changed what was to happen than
you could, through much mental straining, have changed 16 into a prime
number.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070401/613fe545/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Apr  1 11:35:42 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 12:35:42 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Exi-chat still seems intermittent
Message-ID: <ee50357e0704010435x43bd9ed0mf07cc703cd049c10@mail.gmail.com>

Exi-chat and extropy.org still seem to be appearing and disappearing
from the web.
Is the DNS problem settling down or still under investigation?

BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Apr  1 13:46:02 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:46:02 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Exi-chat still seems intermittent
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0704010435x43bd9ed0mf07cc703cd049c10@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0704010435x43bd9ed0mf07cc703cd049c10@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070401134602.GZ9439@leitl.org>

On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 12:35:42PM +0100, BillK wrote:

> Exi-chat and extropy.org still seem to be appearing and disappearing
> from the web.
> Is the DNS problem settling down or still under investigation?

ns1.kumo.com is still dead, but ns2.kumo.com looks alive

eugen at black:~$ ping ns2.kumo.com
PING ns2.kumo.com (68.144.65.89) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from S0106001111d3b2e0.cg.shawcable.net (68.144.65.89): icmp_seq=1 ttl=237 time=211 ms
64 bytes from S0106001111d3b2e0.cg.shawcable.net (68.144.65.89): icmp_seq=2 ttl=237 time=219 ms
64 bytes from S0106001111d3b2e0.cg.shawcable.net (68.144.65.89): icmp_seq=3 ttl=237 time=205 ms
64 bytes from S0106001111d3b2e0.cg.shawcable.net (68.144.65.89): icmp_seq=4 ttl=237 time=205 ms
64 bytes from S0106001111d3b2e0.cg.shawcable.net (68.144.65.89): icmp_seq=5 ttl=237 time=208 ms

We need three different DNS servers. Max, can you change this with 
the registrar?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Apr  1 19:09:45 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:09:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740703261117i69a92250sab1edf29ef304d1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30703270503i57581b1g5543892972b5905f@mail.gmail.com>
	<02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/30/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> Did the number 0x0bd11a0bb188f291956549705169a996110841d4 exist?

### Yes! Always and forever, timeless, just as any element of the
platonic plenum.

------------------------------------------
>
> > How come numbers "exist" in silicon, or gray matter but not in the
> > number of chickens?
>
> Chickens can count a bit, actually.

### This is not what I meant. A clutch of chickens always consists of
a certain number of chickens. A certain number of gates in an
integrated circuit may be in states that express a number. Why do you
say that a number doesn't exist when it is a property of a clutch of
chickens but does exist when it is a property of a piece of silicon?

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Apr  1 19:42:15 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:42:15 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] differential fitness
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070321120733.02363860@satx.rr.com>
References: <f21c22e30703111017p3e68f964oa246952e5d6d7502@mail.gmail.com>
	<2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
	<7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
	<7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30703191811k1d515390x7facd64deef9bcfb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30703202235k658c817fn24905418fbb14971@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070321120733.02363860@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704011242x5dea5551i4c78b28f71a35608@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/21/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

>
> Fitness is such a mess of conceptual worms. I suggest a look at
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitness/
>
> Individual phenotypic "fitness"--success at surviving and thriving in
> one's lifelong environment, especially a culturally modified one--is
> not *obviously* linked directly to number of fertile offspring a
> generation or two down the line. (Leaving aside individuals too
> dysfunctional by genotype or accident to reach maturity.) It might
> have been a million years ago, but how could we know that?
>
### I was using the term in the strictly biological sense. I know that
philosophers decry the definition as tautological, trivial,
unfalsifiable and consequently explanatorily infirm (to quote from the
page you linked to).

I don't mind. For biologists this definition works fine. Objections
from guys who maybe never even dissected a frog won't distract us.

Rafal


From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Apr  1 20:41:00 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 22:41:00 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740703261117i69a92250sab1edf29ef304d1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30703270503i57581b1g5543892972b5905f@mail.gmail.com>
	<02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>

On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 03:09:45PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> >
> > Did the number 0x0bd11a0bb188f291956549705169a996110841d4 exist?
> 
> ### Yes! Always and forever, timeless, just as any element of the
> platonic plenum.

Well, I'm not religious. Because it's a large cryptohash of 
an entropy pool that number didn't exist anywhere in the universe
before I made it. Now that number exists in many copies, in many
people's mailboxes on nonvolatile storage, and it will take a while
before it's gone again -- when each and every copy of it has been
erased. It may well be that that number then won't appear again,
until the universe dies of old age -- I'm too lazy to make a guesstimate
what GLYrs of computronium working for GYrs can come up with.
 
> > > How come numbers "exist" in silicon, or gray matter but not in the
> > > number of chickens?
> >
> > Chickens can count a bit, actually.
> 
> ### This is not what I meant. A clutch of chickens always consists of

I know. I was referring to the fact that chickens can be their only
observers, making a measurement upon a particular physical assembly: 
a flock.

> a certain number of chickens. A certain number of gates in an
> integrated circuit may be in states that express a number. Why do you

Yeah, I already said that some human-derived (which are causally
entangled to the long evolutionary optimization process -- which
neither plasma nor interstellar organic-coated ice grains have 
participated in yet.

> say that a number doesn't exist when it is a property of a clutch of
> chickens but does exist when it is a property of a piece of silicon?

Not all circuits can count, it take special ones. 

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Apr  1 19:15:47 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:15:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30703211554u3b476a4ar595acc9eaff2cfe4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30703111017p3e68f964oa246952e5d6d7502@mail.gmail.com>
	<2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
	<7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
	<7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30703191811k1d515390x7facd64deef9bcfb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30703202235k658c817fn24905418fbb14971@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30703211554u3b476a4ar595acc9eaff2cfe4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704011215m36561bfbldf2d1244d3eaf8e7@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/21/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/22/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is there any evidence that smarter, richer, better-looking etc. people
> today
> > > are more likely to pass on their genes than most of the rest of the
> > > population?
> > >
> > ### I am not sure about the meaning of your question. I noted that
> > there is differential fitness among humans, therefore selection for
> > traits correlated to fitness is still taking place. Do you think that
> > this is incorrect?
>
>
> But selection on the basis of genetic difference is far less important in a
> technological society. We would still adapt and "evolve" technologically
> even if our genes never again deviated substantially from their present
> state.

### Well, I have not claimed otherwise.

Rafal


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Apr  1 20:44:09 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 13:44:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740703261117i69a92250sab1edf29ef304d1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30703270503i57581b1g5543892972b5905f@mail.gmail.com>
	<02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704011344g2ab182f2o3036707ab9bd3eef@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/1/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> >
> > Did the number 0x0bd11a0bb188f291956549705169a996110841d4 exist?
>
> ### Yes! Always and forever, timeless, just as any element of the
> platonic plenum.

Rafal, I don't pretend to be able to dissuade anyone from any abstract
belief, but along with infinite primes and infinite variations on
infinities, do you also believe that "redness" "exists" in the
"platonic plenum?"

- Jef


From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  2 21:20:00 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30703232057sd0451b0jce7c84f0f456ee1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <245933.53237.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Hi Stathis,

Yep. You're right. The weak-spot of this question is
the quotient of Infinity divided by Infinity. I had
incorrectly assumed that this quotient could only be
Infinity itself. But, I was wrong. Apparently this is
one of the "indeterminate forms" of mathematics -
where the quotient of +Infinity/+Infinity can be any
positive real number, including positive Infinity. The
quotient seems to "behave" in a dynamically variable
fashion where any two (or more) consecutive
calculations do not have to yield the same result.
Weird. As you pointed out, from a certain perspective,
this also makes sense intuitively. For example,
Infinity/2 is not a use-able calculation in this
example because an observer can never "reach" any
point in time other than an infinitely small fraction
of an infinitely long history (ie. Infinity/Infinity).


So this would indeed allow that a Universe
that was predetermined to become infinitely old could
include observers with subjective experience who
could "see" a greater-than-zero yet finite history of
their Universe, even though their Universe could still
potentially become infinitely old. So it looks like
our Universe could potentially become infinitely old,
as you said, and that our own Big Bang could also
potentially have coincided with "the very beginning".
All of this in spite of the fact that our Universe is
only 15 Billion years old. That's just plain crazy...
but really fascinating, in my opinion.

A lingering question I still have is: if the
+Infinity/+Infinity quotient can yield any positive
real number, then why in this example, does it appear
that the quotient is continually gaining positive
value only? Instead of for example, yielding an
apparent value of +4528, and then subsequently
yielding an apparent value of +326. IOW, *why* are
these seemingly arbitrary calculations completely
consistent with the apparent "arrow of time"? ...???
...? ... Perhaps because "subsequent" calculations
themselves require the passage of time? I wonder if
there is more to be seen here.

Stathis wrote:

..."if the probability of
> observers arising or surviving
> decreases as time increases, it can turn out that
> there is a high
> probability that an observer would find himself in
> the first n years of the
> universe's existence."

True. Or the potential decrease could be the result of
a voluntary aggregation/assimilation of individuals
into a smaller number of "discrete" consciousnesses,
which is what I hope that the Doomsday Argument is
indicating, above any of the alternatives.

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich  


--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/24/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> If a Universe was predetermined to have a positively
> > infinite lifespan, then an observer from any
> > "time-location" should be able to look backwards
> and
> > see an infinitely long history of their own
> Universe,
> > back to the "beginning". If we take positive
> infinity
> > (which would represent the total lifespan of this
> > hypothetical Universe) and divide it by any finite
> > number (which would represent a randomly selected
> > "time-location" for an observer) the quotient is
> still
> > infinity which would correspond with the apparent
> > "age" of the Universe from this observer's
> > perspective.
> 
> 
> Not really: if you stand at any finite number you
> can always look backward
> to zero, but you are only at an infinitesimal
> proportion of infinity if you
> look forward. You might say it is surprising that we
> find ourselves at such
> a low number as 15 billion, but it would be equally
> surprising for us to
> find ourselves at any other finite number, however
> large. And that's if the
> distribution of observers is uniform over the
> infinite span of the
> universe's existence: if the probability of
> observers arising or surviving
> decreases as time increases, it can turn out that
> there is a high
> probability that an observer would find himself in
> the first n years of the
> universe's existence.
> 
> Stathis Papaioannou
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121


From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  2 21:31:52 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <564080.1059.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Isn't it already mathematically established that any
number (for example: 9) is inherently a calculation.

For example: 

 9 = 4 * 2 + 1

and 

 9 = 3 + 1 + 5

etc.

But, maybe I'm wrong. I haven't yet studied number
theory.

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front


From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  2 21:51:33 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
Message-ID: <625284.2273.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This should read/I'll add a little more:

Isn't it already mathematically established that any
number (for example: 9) is inherently a calculation*?*

And aren't calculations and computations identical
phenomena? 

I haven't read this book yet - only the jacket at B&N,
but apparently the book "Decoding the Universe" argues
that any interactions whatsoever (for example between
particles) are inexorably linked-with/composed-of a
computation, regardless of whether or not that
interaction was observed.

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich


--- A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> Isn't it already mathematically established that any
> number (for example: 9) is inherently a calculation.
> 
> For example: 
> 
>  9 = 4 * 2 + 1
> 
> and 
> 
>  9 = 3 + 1 + 5
> 
> etc.
> 
> But, maybe I'm wrong. I haven't yet studied number
> theory.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Jeffrey Herrlich
> 
> 
> 
>  
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
> Download and play hundreds of games for free on
> Yahoo! Games.
> http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
> 




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting. 
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php


From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Apr  2 23:18:19 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:18:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <564080.1059.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<564080.1059.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704021618j2bdee552p58215d14eb564396@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/2/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> But, maybe I'm wrong. I haven't yet studied number
> theory.

Jeffrey, it's not number theory, but philosophy.  See pages such as
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/> for some background.

Some good minds believe it makes good sense.  My problem with it is
the same as the earlier  disagreement over Occam's Razor.  It
postulates entities unnecessarily and I would argue on an information
theoretic basis that we should prefer a finite but unknown ensemble of
cosmic principles (or "algorithms") to the "existence" of a "platonic
plenum" of an infinity of infinities of abstract entities.

The observation that we are embedded in the very "reality" that we
strive to understand both enables and confounds such speculation.  I
therefore frame all such measures of "truth" in probabilistic terms
while acknowledging that I can never rule out that an unknown but
relevant parameter might turn things around.

- Jef

- Jef


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Apr  2 23:49:18 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:49:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
References: <f21c22e30703210257t42168233qdfc19996956eabc9@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740703261117i69a92250sab1edf29ef304d1c@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30703270503i57581b1g5543892972b5905f@mail.gmail.com><02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740703271713m70b0d3c3xc6fbb090a1f8c29c@mail.gmail.com><031601c770d3$8ee71df0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f7bfe5740703272133l6eb3cc06i333b833024c6c910@mail.gmail.com><035501c77151$d092cdc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740703280909o2151d991h61b01508857ae78@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00c601c7758b$764dc2a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Jef writes (I hope that this is not a re-post but cannot be sure)

> I've been arguing against the Cartesian Theater in its many
> disguises in so many ways for so many years that I am truly
> at a loss with you [for having suggested that I, Jef, am making
> this kind of suggestion]

Well, reconsider what you wrote earlier:

> It's significant that you accept that there can be distortion in the
> sensory channels but fail to accept--or even consider--that
> when I say fnord "we have no simple direct unbiased access to
> reality, because we're embedded in it," fnord I mean that these
> biases run throughout the entire system that you consider you.

In the rather philosophic discussion we are having---wondering
how a person sees an object---we must say where to draw the
boundary of the person. I don't think (in this discussion)
it is right to draw the boundary of the person so tightly that his
or her sensory channels are outside.  It was only this, and your
implication that the indirectness extended very very far (perhaps
infinitely far), that reminded me of the Cartesian Theatre. Sorry to
have perplexed you. 

But I guess that you will not like this either:  "The entire system
of a person---his higher brain functions down to his lower brain
functions down to V1-V4 and even including all the structures of
the eye---, that system directly sees an object.  Or would you?

Lee

By the way, was that a test?   I could see the word "fnord".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord .  But knowing you, there
was probably something even more subtle underfoot  :-)
Or---this would be a gas---you might have suspected that
I was skimming your writing so fast that I'd miss that word!



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Apr  2 23:49:22 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:49:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] accelerating evolution?
References: <20070328115916.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.d8845247bb.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <00c701c7758b$76659060$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Kevin comments on Damien's link:

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070326_evolution.htm

> I tend to agree [that human evolution has been speeding up].
> In fact, I think that the one key evolved characteristic of human
> beings that gave us an edge over all other hominids is an ability
> to rapidly evolve.

But this may simply be a byproduct of greater societal organization.
For about the last 10,000 years homo sapiens have had cultures
that are seriously capable of spreading at the expense of other
cultures, often as fast as a man can walk.  For sure these great
demographic changes greatly alter gene frequencies, almost by
definition.

The article said

     "Ev?o?lu?tion oc?curs when an in?di?vid?ual ac?quires a ben?e?fi?cial
     ge?net?ic mu?ta?tion, and it spreads through?out the pop?u?la?tion
     be?cause those with it thrive and re?pro?duce more. Cease?less
     repe?ti?tions of this can change spe?cies, or pro?duce new ones.
     As ben?e?fi?cial genes spread, harm?ful ones are weeded out."

Sadly, among those harmful genes and gene complexes that are
weeded out are *intelligence* and *tolerance for birth control*,
and perhaps even lack of religiosity. Certainly two of the more
beneficial characteristics of religiosity are its under-utilization
of intelligence and its frequent bans on birth control.

It's such a pity that in the twentieth century (in the West) intelligence
ended up as a harmful trait.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Apr  3 03:50:17 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 20:50:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations
References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org>
	<026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8d71341e0703262047p1794a517vc81774c49471eb13@mail.gmail.com>
	<02a901c77078$879c1c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30703280100u4bbfa1d0v2b76bfa358a79c74@mail.gmail.com>
	<033201c7714d$95bbecd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30703290501q29ef9ceeh10935ef586bd5535@mail.gmail.com>
	<004701c772fe$318e7db0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30703310606y3d8571cfh5020f6b750fd3bc4@mail.gmail.com>
	<006c01c773dd$a2e546d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704010152g77b8fd64pc1e8de9a2462dc31@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00de01c775a3$4a98dec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> The subjective mode is the important part though, isn't it?

I would say that "the subjective" is indeed important, but perhaps only
to give flavor  :-)   or perhaps only as an aid to subjective description.
I conjecture that everything that has any real substance may be
reduced to an objective account, and moreover, anything that
cannot be so reduced ought to be looked upon with a great deal
of suspicion.

> It presents something of a paradox, because you feel that you are
> living a full life when in fact you are not.

I would counter that if in fact you are not living a full life, then you ipso
facto do not fully feel that you are.  In the case, say, where 9 out of
10 of your states are looked up (shelving for the time being the more
complicated scenarios of HashLife), then while you report to everyone
that everything is fine, the "you" that is so reporting is present only to
degree 1/10.

Now certainly, under some of these extreme conditions we have been
considering (where I contend that functionalism fails), a robot whose
so-called consciousness is not being calculated but merely looked up
does give every appearance of being conscious. Surely he does. But
then, it's also true that sufficiently primitive people will be fooled by
motion pictures.

> What about the inverse situation where you are granted an extra second
> of life for every second lived, but remember nothing of that extra second?
> What about all the extra copies of you in branches of the multiverse no
> longer in your potential future? I know that your view is that copies are
> selves and it is just a matter of summing the total runtime.

Yes, that is what I say.

> This is a consistent way out of the paradoxes of personal identity raised
> by the thought experiments with which we are familiar.

Thanks.

> My way is to deny that there is any self persisting through time at all,
> but accept that there is an illusion of this due to the way our brains
> have evolved, and "survival" consists in maintaining this illusion. 

Yes, the concept of *self* has come under a lot of fire.  But then I
suppose that we agree that what is important is survival.  I then take
the admittedly lazy step of saying that in this case, it is a "self" which
survives!  Why not?  Even if there isn't any such thing on close
examination, as you suggest, it still conveys the idea we are after
to people.

(The terms "myself", "self", and so on are pretty thoroughly embedded
in the language, and of course people are going to go on using these
terms.  And as for "I" and "me", we'll never get rid of them, and I'm
sure it's not even worth the effort.)

> > And then you write "and no one else can tell the difference...".  But I
> > think that that is false.  I believe that the scientists observing the
> > phenomenon (a subject getting runtime) determine that there *is* no
> > subject (he doesn't exist as a conscious entity) during those times in
> > which his states are merely being looked up.
> 
> How would the scientists know that there is no consciousness present
> when the behaviour is the same? It is like trying to decide if a robot is
> conscious. 

Scientists will conjecture that consciousness is or is not present in the same
way that they make conjectures in other theories. For example, I would
hold the tentative belief, were I introduced to you, that you were conscious.
If, however, a rigorous examination of the way that you were computed
showed that you were only a GLUT (and were not being computed at all
in the nice usage of terms I favor), then I would cease to believe that you
were conscious.

Likewise, we hopefully into the future keep to the principle "conscious entities
should not be made to suffer", at least in the public parlance. We simply
value what people do (and do not) experience. From this, it could easily
follow---provided that the concept does not become obsolete---that from
suitable comparisons with the things we know are not conscious (such as trees
and rocks) and from comparisons with things that we know *are* conscious,
e.g. human beings, the correct physical correlates can be teased out.

> Returning to your example of driving to avoid an accident, imagine you
> are a being in a Life simulation. You come to a point where you can
> either slow down or keep going and run over a pedestrian. You decide
> to slow down, because you think that running people over is bad and
> because you think you have control over your life. In reality, you could
> not do other than slow down: that was determined in the Life universe
> with the force of a mathematical proof. Your feeling that you could have
> acted otherwise is entirely illusory, as you could no more have changed
> what was to happen than you could, through much mental straining, have
> changed 16 into a prime number. 

That's right.  If we are living in a deterministic universe and something 
happens, then we must admit that from an external viewpoint or 
according to the physics running our simulation, what happened was
totally inevitable.

But see Dennett's nice discussion of "evitability" in his book Freedom
Evolves.  He considers exactly this case, namely, a conscious Life
entity, and he shows to my satisfaction that there is a strong, meaningful
sense in which one not should regard future hazards as inevitable.

Lee



From max at maxmore.com  Tue Apr  3 03:57:59 2007
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:57:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Test
Message-ID: <200704030356.l333uOFa021638@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com>

Testing testing



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Apr  3 04:11:46 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:11:46 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Test
In-Reply-To: <200704030356.l333uOFa021638@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200704030426.l334QFOF001694@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
> 

>... The wavelet transform provides the
> mathematical analog of a music score: just as the score tells a 
>musician which notes to play when...

> Amara Graps, PhD      


Music scores are a most remarkable form of information compression.  A sheet
of music can be written on a single page, yet can take a hundred seconds or
more to unravel the concepts found there with a musical instrument or voice.
The musician can add stylistic nuances that the composer had not imagined,
or may add improvisations, derivatives, contratonals or other interpretive
notions.  A musician can insert emotion with an instrument.  So the composer
performs a transform to the score, then the musician performs an inverse
transform to create music.

I don't think I contributed to the notion of surfing with wavelets with that
paragraph but I had fun writing it.

{8-]

spike


  






From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Apr  3 04:20:50 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:20:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Test
In-Reply-To: <200704030356.l333uOFa021638@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com>
References: <200704030356.l333uOFa021638@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704022120s6978404em5afdfad18cc5f902@mail.gmail.com>

Feeling testy, are we?  ;-)

- Jef

On 4/2/07, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> Testing testing


From jonkc at att.net  Tue Apr  3 05:20:40 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:20:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
References: <564080.1059.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002901c775af$fd9c6440$2b094e0c@MyComputer>

"A B" <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> Wrote:

> Isn't it already mathematically established that any
> number (for example: 9) is inherently a calculation.

A very very few rare numbers (only the smallest form of infinity) such at 9
are easily calculable. But there are numbers such as PI that are far more
numerous (a larger infinity) that can only be calculated if you are willing
to do an infinite number of calculations.

But that's still not big enough, most numbers, nearly all in fact, can't be
calculated at all, not even if you had infinite time at your disposal.

 John K Clark







From amara at amara.com  Tue Apr  3 05:33:13 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 07:33:13 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Body Hacking talk- slides online
Message-ID: <p06230903c2379750da79@[23.237.66.13]>

 From Boing Boing:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/04/01/body_hacking_slides_.html


Body Hacking Talk
at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference 2007

Slides are now posted online at
http://www.ambiguous.org/quinn/bodyhacking.html

The talk was this:

---
Date: Thursday, March 29
Time: 2:15pm - 3:00pm
Location: Douglas A

Technology that was the traditional purview of the medical
establishment is migrating into the hands of body hackers, and the
medical establishment itself is finding ways to enhance humans, not
just cure disease, and faces a new dilemma about whether and who
should be enhanced. All of these advancements come with health dangers
and unanticipated possibilities, as well as an ethical debate about
what it means to be human.

This talk will touch on the latest medical advances in neurological
understanding and interface as well as physical enhancements in sports
and prosthetics. But more time will be given to how the body hackers
and renegades of the world are likely to go forward with or without
societal permission. Journalist Quinn Norton will touch on sensory
extension, home surgery, medical tourism, nervous system interfaces,
and controlling parts of our bodies and minds once thought to be
nature's fate for us.
----

In addition, here is a video of Quinn giving this talk in Berlin
at 23C3 in December

http://media.hojann.net/23C3/23C3-1629-en-body_hacking.m4v
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  3 04:54:55 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Test
In-Reply-To: <200704030356.l333uOFa021638@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com>
Message-ID: <351423.42724.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>

Read you loud and clear, Max. :)


--- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> Testing testing
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome.


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love 
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Apr  3 08:48:25 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:48:25 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing
In-Reply-To: <245933.53237.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30703232057sd0451b0jce7c84f0f456ee1@mail.gmail.com>
	<245933.53237.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704030148t70be2142idf647d370ef393a3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jeffrey,

..."if the probability of
> > observers arising or surviving
> > decreases as time increases, it can turn out that
> > there is a high
> > probability that an observer would find himself in
> > the first n years of the
> > universe's existence."
>
> True. Or the potential decrease could be the result of
> a voluntary aggregation/assimilation of individuals
> into a smaller number of "discrete" consciousnesses,
> which is what I hope that the Doomsday Argument is
> indicating, above any of the alternatives.
>

Actually your whole question could be taken as a form of Doomsday Argument
reasoning: it would seem more likely that I am one of few (few species, few
observer moments, few historical eras) rather than one of many, especially
one of infinitely many. The paradox is, even if the space of all observer
moments is infinite, making the measure of each individual observer moment
infinitesimal, that doesn't mean that each observer moment should assume it
doesn't exist. Reality trumps probability every time.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070403/7beb8d28/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Apr  3 10:45:57 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 20:45:57 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations
In-Reply-To: <00de01c775a3$4a98dec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org>
	<02a901c77078$879c1c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30703280100u4bbfa1d0v2b76bfa358a79c74@mail.gmail.com>
	<033201c7714d$95bbecd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30703290501q29ef9ceeh10935ef586bd5535@mail.gmail.com>
	<004701c772fe$318e7db0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30703310606y3d8571cfh5020f6b750fd3bc4@mail.gmail.com>
	<006c01c773dd$a2e546d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704010152g77b8fd64pc1e8de9a2462dc31@mail.gmail.com>
	<00de01c775a3$4a98dec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704030345r49ae0167v50ef1c7309f7bf4a@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/3/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> Returning to your example of driving to avoid an accident, imagine you
> > are a being in a Life simulation. You come to a point where you can
> > either slow down or keep going and run over a pedestrian. You decide
> > to slow down, because you think that running people over is bad and
> > because you think you have control over your life. In reality, you could
> > not do other than slow down: that was determined in the Life universe
> > with the force of a mathematical proof. Your feeling that you could have
> > acted otherwise is entirely illusory, as you could no more have changed
> > what was to happen than you could, through much mental straining, have
> > changed 16 into a prime number.
>
> That's right.  If we are living in a deterministic universe and something
> happens, then we must admit that from an external viewpoint or
> according to the physics running our simulation, what happened was
> totally inevitable.
>
> But see Dennett's nice discussion of "evitability" in his book Freedom
> Evolves.  He considers exactly this case, namely, a conscious Life
> entity, and he shows to my satisfaction that there is a strong, meaningful
> sense in which one not should regard future hazards as inevitable.


Then in the same sense in Platonia, future hazards are not inevitable, since
after all the Life game in which the hazard is or isn't avoided is a
Platonic object and its outcome is not changed by implementing it
physically.

More generally, I see Dennett's compatibilism as a sort of apology for
determinism, reframing "free will" so that we can tell ourselves we have it
even though the obvious conclusion is that it is just an illusion. In other
words, if in fact free will were just an illusion due to the fact that we
don't know what we're going to do until we do it, how would the universe, or
our experience of it, be any different? If the answer is "it wouldn't", then
what purpose is served by the concept of free will other than to make us
feel better? I am quite happy to drop not only free will but also ideas such
as absolute morality, a self persisting through time, and even a separate
physical universe if the only reason to hang on to them is an emotional one.
At the same time, I am quite happy to continue living my life as if all
these things are in fact real, and I think it is better to live an illusion
rather than a delusion.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070403/f439aa6f/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Apr  2 01:02:31 2007
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 21:02:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] archives?
In-Reply-To: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <45622.72.236.102.82.1175475751.squirrel@main.nc.us>


> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>

This link will not work for me - it is Not Found.

Do we still have archives? If so, how can I access them?

I wanted to reread that intertesting thread about the movie "300".

Regards,
MB





From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Apr  4 04:16:45 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:16:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  Hello!
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070403231431.030937e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Well, that was a provoking excursion around the galaxy!

John Klos has done a marvelous job of reworking the technical issues that 
arose last week.  He and Max will be handling changes that will make things 
a heck of a lot more stable.

Hope everyone is well -

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, <http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Advisory Committee, <http://www.pietronigro.com/zgac/>Zero Gravity Arts 
Consortium

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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070403/6c8af81c/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Apr  3 16:39:48 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:39:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] archives?
In-Reply-To: <45622.72.236.102.82.1175475751.squirrel@main.nc.us>
References: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<45622.72.236.102.82.1175475751.squirrel@main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704030939v234115bbh7cf0498c02930ef6@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/1/07, MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:

> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
>
> This link will not work for me - it is Not Found.
>
> Do we still have archives? If so, how can I access them?

You may want to look here:
<http://postbiota.org/pipermail/extropy/extropy-chat/>

[Courtesy of Eugen]

- Jef


From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Apr  3 16:55:06 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:55:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <002901c775af$fd9c6440$2b094e0c@MyComputer>
References: <564080.1059.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<002901c775af$fd9c6440$2b094e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704030955tafd75a1v6e4c13412fb7f61a@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/2/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> "A B" <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> Wrote:
>
> > Isn't it already mathematically established that any
> > number (for example: 9) is inherently a calculation.
>
> A very very few rare numbers (only the smallest form of infinity) such at 9
> are easily calculable. But there are numbers such as PI that are far more
> numerous (a larger infinity) that can only be calculated if you are willing
> to do an infinite number of calculations.
>
> But that's still not big enough, most numbers, nearly all in fact, can't be
> calculated at all, not even if you had infinite time at your disposal.

Amplifying John's point here, if you were to imagine throwing a dart
at a perfect number line representing the range from 0 to 1, you would
have zero chance of exactly hitting a rational number.

- Jef


From hibbert at mydruthers.com  Tue Apr  3 17:19:25 2007
From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:19:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] archives?
In-Reply-To: <45622.72.236.102.82.1175475751.squirrel@main.nc.us>
References: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<45622.72.236.102.82.1175475751.squirrel@main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <46128C9D.7040702@mydruthers.com>

>> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
> This link will not work for me - it is Not Found.
> 
> Do we still have archives? If so, how can I access them?

I've notified Ken Kittlitz.  He helped set up that archive.  If it's a 
simple problem, he can usually revive it quickly.

Chris
-- 
Currently reading: Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope; Judith
   Rich Harris, No Two Alike; Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
Blog:   http://pancrit.org



From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Apr  3 17:49:09 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:49:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <002b01c77267$a1e0a300$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <f21c22e30703210257t42168233qdfc19996956eabc9@mail.gmail.com>
	<02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740703271713m70b0d3c3xc6fbb090a1f8c29c@mail.gmail.com>
	<031601c770d3$8ee71df0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740703272133l6eb3cc06i333b833024c6c910@mail.gmail.com>
	<035501c77151$d092cdc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740703280909o2151d991h61b01508857ae78@mail.gmail.com>
	<002b01c77267$a1e0a300$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704031049p77eab0f8sbeecee8f8a5cea4b@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/29/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> By the way, was that a test?   I could see the word "fnord"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord .  But knowing you, there
> was probably something even more subtle underfoot  :-)
> Or---this would be a gas---you might have suspected that
> I was skimming your writing so fast that I'd miss that word!

Lee, it was a friendly poke at you for leaving out a key portion of my
statement that didn't fit your conception of my argument, it was a
check to see whether you really were paying enough attention to catch
it (and possibly give you a chuckle), it was a bit of entertaining
nostalgia for those who recall the term, and it was a self-referential
joke about the biased, subjective nature of perception which was the
topic of the discussion.

I'm going to back out of this discussion for a while because I'm
noticing (once again) that my expectations for effective sharing of
understanding are again outstripping the limited capabilities of this
medium, and my ineffective attempts to pack layers of thought into
such limited space to the exclusion of social niceties are likely to
create more heat than light.

- Jef


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Apr  3 18:10:41 2007
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:10:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] archives?
In-Reply-To: <46128C9D.7040702@mydruthers.com>
References: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<45622.72.236.102.82.1175475751.squirrel@main.nc.us>
	<46128C9D.7040702@mydruthers.com>
Message-ID: <46463.72.236.102.124.1175623841.squirrel@main.nc.us>

>>> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>> This link will not work for me - it is Not Found.
>>
>> Do we still have archives? If so, how can I access them?
>
> I've notified Ken Kittlitz.  He helped set up that archive.  If it's a
> simple problem, he can usually revive it quickly.
>
>

Thanks for the replies. My problem was the DNS problem, only I didn't know that when
I wrote the message!

I wrote in a private email to spike, asking if the Singularity had happened without
me - and everything was now gone away!

I sure am glad we're back online! :) Many thanks to those who work to keep things
running. :)

Regards,
MB



From ken at javien.com  Tue Apr  3 18:27:07 2007
From: ken at javien.com (Ken Kittlitz)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:27:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] archives?
Message-ID: <26877743.29351175624827845.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>

>I've notified Ken Kittlitz.  He helped set up that archive.  If it's a 
>simple problem, he can usually revive it quickly.
>
>Chris

Hi folks,

Though it's no longer the official archive for exi-chat, I'd be happy to start tracking the list at http://forum.ideosphere.com  Are the existing archives available in Unix 'mbox' format anywhere, so I could import them?  Thanks.

       -Ken


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Apr  3 19:09:36 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:09:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
References: <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30703270503i57581b1g5543892972b5905f@mail.gmail.com>
	<02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/1/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> > say that a number doesn't exist when it is a property of a clutch of
> > chickens but does exist when it is a property of a piece of silicon?
>
> Not all circuits can count, it take special ones.

### You evaded the question. What is so special about certain material
objects (human brains, ink on paper, certain circuits) that makes
their states able to support the existence of numbers (and be
absolutely necessary to the existence of numbers), while other
material objects do support the existence of numbers?

Rafal


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Apr  3 19:58:03 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:58:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30703270503i57581b1g5543892972b5905f@mail.gmail.com>
	<02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 03:09:36PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> > Not all circuits can count, it take special ones.
> 
> ### You evaded the question. What is so special about certain material
> objects (human brains, ink on paper, certain circuits) that makes

Ink on paper, no, (unless it's one of them fancy inkjet-printed
electronics which is smart enough to count). Human brains and certain circuits, 
yes, because through evolutionary optimization (all smart human artifacts are 
causally entangled with said optimization, which is not true for dumb
objects, man-made, or otherwise) they have evolved to be able to make 
measurements on their environment/tracking certain aspects of state 
(including themselves), which is externally denoted (in your, mine, 
and a fair number of other heads) as "counting" and "numbers". 

The pigment marks on dead tree are completely meaningless without any
such systems and said measurements (unless it's one damn smart paper).

> their states able to support the existence of numbers (and be
> absolutely necessary to the existence of numbers), while other
> material objects do support the existence of numbers?

The numbers are not in the object but the observer (the systems 
have to agree on a common code as to configuration states of the object, which
requires communication, or a common point of origin acting as
a communication channel equivalent). Observer complex, external
encoding trivial. Sufficiently so that the observer can encode
internally, without breaking a sweat.

Any borderline smart critter (evolved here or elsewhere) will
need a capability of track resources and fellow critters (assuming,
it's not completely asocial), so it will evolve one. Much smarter
critters which need to make sense of the universe will have to
come up with some functional equivalent of technology/science, which,
however, will be rather alien to us.

All of this is completely orthogonal to the low level processes 
of the universe or even metaverse, because you can make abacuses
from opterons, by drilling a neat hole through them and putting
them on strings.

Now I sound like a philosopher. Ptui, must go wash my mouth with soap.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Apr  3 19:59:58 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:59:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
Message-ID: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

It was inevitable that this discussion come sooner or later to hinge right
on the point of free will.

"Inevitable?", well, not really. We really should suppose that in some
nearby alternative universes it did not do so, and that versions of us---
with whom we must totally identify---came to other decisions. They
did this on the basis of very small differences in those other universes,
such as whether or not the Exi mail server had not been misbehaving,
for example.

> Then in the same sense in Platonia, future hazards are not inevitable,
> since after all the Life game in which the hazard is or isn't avoided is
> a Platonic object and its outcome is not changed by implementing it
> physically. 

Yes, I would say that it is best not to regard our future decisions as
inevitable whether in Platonia or in a deterministic simulation  And
that's not just because it feels good, or it provides us with optimism,
or whatever, even though those things are true. It's because on any
sensible meaning of what "inevitability" *could* mean, it just isn't true
that that future events are inevitable (see next).

> More generally, I see Dennett's compatibilism as a sort of apology
> for determinism, reframing "free will" so that we can tell ourselves
> we have it even though the obvious conclusion is that it is just an
> illusion.

I claim that if one *totally* banishes from his or her consciousness
the idea of non-determinism (to the point that it is unthinkable), and
only then asks "do I have a choice?", the answer must be "Yes".
But so long as there remains even the slightest vestige of the notion
of an uncaused event, or the slightest vestige of the soul, then the
silly answer "No" may still be entertained.

(When for example, you ask yourself, do I have a choice about
regarding answering this email, the answer "No" is less informative
and less true than the answer "Yes".)

So let us assume that we have completely internalized the belief that
there are no uncaused events and there are no souls. Then what
the devil does the question "Do I have a choice" possibly mean now?

It can only mean the same as it would for a concious chess computer
in trying to decide between move A and move B. First, we know that
the calculations it makes regarding those CHOICES, and I do not
apologize for the term, will be ongoing. A huge number of factors,
e.g., whether the opponent's open rook file makes a queen side
attack too problematical, have effects. The machine must decide!
So---recalling that we have utterly and without reservation totally
gone beyond even a hint of uncaused events---this can *only* mean
that the machine is taking these factors into account, i.e., a decision
is simply "taking factors into account". (What else could it be?)

That is all that a "choice" can *possibly* mean.  It is absolutely wrong
to conceive of choice as anything but taking a huge number of factors
into account, and doing extensive calculations of the various alternatives.
But then, the only possibility is that the machine is free to choose....
unless indeed an external agent is forcing it to make one move as
against the other,  e.g., that external agent is not permitting all the
factors to affect the decision that normally would be affecting the
decision.  ("You will lose to Botvinnik in round 6, or else go to
Siberian labor camp.")

Does the program have free will?  Well, what can that possibly mean?
I claim that the denial of the statement "the machine has free will" has
taken us right back to an unconscious assumption that there could be
uncaused events. But we are supposed, now, to be beyond that.
Therefore, we must interpret the question accordingly, and so it
must mean, "are the factors contributing to the decision all coming
into play?".  If the answer is yes---i.e., the computer is free to make
up its mind without external compulsion---then it has to be said that
the computer's will is free (remember, we have absolutely internalized
that there are no uncaused decisions).

> In other words, if in fact free will were just an illusion due to the
> fact that we don't know what we're going to do until we do it,

(and I say that it ought not be regarded as an illusion, for so doing
sneaks back in the idea that there could be souls and uncaused events)

> how would the universe, or our experience of it, be any different?
> If the answer is "it wouldn't",

I'd maintain that it is not conceivable that free will is an illusion, when
what HAS to be meant by the phrase is as explained above

> then what purpose is served by the concept of free will other than
> to make us feel better?

It serves the purpose of identifying who or what made a decision.
Either I can go visit the prison by my own free will, say as a reporter
and thus exercise my free will, or I can be arrested and forced to go
to prison, in which case my free will has been abrogated

> I am quite happy to drop not only free will but also ideas such as
> absolute morality,

I'm with you there. Though people should understand that since there
*can* be no absolute morality, what morality that we do have is still
extremely important, must be defended vociferously, and cultivated,
and perhaps even violently imposed on others with great passion.

> At the same time, I am quite happy to continue living my life as if all
> these things are in fact real, and I think it is better to live an illusion
> rather than a delusion. 

I still think that it's possible, by a careful consideration of what is true,
to frame our notions (in the only ways possible) as reflections of that
reality. Once that is done, and the terms obtain their (only) sensible
meanings, then "having choices", "making decisions", "exercising free
will", etc.,  ought not to be regarded as illusions, for they are not.
They're just descriptions, after all, which is all that they properly
*ever* have been.

Lee



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Apr  3 20:18:28 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:18:28 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20070403201828.GT9439@leitl.org>

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 12:59:58PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> It was inevitable that this discussion come sooner or later to hinge right
> on the point of free will.

How can you prove you've got free will, or not, empirically?
If I gave you a dump from /dev/random along with /dev/urandom, would
you be able to tell those apart?

What does it even mean in a process that is us, since the top-level
lags in realization of a made-up decision at a lower level.

Assuming you knew the universe is deterministic at sub-Planck
level, would it help you to make a killing on blue chips, or
even avoid that car speeding round the corner?
 
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From estropico at gmail.com  Tue Apr  3 20:25:34 2007
From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:25:34 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>

Has this been mentioned here?

On the Channel 4 site: The great global warming swindle. According to
a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin
Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's
nothing you can do about it. We've almost begun to take it for granted
that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the
environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of
naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

The whole thing on GoogleVideo:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22

Cheers,
Fabio


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Apr  3 20:54:23 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:54:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>

I haven't watched this program yet,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22

but as usual I'm bemused by the way so many stories posted on this 
list about anthropogenic planetary heating echo the very small number 
of naysayers. It's much more fun, of course, to be a contrarian. I'm 
one about psi, but it's not as if a very large proportion of those 
who've closely studied the evidence for and against psi cry out that 
it's a swindle (whereas astronomers and demographers who've looked at 
the claims of astrology do). But global warming is the favored model 
of experts in all the relevant fields. As Hal Finney used to argue 
repeatedly before he dropped out of sight: when the majority of 
scientific practitioners agree on X, it's far more likely that X is 
correct (within the limits of available evidence, paradigms, etc) 
than that it's not.

This is quite a different point, of course, from the observation Greg 
Benford makes, that global warming is better approached as a 
difficult set of technical problems for science and technology to 
solve than as a moral outrage requiring wringing of hands and 
pointing of fingers. Although a bit of that doesn't go astray either.

Damien Broderick



From amara at amara.com  Tue Apr  3 21:01:03 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 23:01:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fountainheaded !
Message-ID: <p06230906c2386fee34f6@[23.237.66.13]>

This is fantastic!

Steven Colbert's Objectivist Children's Sleepover:

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=82099

I wonder how many people got the jokes...?

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From pj at pj-manney.com  Tue Apr  3 21:19:45 2007
From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:19:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] a nano question
Message-ID: <5774446.55181175635185465.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>

I have found a repeated discrepancy.  Is a nanometer a millionth or a billionth of a meter?  The US gov't papers all say a millionth (like the recent "The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think" and its earlier gov't source material), but I have read a billionth in other places.

And the answer is...?

Thanks!

PJ


From jonkc at att.net  Tue Apr  3 21:28:02 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:28:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing.
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070403201828.GT9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <003001c77637$01aef2f0$49054e0c@MyComputer>

"Eugen Leitl" <eugen at leitl.org>

> How can you prove you've got free will, or not, empirically?

You can't prove it, not for any deep reason it's just that the term "free
will" is just a noise some people like to make with their mouth, that's it,
nothing more. Personally I never cared much for the sound of it myself, I
don't find it particularly musical and so I seldom make that noise with
 my mouth.

I don't believe there is any idea in philosophy (or criminal law)
stupider than free will, not even immaculate conception.
It's a classic example of an idea so bad it's not even wrong.

And Eugen congratulations! I was able to read your entire post without going
through any contortions. Have you decided that Microsoft is not the great
Satin after all? Have you decided that following the "generally accepted E
mail standard", a "standard" virtually nobody follows, is not such a great
idea if you want to communicate?

 John K Clark






From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue Apr  3 21:34:37 2007
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:34:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fountainheaded !
Message-ID: <380-22007423213437544@M2W007.mail2web.com>

From: Amara Graps 

>This is fantastic!

HAHAHAH!  LOL!  HAHAHAHA!  
hahahahhaha!  

--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft? Windows? and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting





From amara at amara.com  Tue Apr  3 21:59:45 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 23:59:45 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat]  a nano question
Message-ID: <p06230907c2387de97bb1@[23.237.66.13]>

Hi Patricia,

The easiest way to remember is that nano is (greek) 10^{-9} meters

One billion is 10^9, so then 1/(10^{9}) = 10^{-9} = one billionTH

Hey, this is cute:
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1365/?letter=N&spage=1

nano = dwarfish!

Amara
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Tue Apr  3 23:24:44 2007
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:24:44 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] a nano question
References: <5774446.55181175635185465.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
Message-ID: <00e501c77647$4c2c8490$0200a8c0@Nano>

A nanometer is a billionth of a meter. Or 10^-9 meters. A nanometer is 3 to 6 atoms across (depending on the atoms used). It could be that there was just some typo in the document you read. Kind regards, 

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
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: pjmanney 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 1:19 PM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] a nano question


  I have found a repeated discrepancy.  Is a nanometer a millionth or a billionth of a meter?  The US gov't papers all say a millionth (like the recent "The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think" and its earlier gov't source material), but I have read a billionth in other places.

  And the answer is...?

  Thanks!

  PJ
  _______________________________________________
  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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070403/e11f2724/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Apr  3 22:55:43 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:55:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] a nano question
In-Reply-To: <00e501c77647$4c2c8490$0200a8c0@Nano>
References: <5774446.55181175635185465.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
	<00e501c77647$4c2c8490$0200a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070403175338.021cec40@satx.rr.com>


>A nanometer is a billionth of a meter.

True, but with projected nanotech we're talking about complex devices 
that might be 10, 100 or more nanometers across. So a "nano" gadget 
might be 10-millionths of a meter in size.

Damien Broderick



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Apr  3 23:10:31 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:10:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] a nano question
In-Reply-To: <p06230907c2387de97bb1@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <200704032308.l33N8ZmM004683@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
> Subject: [extropy-chat] a nano question
> 
> Hi Patricia,
> 
> The easiest way to remember is that nano is (greek) 10^{-9} meters
> 
> One billion is 10^9, so then 1/(10^{9}) = 10^{-9} = one billionTH
> Amara

Ja that works, or another way is to think of milli, micro, nano, pico as
being almost in alphabetical order.  Everyone already knows milli and micro,
so the fact that those two are out of order shouldn't mess up you.*

spike

*  "mess up you" is an example of how clumsy is our language if we
rigorously avoid ending a sentence with a preposition.





From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue Apr  3 22:17:34 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:17:34 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.co
 m>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070403181346.041b7b70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 09:25 PM 4/3/2007 +0100, Fabio wrote:
>Has this been mentioned here?
>
>On the Channel 4 site: The great global warming swindle. According to
>a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin
>Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's
>nothing you can do about it.

Maybe *scientists* (right or wrong) can't do anything about it, but 
*engineers* could.

Or have you been reading this list recently?

Keith



From acy.stapp at gmail.com  Tue Apr  3 23:27:12 2007
From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:27:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] a nano question
In-Reply-To: <5774446.55181175635185465.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
References: <5774446.55181175635185465.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
Message-ID: <eb2c12ba0704031627m4ac11c9dkce8945ef1ccb5923@mail.gmail.com>

The current American usage of 1 million as 1e6 and 1 billion as 1e9 is
expected to prevail but in the past parts of Europe including England
specified 1e6 as a milliard and 1e9 as a million. Perhaps your source
materials were of European origin.

Acy

This may be the source of the confusion.

On 4/3/07, pjmanney <pj at pj-manney.com> wrote:
>
> I have found a repeated discrepancy.  Is a nanometer a millionth or a
> billionth of a meter?  The US gov't papers all say a millionth (like the
> recent "The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think" and its earlier gov't
> source material), but I have read a billionth in other places.
>
> And the answer is...?
>
> Thanks!
>
> PJ
>

-- 
Acy Stapp

"When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070403/24b5aa2e/attachment.html>

From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  3 23:10:09 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoassembly Blueprints using Atomic Resolution MRI
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070403231431.030937e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <859222.95716.qm@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



 I found this interesting site while surfing around:

 http://www.csulb.edu/~mbarbic/atomres.htm

[Beware: Twice when I clicked the internal hyperlink
to this professor's home page (not the above page), IE
had to shut down due to an error. Just an innocent
glitch I'm sure, but all the same.]

    If AR-MRI does become possible (and I guess it
looks both possible and practical), it could
potentially improve our chances of achieving true
"outside-Earth" sustainability; like in a space colony
for example. With the appropriate software (and a
practical level of hardware), it appears to me that
scanning with AR-MRI could provide on-the-fly
blueprints for a nanofactory or nanoassembler. For
example the blueprints of a variety of foods could be
obtained and used to reconstitute those objects. The
applications for this would be huge. But, like most
things technology, it could also be used to harm.
Hopefully, the good uses will overcome the potentially
bad ones.

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich 


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Apr  3 23:47:24 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:47:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing.
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><20070403201828.GT9439@leitl.org>
	<003001c77637$01aef2f0$49054e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <013a01c7764a$77695e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John writes

> the term "free will" is just a noise some people like to make
> with their mouth, that's it, nothing more. Personally I never
> cared much for the sound of it myself, I don't find it
> particularly musical and so I seldom make that noise with
> my mouth.
> 
> I don't believe there is any idea in philosophy (or criminal law)
> stupider than free will, not even immaculate conception.
> It's a classic example of an idea so bad it's not even wrong.

I always enjoy the clarity of your writing, John, and the clearness
of thinking that evidently lies behind it. In cases like this, the
clarity is strikingly enhanced even further by the total lack of such
distractions as reasons and arguments.  Most people fail to
realize how seriously the latter compromise the forcefulness
and persuasiveness of their discourse.

(I myself often fall into the trap of providing the uninitiated with
the steps towards which I reach a conclusion, or outline steps
in reasoning that might assist them in reaching the same 
conclusion. You serve as an admirable model for "cutting to
the chase" and telling people what you really think!)

Now that I know how you feel about these things, your position
is very clear, thanks.  

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Apr  4 00:17:13 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:17:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <014b01c7764e$ad531b60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Here is one interesting tid-bit in the sequence of arguments presented:

> When less cosmic radiation reaches Earth, fewer clouds
> form and the full effects of the sun's radiation heats the planet.

Wikipedia suggests

> Cosmic rays have been experimentally determined to be able to produce ultra-small aerosol particles [3] [5], orders of magnitude 
> smaller than cloud condensation nuclei. But the steps from this to modulation of cloud formation and thence to be a contributor of 
> global warming have not been established. The analogy is with the Wilson cloud chamber, however acting on a global scale, where 
> earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber and the cosmic rays catalyze the production of Cloud condensation nuclei. But unlike 
> a cloud chamber, where the air is carefully purified, the real atmosphere always has many CCN naturally. Various proposals have 
> been made for the exact mechanism by which cosmic rays might affect clouds, including Ion Mediated Nucleation, and through an 
> indirect effect on current flow density in the Global electric circuit (see Tinsley 2000, and F. Yu 1999).
<

Lee

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "estropico" <estropico at gmail.com>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 1:25 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle


> Has this been mentioned here?
>
> On the Channel 4 site: The great global warming swindle. According to
> a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin
> Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's
> nothing you can do about it. We've almost begun to take it for granted
> that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the
> environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of
> naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.
> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
>
> The whole thing on GoogleVideo:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22
>
> Cheers,
> Fabio



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Apr  4 00:44:23 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:44:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>

At 03:54 PM 4/3/2007 -0500, I wrote:

>I haven't watched this program yet,
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22
>
>but as usual I'm bemused by the way so many stories posted on this
>list about anthropogenic planetary heating echo the very small number
>of naysayers.

Okay, I take it all back. Well, not all, but quite a bit. It's an 
irritating program in many ways--embarrassingly buoyant and 
inveigling 1950s' ad music when the wonders of heavy industry are 
being pushed, the absence of any response from clmate experts holding 
contrary views--but it's a lot more challenging than I expected. I 
was especially won over by the segment in the middle of the piece 
presenting evidence against carbon driving (rather than, as appears 
to be the case, carbon level consequent upon heating) and in favor of 
the primary impact of cyclic solar dynamics:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22

As it happens, I drew upon an early version of this general theory in 
my 1997 book THEORY AND ITS DISCONTENTS, and was roundly pilloried in 
reviews. The TV program provides one key new component that I barely 
hinted at a decade ago: cosmic irradiation grows clouds, which cause 
cooling by increasing albedo, and cosmic rays density is inversely 
proportional to solar wind flux (which in turn is signified by 
sunspot activity). Lovely stuff.

Damien Broderick



From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr  4 00:59:39 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:59:39 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
References: <f21c22e30703270503i57581b1g5543892972b5905f@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/4/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 03:09:36PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> > > Not all circuits can count, it take special ones.
> >
> > ### You evaded the question. What is so special about certain material
> > objects (human brains, ink on paper, certain circuits) that makes
>
> Ink on paper, no, (unless it's one of them fancy inkjet-printed
> electronics which is smart enough to count). Human brains and certain
> circuits,
> yes, because through evolutionary optimization (all smart human artifacts
> are
> causally entangled with said optimization, which is not true for dumb
> objects, man-made, or otherwise) they have evolved to be able to make
> measurements on their environment/tracking certain aspects of state
> (including themselves), which is externally denoted (in your, mine,
> and a fair number of other heads) as "counting" and "numbers".
>

Sorry to keep harping on this, but it is not clear if you are acknowledging
that smart objects are made up of dumb objects, and moreover they might be
made of of dumb objects which have come together in the right configuration
accidentally rather than deliberately. That is actually exactly what the
human brain is: over billions of years, multiple chemical reactions have
occurred completely at random (i.e. there is no designer), and those that
just happen to be better at self-replicating have survived. So although it
seems almost impossible that a car would be thrown together with spare parts
blowing in the wind, it is quite possible if the parts are blowing in the
wind for billions of years.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070404/9b44f65f/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Apr  4 01:42:51 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:42:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070403203544.022f2ca8@satx.rr.com>

 From The Sunday Times
February 11, 2007


An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change



Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, 
says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the 
science of global warming is settled, they show a 
regrettable ignorance about how science works. We 
were treated to another dose of it recently when 
the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change issued the Summary for 
Policymakers that puts the political spin on an 
unfinished scientific dossier on climate change 
due for publication in a few months? time. They 
declared that most of the rise in temperatures 
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains ?very likely? as meaning 
that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% 
sure about it. Older readers may recall a press 
conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John 
Cockcroft, Britain?s top nuclear physicist, said 
he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved 
controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he 
was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in 
any theory is a wide open breach for any 
latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through 
with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became 
politicised in favour of one particular 
hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the 
study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a 
result, the rebellious spirits essential for 
innovative and trustworthy science are greeted 
with impediments to their research careers. And 
while the media usually find mavericks at least 
entertaining, in this case they often imagine 
that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made 
global warming must be in the pay of the oil 
companies. As a result, some key discoveries in 
climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also 
ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while 
contrary symptoms, such as this winter?s 
billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to 
unusual frost, are relegated to the business 
pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in 
spring provides colourful evidence for a recent 
warming of the northern lands. But did anyone 
tell you that in east Antarctica the Ad?lie 
penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their 
spring nesting sites around nine days later than 
they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has 
diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you?re 
forking out those extra taxes for climate change, 
is ?Why is east Antarctica getting colder?? It 
makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is 
driving global warming. While you?re at it, you 
might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you 
a refund if it?s confirmed that global warming 
has stopped. The best measurements of global air 
temperatures come from American weather 
satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by 
the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the 
sun drives climate changes more emphatically than 
greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more 
active during the 20th century, the sun now 
stands at a high but roughly level state of 
activity. Solar physicists warn of possible 
global cooling, should the sun revert to the 
lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid 
support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century 
episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest 
in a long string of similar events produced by a 
hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in 
Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders 
prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes 
come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 
2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with 
such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm 
and cold periods, linked to solar activity and 
going on long before human industry was a 
possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 
Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in 
half a very small contribution by the sun to 
climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the 
self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with 
inconvenient discoveries about how the solar 
variations control the climate. The sun?s 
brightness may change too little to account for 
the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 
years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in 
Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite 
data that cloudiness varies according to how many 
atomic particles are coming in from exploded 
stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun?s 
magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, 
and its intensification during the 20th century 
meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a 
warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice 
Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more 
cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark?s idea ? apart 
from its being politically incorrect ? was that 
meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be 
involved in cloud formation. After long delays in 
scraping together the funds for an experiment, 
Svensmark and his small team at the Danish 
National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able 
to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays 
coming through the ceiling stitched together 
droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are 
the building blocks for cloud condensation. But 
journal after journal declined to publish their 
report; the discovery finally appeared in the 
Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book 
about Svensmark?s initial discovery published in 
1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside 
track for reporting his struggles and successes 
since then. The outcome is a second book, The 
Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and 
published next week by Icon books. We are not 
exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it ?A 
new theory of climate change?.

Where does all that leave the impact of 
greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be 
a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can 
really say until the implications of the new 
theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where 
those contradictory temperature trends are 
directly predicted by Svensmark?s scenario, 
because the snow there is whiter than the 
cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of 
Nature?s marvels seems more appropriate than 
arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even 
control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

The Chilling Stars is published by Icon. It is 
available for ?9.89 including postage from The 
Sunday Times Books First on 0870 165 8585

==================


?Blame cosmic rays not CO2 for warming up the planet?


Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter

The impact of cosmic rays on the climate could be 
greater than scientists suspect after experiments 
showed they may have a pivotal role in cloud formation.

Researchers have managed to replicate the effect 
of cosmic rays on the aerosols in the atmosphere 
that help to create clouds. Henrik Svensmark, a 
weather scientist in Denmark, said the 
experiments suggested that man?s influence on 
global warming might be rather less than was 
supposed by the bulk of scientific opinion.

Cosmic rays ? radiation, or particles of energy, 
from stars, which bombard the Earth ? can create 
electrically charged ions in the atmosphere that 
act as a magnet for water vapour, causing clouds to form.

Dr Svensmark suggests that the Sun, at a 
historically high level of activity, is 
deflecting many of the cosmic rays away from 
Earth and thus reducing the cloud cover.

Clouds reflect the Sun?s rays back into space and 
are considered to have an important cooling 
effect. However, if during periods of high 
activity the Sun?s magnetic field pushes a 
greater proportion of cosmic rays away from the Earth, fewer clouds will form.

The research, published in the journal 
Proceedings of the Royal Society, concentrates on 
how ions are created and behave in the atmosphere 
when cosmic rays from stars hit it.

Cosmic rays were replicated by the use of 
ultraviolet light that were turned on and off in 
both short bursts and long exposures to create 
ions. The researchers found that the presence of 
ions encouraged the formation of clusters of molecules.

In the atmosphere these clusters of ozone, 
sulphur dioxide and water are understood to act 
as aerosols in attracting water vapour, 
culminating in the formation of clouds.

The number of clusters, according to the report, 
is proportionate to the number of ions present, 
which in turn depends on the frequency of cosmic rays reaching the Earth.

?The experiment indicates that ions play a role 
in nucleating new particles in the atmosphere and 
that the rate of production is sensitive to the 
rate of ion density,? the report concluded. ?One 
might expect to find a relationship between 
ioni-sation and cloud properties. This feature 
seems to be consistent with the present work.?

The report added that the ions were likely to 
generate a reservoir of clusters of aerosol 
molecules in the atmosphere that ?are important 
for nuclea-tion processes in the atmosphere and ultimately cloud formation?.

The findings are unlikely to change radically the 
views of mainstream climatologists. Nevertheless, 
a team of scientists will shortly begin a larger 
experiment at a particle accelerator in Europe in 
the hope of learning more about the effects of cosmic rays on cloud cover.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel for 
Climate Change, by far the biggest influence on 
climate change is the level of greenhouse gases 
released by mankind, largely through the use of fossil fuels.

Peter Stott, of the Met Office?s Hadley Centre 
and one of Britain?s leading climate scientists, 
said that Dr Svensmark?s theory should be taken 
?with a cellar of salt?. Small, localised effects 
on cloud formation might be possible but he 
dismissed the suggestion of cosmic rays being responsible for global warming.




From hibbert at mydruthers.com  Wed Apr  4 01:18:28 2007
From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:18:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4612FCE4.3040208@mydruthers.com>

> I haven't watched this program yet,
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22

I didn't watch it either.

> but as usual I'm bemused by the way so many stories posted on this 
> list about anthropogenic planetary heating echo the very small number
>  of naysayers. It's much more fun, of course, to be a contrarian.

It's also something we have in common here.  This community is focused 
on things that the mainstream doesn't accept: cryonics, nanotech, the 
singularity, transhumanism and so on.  Some of these have become more 
accepted since we started talking about them, but the things that make 
this a community are the things we disagree with the mainstream about.

I think the claim (at least implied) is that we each look at the 
evidence and make up our own minds.  It's not at all surprising that 
many of us have opinions counter to the standard view on other topics. 
What's surprising is that we agree on so many things.

> But global warming is the favored model of experts in all the
> relevant fields. As Hal Finney used to argue repeatedly before he
> dropped out of sight: when the majority of scientific practitioners
> agree on X, it's far more likely that X is correct (within the limits
> of available evidence, paradigms, etc) than that it's not.

It may be far more likely, but there are sometimes reasons to doubt a 
consensus.  I just finished reading Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with 
Physics".  Smolin argues that the pursuit of String Theory, which has 
consumed all of physics for more than 20 years, is an example of 
group-think, which has stifled progress in the field.  In my review
(http://pancrit.org/2007/04/lee-smolin-trouble-with-physics.html)
of Smolin, I refer to other examples of fields that have been derailed 
in the way that Smolin charges physics has.  I think the signs of 
group-think are quite visible in people's attitude toward anthropogenic 
climate change.

It's also becoming clearer that the environmental movement would prefer 
to exploit the claims to reduce human progress rather than to find a 
solution.  There may be evidence that something is happening, and that 
it's caused by human action, but the evidence that it's unstoppable or 
worrisome is scant.  And, as engineers, we could fix it if that were the 
goal.  So I don't see a crisis.

Chris
-- 
In Just-spring when the world is mudluscious
   -- E. E. Cummings
http://www.ralphlevy.com/quotes/balloon.htm

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
Blog:   http://pancrit.org
Prediction Market Software:  http://zocalo.sourceforge.net



From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Apr  4 02:37:54 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:37:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704030955tafd75a1v6e4c13412fb7f61a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <564080.1059.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<002901c775af$fd9c6440$2b094e0c@MyComputer>
	<f7bfe5740704030955tafd75a1v6e4c13412fb7f61a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240704031937p70afa19ci7dada284267ac004@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/3/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> Amplifying John's point here, if you were to imagine throwing a dart
> at a perfect number line representing the range from 0 to 1, you would
> have zero chance of exactly hitting a rational number.

A perfect number line?  Is that a line of 6's?  Wait a minute, there
are no perfect numbers from 0 to 1...

Actually, given the relative fatness of the dart i'm pretty confident
there is a nonzero probability that more than one rational number lies
within the interval of the width of the dart.  For the sake of
argument, lets draw the target line after the dart is thrown so we
don't have the requirement of landing to either side of the
unidimensional line.

on a tangential note...

A friend of mine once explained to me an idea he encountered for
encoding an [arbitrarily long | infinite] library of knowledge:
Represent each byte of a data stream as the next decimal place of a
Real number between 0 and 1.  Using a very accurate mark on a unit
measure, you would have completely encoded the data stream.  Of course
the limitation of physical reality makes this impractical to carry
around an actual object - but mathematically my first impression of
this 'scheme' was to remind him of the pervasiveness of phi as a
candidate to suggest this encoding may already be done, he just needs
to figure out the decode.

just in case you haven't already encountered this amazing irrational
number: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio


From pj at pj-manney.com  Wed Apr  4 02:42:50 2007
From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:42:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] a nano question
Message-ID: <6002275.84951175654570205.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>

Acy wrote:
>The current American usage of 1 million as 1e6 and 1 billion as 1e9 is expected to prevail but in the past parts of Europe including England specified 1e6 as a milliard and 1e9 as a million. Perhaps your source materials were of European origin.

That makes sense, although it's pretty funny that the US gov't (who won't change to metric, etc.) are using European numerics by mistake!

Thanks everyone!

PJ


From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Apr  4 05:11:49 2007
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 07:11:49 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism is taking common sense seriously
Message-ID: <470a3c520704032211n64a1d7bdq9f00088a274ad8fa@mail.gmail.com>

I just found on the Mprize <http://www.mprize.org/> site a very good short
article on, and definition of
transhumanism<http://www.mprize.org/index.php?ctype=news&pagename=blogdetaildisplay&BID=2007032-16103440&detaildisplay=Y>.
This is the kind if explanations I prefer: no big words difficult to
understand, but plain simple common sense.

When they start with their crap about reverence for nature, respect for our
limits, value of suffering, mortality as a defining feature of being human,
and similar BS, just remind them of plain old common sense: health is good,
disease is no good; happiness is good, suffering is no good; being alive is
good, being dead is no good; Etc. etc. Transhumanism is taking common sense
seriously.

Full text by Reason (original
here<http://www.mprize.org/index.php?ctype=news&pagename=blogdetaildisplay&BID=2007032-16103440&detaildisplay=Y>):


On the day it comes to you that living a longer, healthier life is something
you'd like to do, that an extra year or ten of good health (or hell, why not
more?) would be just peachy keen, think of the transhumanists - because you
just became one. You saw a limit in the human condition, thought about what
life would be like with that limit removed, and liked it.

Welcome to the party!

Transhumanism, make no mistake, is just a fancy name for common sense.
Change for the better is good, right? Common sense. It's what we humans do
in our scattered finer moments - we work to change things for the better.
It's common sense to fetch in the harvest on wheels rather than on foot, and
it's common sense to repair the biomolecular damage of Alzheimer's before
the mind begins to rot. It's common sense to build perfect immune systems
from nanomedical robots, and it's common sense to develop the technologies
of regenerative medicine to their logical end.

It takes work, but what is work compared to a world of suffering? Choosing
not to attain these goals makes about as much sense as standing out in the
rain to spite yourself.

New technology cannot set slaves free, remove poverty brought of corruption,
make the willfully blind see, or the unhappy bring themselves to good cheer
of their own free will ... but it can remove the limits placed upon us by
evolution, and it will one day give us all much, much more time in health
and life to work on our other, very human issues. You can't rid the world of
poverty when you're sick, decrepit and aged to death. The limits to our
lives that we cannot negotiate away by talk and travel are the most
confining, don't you agree?

Transhumanism, common sense with a slick name, is really simple humanism -
which is also really no more than a name for common sense. It is only
humanist to work to give people the choice to live without suffering, and
without death. To live, for without life, there is nothing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070404/8eb1e134/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr  4 06:03:55 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:03:55 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704032303i530e7016m7aabe23849568387@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/4/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> Then in the same sense in Platonia, future hazards are not inevitable,
> > since after all the Life game in which the hazard is or isn't avoided is
> > a Platonic object and its outcome is not changed by implementing it
> > physically.
>
> Yes, I would say that it is best not to regard our future decisions as
> inevitable whether in Platonia or in a deterministic simulation  And
> that's not just because it feels good, or it provides us with optimism,
> or whatever, even though those things are true. It's because on any
> sensible meaning of what "inevitability" *could* mean, it just isn't true
> that that future events are inevitable (see next).
>
> > More generally, I see Dennett's compatibilism as a sort of apology
> > for determinism, reframing "free will" so that we can tell ourselves
> > we have it even though the obvious conclusion is that it is just an
> > illusion.
>
> I claim that if one *totally* banishes from his or her consciousness
> the idea of non-determinism (to the point that it is unthinkable), and
> only then asks "do I have a choice?", the answer must be "Yes".
> But so long as there remains even the slightest vestige of the notion
> of an uncaused event, or the slightest vestige of the soul, then the
> silly answer "No" may still be entertained.


You could say that, or you could say that the silly answer "yes" should be
banished once you have understood the impossibility of something being
neither determined nor random, which is (I believe) the common notion of
free will.

(When for example, you ask yourself, do I have a choice about
> regarding answering this email, the answer "No" is less informative
> and less true than the answer "Yes".)


But I know that I don't have a choice; I was destined to answer it, but I
just didn't know it until after the fact. If there are multiple branching
universes at each decision point, from my point of view which universe I end
up in is indeterminate, but from an external observer's point of view events
still unfold in a perfectly deterministic manner, and nothing I do can
change the measure of different outcomes.

So let us assume that we have completely internalized the belief that
> there are no uncaused events and there are no souls. Then what
> the devil does the question "Do I have a choice" possibly mean now?
>
> It can only mean the same as it would for a concious chess computer
> in trying to decide between move A and move B. First, we know that
> the calculations it makes regarding those CHOICES, and I do not
> apologize for the term, will be ongoing. A huge number of factors,
> e.g., whether the opponent's open rook file makes a queen side
> attack too problematical, have effects. The machine must decide!
> So---recalling that we have utterly and without reservation totally
> gone beyond even a hint of uncaused events---this can *only* mean
> that the machine is taking these factors into account, i.e., a decision
> is simply "taking factors into account". (What else could it be?)


It *can't* mean anything else. But then, the concept of a "decision" becomes
trivialised. If I push my pen off the desk, the pen takes into account all
the forces acting on it and "decides" to fall; had the forces on it been
different, it would have "decided" differently. Is the pen exercising free
will? Is an intelligent agent subject to deterministic laws any more free
than the pen is?

That is all that a "choice" can *possibly* mean.  It is absolutely wrong
> to conceive of choice as anything but taking a huge number of factors
> into account, and doing extensive calculations of the various
> alternatives.
> But then, the only possibility is that the machine is free to choose....
> unless indeed an external agent is forcing it to make one move as
> against the other,  e.g., that external agent is not permitting all the
> factors to affect the decision that normally would be affecting the
> decision.  ("You will lose to Botvinnik in round 6, or else go to
> Siberian labor camp.")


What if the chess player is told that his brain has been manipulated so that
he will either deliberately throw the game or try his hardest in round 6,
but he is not informed which way the manipulation has gone? He will no doubt
still feel perfectly free, and whatever way he plays will feel that he could
just as easily have decided to play differently: but that is the subtle and
insidious nature of the manipulation. Ordinary life is exactly analogous to
the situation of the hapless chess player.

Does the program have free will?  Well, what can that possibly mean?
> I claim that the denial of the statement "the machine has free will" has
> taken us right back to an unconscious assumption that there could be
> uncaused events. But we are supposed, now, to be beyond that.
> Therefore, we must interpret the question accordingly, and so it
> must mean, "are the factors contributing to the decision all coming
> into play?".  If the answer is yes---i.e., the computer is free to make
> up its mind without external compulsion---then it has to be said that
> the computer's will is free (remember, we have absolutely internalized
> that there are no uncaused decisions).


The only difference I can see between external compulsion and internal
compulsion is that in the former case you are aware that you are being
compelled, and resent it. A really powerful and skilful dictator would make
his subjects do exactly what he wants them to do while letting them think
all the while that they are making free choices; this is the ultimate aim of
propaganda.

> In other words, if in fact free will were just an illusion due to the
> > fact that we don't know what we're going to do until we do it,
>
> (and I say that it ought not be regarded as an illusion, for so doing
> sneaks back in the idea that there could be souls and uncaused events)


You seem to be implying that an illusion must have at least potential
reality, but I don't see why that has to be so.

> how would the universe, or our experience of it, be any different?
> > If the answer is "it wouldn't",
>
> I'd maintain that it is not conceivable that free will is an illusion,
> when
> what HAS to be meant by the phrase is as explained above
>
> > then what purpose is served by the concept of free will other than
> > to make us feel better?
>
> It serves the purpose of identifying who or what made a decision.
> Either I can go visit the prison by my own free will, say as a reporter
> and thus exercise my free will, or I can be arrested and forced to go
> to prison, in which case my free will has been abrogated
>

It becomes a matter of semantics, in that case. If you still believe that
"free will" applies in the example of the chess player I have given above,
then we agree, although we are calling it different things.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070404/b8bf9034/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Apr  4 06:24:21 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:24:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704032303i530e7016m7aabe23849568387@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704032303i530e7016m7aabe23849568387@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070404011448.023fa2a8@satx.rr.com>

At 04:03 PM 4/4/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote:

>the impossibility of something being neither determined nor random, 
>which is (I believe) the common notion of free will.

I haven't followed this thread but I find this common objection to 
free will facile. (Sorry.) Surely what we mean by "free to choose" 
does not mean *canned but distinctive*, although that's part of our 
sense of individuality. And quite obviously it doesn't mean "random". 
It seems to me to follow from our capacity to compute or model a 
sheaf of possible consequences (accurately or not is beside the 
point) of alternative actions we might take soon or even in the long 
run. We constantly acquire new and slightly or even drastically 
surprising information, compress it, use it to modify our working 
models or hold it ready to do so if the data seems relevant to some 
emergent situation. So we can be *surprised* by choices, and by our 
assessments, and by our meta-assessments of how we're likely to feel 
if we act in one of several open ways, and all of this combines the 
overabundance of new information from a world larger than our mental 
workspace and memory, and the unexpected outcome of computations 
conducted by modules the inner working of which escape our conscious scrutiny.

Damien Broderick




From amara at amara.com  Wed Apr  4 06:30:03 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:30:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat]  a nano question
Message-ID: <p06230900c238f49274b7@[23.237.66.13]>

Acy Stapp acy.stapp at gmail.com :
>but in the past parts of Europe including England
>specified 1e6 as a milliard and 1e9 as a million. Perhaps your source
>materials were of European origin.

in Italian (today),

10^3 = one thousand = uno mille
10^6 = one million = uno milione
10^9 = one billion = uno miliardo

(from Latin, I think)

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr  4 07:07:59 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:07:59 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] a nano question
In-Reply-To: <5774446.55181175635185465.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
References: <5774446.55181175635185465.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
Message-ID: <20070404070759.GW9439@leitl.org>

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:19:45PM -0400, pjmanney wrote:
> I have found a repeated discrepancy.  Is a nanometer a millionth or a billionth of a meter?  The US gov't papers all say a millionth (like the recent "The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think" and its earlier gov't source material), but I have read a billionth in other places.

It's 10^-9, so it's a billionth. A millionth would be a mere micrometer.

Here's more prefixes than you can shake a stick at:
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci499008,00.html

(I wish they'd stuck with power of two, though: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci825099,00.html )

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr  4 07:22:55 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:22:55 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing.
In-Reply-To: <003001c77637$01aef2f0$49054e0c@MyComputer>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070403201828.GT9439@leitl.org>
	<003001c77637$01aef2f0$49054e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <20070404072255.GX9439@leitl.org>

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:28:02PM -0400, John K Clark wrote:

> > How can you prove you've got free will, or not, empirically?
> 
> You can't prove it, not for any deep reason it's just that the term "free
> will" is just a noise some people like to make with their mouth, that's it,
> nothing more. Personally I never cared much for the sound of it myself, I
> don't find it particularly musical and so I seldom make that noise with
>  my mouth.
> 
> I don't believe there is any idea in philosophy (or criminal law)
> stupider than free will, not even immaculate conception.
> It's a classic example of an idea so bad it's not even wrong.

We're in 120% agreement here.
 
> And Eugen congratulations! I was able to read your entire post without going
> through any contortions. Have you decided that Microsoft is not the great
> Satin after all? Have you decided that following the "generally accepted E

No, it's actually more a case of (not) leaving ugly droppings in the Mailman 
archives. Because of this I've also started breaking long lines (but URLs).

I'll probably go back to inline signatures, though these add more visual
clutter to each post.

> mail standard", a "standard" virtually nobody follows, is not such a great
> idea if you want to communicate?

I must admit I don't care a fig about proprietary vendors and their
broken software. And given MS's business practices... you'd fare
better wearing fur from clubbed baby seals, morally.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Wed Apr  4 07:22:38 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:22:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>

Damien Broderick wrote:

>At 03:54 PM 4/3/2007 -0500, I wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I haven't watched this program yet,
>>
>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22
>>
>>but as usual I'm bemused by the way so many stories posted on this
>>list about anthropogenic planetary heating echo the very small number
>>of naysayers.
>>    
>>
> I was especially won over by the segment in the middle of the piece 
>presenting evidence against carbon driving (rather than, as appears 
>to be the case, carbon level consequent upon heating) and in favor of 
>the primary impact of cyclic solar dynamics:
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22
>
Yes, that exposed the main "swindle" part.  It also showed the hypocrisy 
of environmentalists expecting suffering third worlders to forego 
industrial development while they continue to enjoy the benefits of 
cheap electricity.  Having watched Al Gore's movie just a few days ago, 
I found myself better persuaded by these naysayers.  -- Thomas




From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr  4 10:14:58 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:14:58 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070404011448.023fa2a8@satx.rr.com>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704032303i530e7016m7aabe23849568387@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070404011448.023fa2a8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704040314y5c436643r58e46949e0fccf7d@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/4/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

At 04:03 PM 4/4/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote:
>
> >the impossibility of something being neither determined nor random,
> >which is (I believe) the common notion of free will.
>
> I haven't followed this thread but I find this common objection to
> free will facile...


Maybe, but I think this is what the ordinary person's concept of free will
is. Compatibilists redefine it so that it is consistent with determinism.
That's OK, as long we are clear about it, and the implications of this
definition: namely, that if you *have* to make a particular decision in a
particular situation, but you don't know what this decision is until you
make it, then that's free will.


Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070404/4f4227f9/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr  4 10:18:45 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:18:45 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing.
In-Reply-To: <003001c77637$01aef2f0$49054e0c@MyComputer>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070403201828.GT9439@leitl.org>
	<003001c77637$01aef2f0$49054e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704040318m6ca2a8e3p8b51eb195d11ed9c@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/4/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

"Eugen Leitl" <eugen at leitl.org>
>
> > How can you prove you've got free will, or not, empirically?
>
> You can't prove it, not for any deep reason it's just that the term "free
> will" is just a noise some people like to make with their mouth, that's
> it,
> nothing more. Personally I never cared much for the sound of it myself, I
> don't find it particularly musical and so I seldom make that noise with
> my mouth.
>
> I don't believe there is any idea in philosophy (or criminal law)
> stupider than free will, not even immaculate conception.
> It's a classic example of an idea so bad it's not even wrong.


Well said!

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070404/9d674391/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr  4 10:53:34 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:53:34 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:59:39AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    Sorry to keep harping on this, but it is not clear if you are
>    acknowledging that smart objects are made up of dumb objects, and

Smart is a shorthand for specific information processing
by some physical objects. Intelligence is an emergent process,
so it has no trouble at all with dumb building blocks.

>    moreover they might be made of of dumb objects which have come
>    together in the right configuration accidentally rather than

Evolution is not just accident, stochastical processes are merely
the drive. Selection is the very opposite of a stochastic process.
It takes evolution to bootstrap infoprocessing systems from a roiling
sea of molecular chaos. Once you're there, intelligent systems can
build other intelligent systems. 

>    deliberately. That is actually exactly what the human brain is: over
>    billions of years, multiple chemical reactions have occurred
>    completely at random ( i.e. there is no designer), and those that just
>    happen to be better at self-replicating have survived. So although it
>    seems almost impossible that a car would be thrown together with spare
>    parts blowing in the wind, it is quite possible if the parts are
>    blowing in the wind for billions of years.

Absolutely not, because the system you described doesn't self-replicate.
It's not evolutionary, merely stochastical. There's a world of a difference.

Many (most) physical systems are sterile as life emergence (autocatalytic
reaction set) is concerned. We also have no data on how rare that emergence
event is, because the prebiotic Earth is no longer available for observation,
we don't have a lot of data on mature systems (chemistry from Titan would
be quite interesting), and nobody has recreated a large enough setting in
order to make measurements about the chemistry change in a realistic
(the original version has very little to do with prebiotic Earth)
version of Miller/Urey over time, if any.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From asa at nada.kth.se  Wed Apr  4 11:20:02 2007
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:20:02 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dresden Kodak
Message-ID: <62550.86.153.216.201.1175685602.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>

Dresden Kodak shows the problems of transhumanist dating :-)
http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_034.htm



From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr  4 12:58:25 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:58:25 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>
References: <f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/4/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:59:39AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> >    deliberately. That is actually exactly what the human brain is: over
> >    billions of years, multiple chemical reactions have occurred
> >    completely at random ( i.e. there is no designer), and those that
> just
> >    happen to be better at self-replicating have survived. So although it
> >    seems almost impossible that a car would be thrown together with
> spare
> >    parts blowing in the wind, it is quite possible if the parts are
> >    blowing in the wind for billions of years.
>
> Absolutely not, because the system you described doesn't self-replicate.
> It's not evolutionary, merely stochastical. There's a world of a
> difference.


Fair enough: I should have said that over billions of years, the parts would
have combined in multiple random arrangements, some of which were stable and
self-replicating, and might eventually give rise to machines resembling
cars. Or let me be more specific: might eventually give rise to machines
closely resembling Honda Accords with John Coltrane playing on the sound
system. Now, that would be *extremely* unlikely; but it was also incredibly
unlikely that random mutation + natural selection should have lead over
billions of years to human beings having this particular online discussion -
and yet here we are. (It doesn't help much even if you could show that some
sort sort of intelligent species was likely to evolve: that particular
individuals of a particular species evolve is still vanishingly improbable.)


I think I've strayed a bit from my original purpose, which was to try to
persuade you that thought experiments in which extremely improbable things
happen by chance should not be summarily dismissed as irrelevant.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070404/a56aa688/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr  4 13:28:22 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:28:22 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070404132821.GM9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:58:25PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    Fair enough: I should have said that over billions of years, the parts
>    would have combined in multiple random arrangements, some of which
>    were stable and self-replicating, and might eventually give rise to

This scenario is no longer resembling anything like machine parts
blown around by a hurricane spontaneously assembling into an Airbus, 
so we can as well change it to something else.

Macroscale self-assembly by mechanical means is something very delicate
(it takes a very controlled environment, and according assortment of
complementary parts), and it doesn't self replicate. Never, ever.
Shake Legos as long as you want you'd never get a large cohesive block,
however irregular. 

>    machines resembling cars. Or let me be more specific: might eventually
>    give rise to machines closely resembling Honda Accords with John
>    Coltrane playing on the sound system. Now, that would be *extremely*

Never, not as long as we're postulating infinite space and time.
Both are finite, as far as we know.

>    unlikely; but it was also incredibly unlikely that random mutation +
>    natural selection should have lead over billions of years to human
>    beings having this particular online discussion - and yet here we are.

Points in phase space are arbitrarily improbable, but regions in phase
space much less so, and if they're powerful attractors, damn probable,
in fact.

>    (It doesn't help much even if you could show that some sort sort of
>    intelligent species was likely to evolve: that particular individuals
>    of a particular species evolve is still vanishingly improbable.)

I agree, but fail to see the relevance. Assuming somebody intelligent
evolved, they wouldn't fail to observe themselves. 

>    I think I've strayed a bit from my original purpose, which was to try
>    to persuade you that thought experiments in which extremely improbable
>    things happen by chance should not be summarily dismissed as
>    irrelevant.

I disagree vigorously. Scenarios with a probability close to zero need
not be addressed in a finite resource context (which is what we're stuck
with, according to what we know today).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Wed Apr  4 13:51:15 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:51:15 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism is taking common sense seriously
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520704032211n64a1d7bdq9f00088a274ad8fa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c520704032211n64a1d7bdq9f00088a274ad8fa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704040651i5f1a275ct793e01cd5bec6c9@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/4/07, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's common sense to build perfect immune systems from nanomedical robots,
> and it's common sense to develop the technologies of regenerative medicine
> to their logical end.
>
It is worth noting that by any reasonable definition we already *have* an
"immune system" built "from nanomedical robots", e.g. largely the
macrophages and killer T-cells.  It is *highly* questionable whether you can
*ever* have a "perfect" immune system just as its fiendishly difficult to
know with absolute certainty that your computer (even if its running Linux)
is *not* infected with some virus waiting to leap out and erase all your
data (or steal your credit card information the second you type it in).

If anyone thinks that Robert Freitas' "microbivores" are the absolute
answer, they know little about the adaptability of nature (HIV now being the
classic example) and fail to realize that if the "good" guys have the
capability to detect and construct nanorobots such as microbivores, then it
is likely that the "bad" guys will soon be able to have the technologies to
build devices or poisons that are able to evade them.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070404/559371c8/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Wed Apr  4 14:21:37 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:21:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoassembly Blueprints using Atomic Resolution
	MRI
In-Reply-To: <859222.95716.qm@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070403231431.030937e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<859222.95716.qm@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704040721y6218a296s6bf67b2982b803c5@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/3/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.csulb.edu/~mbarbic/atomres.htm
>
> [Beware: Twice when I clicked the internal hyperlink to this professor's
> home page (not the above page), IE had to shut down due to an error. Just an
> innocent glitch I'm sure, but all the same.]


Which is funny since the pages seem to have been written in MS-Word (ROTFL).
It is worth noting that the Diagrams in his pages do not display because the
image path he is using is using a backslash rather a slash to indicate
directories (may work on Windows but isn't standard HTML!)

If AR-MRI does become possible (and I guess it looks both possible and
> practical), it could potentially improve our chances of achieving true
> "outside-Earth" sustainability; like in a space colony for example.


What makes you think this?  The primary requirement for off-Earth
sustainability is the ability to convert X watts of solar or nuclear energy
into resources (primarily water and reduced carbohydrates)  required to
sustain human bodies as currently designed (humans are generally 100W
machines, but if you look at plant food source efficiencies it probably
requires 5-10,000 W of solar energy to produce the required food).  You have
to make a case that the direct synthesis of the required molecules
(nanoassembly) would be more efficient than existing nanoscale based systems
(plants, bacteria, chemical synthesis, etc.)

With the appropriate software (and a practical level of hardware), it
> appears to me that scanning with AR-MRI could provide on-the-fly blueprints
> for a nanofactory or nanoassembler.


We already have nanoassemblers.  They are called DNA polymerase, RNA
polymerase and ribosomes.  We already have "nanofactories". Sugar cane is a
good example.  Cyanobacteria are another.  I think what you mean to say is
"general purpose" nanoassembler and "universal" nanofactories.

Having AR-MRI doesn't give you squat with respect to blueprints for
structures which currently *do  not exist*.  Those have to be designed or
evolved.  That was the primary point behind the Nano at Home proposal that I
wrote several years ago.  The only thing AR-MRI gives you, potentially, is
the ability to precisely read existing structures.  That means that
structures which are difficult to read using other methods, such as precise
reading of synaptic junctions of frozen neurons, may be feasible.  In my
mind AR-MRI is only useful for assisting in the determination of molecular
structures which are impossible to crystalize (which is likely to be help in
the scientific understanding of complex multi-molecule structures,
particularly for example those involved in oxidative phosphorylation in the
mitochondria, or potentially the process of mind uploading).

For example the blueprints of a variety of foods could be obtained and used
> to reconstitute those objects. The applications for this would be huge. But,
> like most things technology, it could also be used to harm. Hopefully, the
> good uses will overcome the potentially bad ones.


We know the enzyme pathways required to produce sugar (and more complex
carbohydrates), fats and amino acids.  The blueprints for the machines
needed in these molecular assembly lines are sitting in Genbank (in may
cases we have dozens of variations on the assemblers).  We do not *yet* have
the blueprints for the machines which efficiently assemble less common
molecules such as resveratrol or cone snail toxins or very complex molecules
such a brevitoxin B (though I believe in all cases we can chemically
synthesize them).

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070404/3183c471/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Wed Apr  4 15:43:03 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:43:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704040843h7fee304dh9d599e69c18b0a58@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/4/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think I've strayed a bit from my original purpose, which was to try to
> persuade you that thought experiments in which extremely improbable things
> happen by chance should not be summarily dismissed as irrelevant.

Isn't this assertion the very antithesis of rationality?!

With full regard to remaining open to surprising new observations, but
little regard for assigning "relevance" without justification.

- Jef


From scerir at libero.it  Wed Apr  4 16:25:59 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:25:59 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>

[I have the pdf of this paper, if somebody is interested]

Behav.Sci. Law. Feb 23, 2007
'The concept of free will:
philosophy, neuroscience and the law.'
-S.Pockett
Various philosophical definitions of free will are first considered.
The compatibilist definition, which says simply that acts are freely willed
if they are not subject to constraints, is identified as much used in the
legal system and essentially impervious to scientific investigation. A
middle-ground "incompatibilist" definition, which requires that freely
willed acts be consciously initiated, is shown to be relevant to the idea
of mens rea and in the author's view not actually incompatible in principle
with a fully scientific worldview. Only the strong libertarian definition,
which requires that freely willed acts have no physical antecedents
whatsoever, makes the existence of free will very hard to swallow
scientifically. However, with regard to the middle-ground "incompatibilist"
definition, three different lines of scientific experimental evidence are
then described, which suggest that, in fact, consciousness is not the real
cause of much of what is generally considered as voluntary behavior. Many
voluntary actions are initiated preconsciously, with consciousness kept
informed only after the neural events leading to the act have begun. It is
suggested that a reasonable way of integrating these experimental findings
with the idea that persons do have a somewhat more than compatibilist
version of free will is to acknowledge explicitly that a person is a
mixture of conscious and unconscious components. In this scenario, the mind
in mens rea would have to be judged guilty if it contained either conscious
or unconscious intentions to perform the guilty act.





From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Apr  4 17:11:55 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:11:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing.
In-Reply-To: <003001c77637$01aef2f0$49054e0c@MyComputer>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070403201828.GT9439@leitl.org>
	<003001c77637$01aef2f0$49054e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704041011r6d6fb26euba0449b378e5524@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/3/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
>
> You can't prove it, not for any deep reason it's just that the term "free
> will" is just a noise some people like to make with their mouth, that's
> it,
> nothing more. Personally I never cared much for the sound of it myself, I
> don't find it particularly musical and so I seldom make that noise with
> my mouth.


There's a division I find rather useful, which is between those things which
are causally influenced by the set of patterns labeled "Russell Wallace" and
those things which are not; the division is useful because it helps me
figure out which neural computations can have positive differential utility
if performed, and which will not, which in turn is useful for optimizing the
expenditure of finite resources. Phrases like "...causally influenced by..."
are a bit unwieldy though, so I want a shorter mouth noise to refer to this
concept; looking around, I find the convention among non-philosophers is to
use this "free will" mouth noise, so that's cool with me. I'm surprised you
don't find the concept useful, though maybe you just have a different short
mouth noise whose sound you find more pleasing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070404/3033d5e2/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Wed Apr  4 17:29:21 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:29:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070404011448.023fa2a8@satx.rr.com>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704032303i530e7016m7aabe23849568387@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070404011448.023fa2a8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704041029n623db042o3cdf9715f048d59b@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/3/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> At 04:03 PM 4/4/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote:
>
> >the impossibility of something being neither determined nor random,
> >which is (I believe) the common notion of free will.
>
> I haven't followed this thread but I find this common objection to
> free will facile. (Sorry.) Surely what we mean by "free to choose"
> does not mean *canned but distinctive*, although that's part of our
> sense of individuality. And quite obviously it doesn't mean "random".
> It seems to me to follow from our capacity to compute or model a
> sheaf of possible consequences (accurately or not is beside the
> point) of alternative actions we might take soon or even in the long
> run.

This issue of "free-will" is directly mappable onto the larger issue
of causality.  As is well known since Hume, there is nothing in
objective descriptions of reality that admits of even the slightest
evidence of "causality."  But causality, like free-will is very real
and plays an important role in our lives.  It's just that it only
makes sense in subjective terms.

Judea Pearl provides a gentle introduction at
<http://singapore.cs.ucla.edu/LECTURE/lecture_sec1.htm>.

- Jef


From jef at jefallbright.net  Wed Apr  4 19:44:20 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:44:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Trans-Spirit] Saletan, brain and morality
In-Reply-To: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803903B68F25@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu>
References: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803903B68F25@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704041244w5897663cwd40ba4e7a650213d@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/4/07, Hughes, James J. <James.Hughes at trincoll.edu> wrote:

> http://www.slate.com/id/2162998
> Mind Makes Right
> Brain damage, evolution, and the future of  morality.By William  Saletan
>
> Imagine that killers have invaded your neighborhood. They're in your house,  and you and
> your neighbors are hiding in the cellar. Your baby starts to cry. If  you had to press your
> hand over the baby's face till it stopped fighting?if you  had to smother it to save
> everyone else?would you do it?

<snip>

> But there's the other catch: Once technology manipulates ethics, ethics can  no longer
> judge technology. Nor can human nature discredit the mentality that  shapes human
> nature. In a utilitarian world, what's neurologically fit is  utilitarianism. It'll become the
> norm, the standard of right and wrong. Sure, a  few mental relics of our primate ancestry
> will be lost. But it'll be worth it. I  think.

Thanks James for sharing this and the previous item(s).

It's another sad example of the present state of our understanding of
ethics, presenting a false dichotomy between moral decision-making
based on emotional indications of an innate sense of "right" versus
moral decision-making based on utilitarian calculation of perceived
desired ends.

As usual, the popular view appears to be completely ignorant of moral
decision-making based on principles, such that we remove the personal
(and changing) "I" from the evaluation process, and acknowledge the
inevitability of unanticipated consequences in an increasingly complex
world.

Kohlberg, in his "Stages of Moral Development"[1] had the idea, but
couldn't find enough backing in current society to support research of
his sixth level.  The teachings of Jesus, the Buddha, Gandhi, etc.,
are famously focused on principles rather than ends, and their
teachings ring true but seem oh so difficult to live up to in
practice.  Indeed, because principled morality takes the "I" out of
the assessment, and disallows any concerns over immediate
consequences, it is quite contrary to our usual practices in the noisy
everyday world dominated by "I" and immediate consequences.

Kant came close, with his idea of a Categorical Imperative, but
neglected rather than worked with the inherent subjectivity of any
moral agent and the evolving framework of values and instrumental
knowledge in which moral decisions are made and carried out.

Within academia, many philosophers continue to construct elaborate
castles in the air as if isolation from reality were itself a virtue,
and the public flow mainly with the prevailing local current.

Only in the last two decades [generously] has an evolutionary
perspective begin to take root.  It's encouraging that in this year's
Edge Question[2] rising awareness can be detected among these
cognoscenti, and articles in the New York Times show that public
awareness is increasing in recent years.

There's reason for hope.  What works tends to persist and replicate.
In principle.

- Jef

[1] http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
[2] <http://www.edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html>



From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  4 21:38:55 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 14:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704030148t70be2142idf647d370ef393a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <394815.57022.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Stathis,

Stathis wrote:

"Actually your whole question could be taken as a
> form of Doomsday Argument
> reasoning: it would seem more likely that I am one
> of few (few species, few
> observer moments, few historical eras) rather than
> one of many, especially
> one of infinitely many. The paradox is, even if the
> space of all observer
> moments is infinite, making the measure of each
> individual observer moment
> infinitesimal, that doesn't mean that each observer
> moment should assume it
> doesn't exist. Reality trumps probability every
> time."

Hmm. That's a very interesting point. If a Universe
was to become infinitely old, your interpretation
would appear to be something like a partial
counterargument (maybe): You should expect to find
yourself in a *relatively* very early period of the
Universe, seemingly without regard to the size of
future populations - even if those future populations
are to become very large. (Although I also believe an
"observer-moment" could also *potentially* be finite
in addition to potentially being infinitesimal {or it
could potentially even be infinite}.) - But, I could
be wrong about that.

Just to throw some shot-in-the-dark ideas at a
question I asked earlier:

Jeffrey wrote:

"A lingering question I still have is: if the
+Infinity/+Infinity quotient can yield any positive
real number, then why in this example, does it appear
that the quotient is continually gaining positive
value only? Instead of for example, yielding an
apparent value of +4528, and then subsequently
yielding an apparent value of +326. IOW, *why* are
these seemingly arbitrary calculations completely
consistent with the apparent "arrow of time"? ...???
...? ..."

1) I suppose from a "meta-overview" an observer could
say that those smaller positive quotients have indeed
been "calculated" and that they appeared as "past
moments" in the observer's personal history. I think
this potential answer would have to mingle with the
Continuity-of-Self debate, and that's a sticky one as
we all know :-) (and the "arrow of time" question).

2) Maybe the "fabric" of time is itself expanding
similarly to the way that the "fabric" of space is
expanding ie. the Inflating Universe. (This one seems
kind of weak to me).

3) Of course, possibly the easiest answer is that a
Universe such as ours can never potentially become
infinitely old because it's destined to end in a Big
Crunch. But, this answer is just too easy ;-) And I
think it's extremely improbable, in terms of an
absolute to be applied to all similar Universes.

Do you have any other ideas, Stathis? Does anyone have
any other ideas? Because I'm feeling pretty stumped by
this question.

Also, I wonder if it is even possible that a Universe
such as ours (one that includes observers who can
detect a greater-than-zero but finite history) can
even become *anything but* infinitely old.

For example, if a hypothetical Universe was destined
to only become finitely old (eg. 6 Billion years
old)then dividing that finite history by +Infinity
would lead to any
"time-unit"/"observer-moment"/"apparent history" being
infinitely small. So the only length of history that
could possibly be observed would be an infinitely
short one. Or to put it more directly, it seems that
no observer could possibly exist at all in this
hypothetical Universe. And I don't yet see any reason
why the starting denominator could not be +Infinity
(which would represent the "very beginning" of this
hypothetical Universe) given that the value of the
quotient would still be greater-than-zero (and
positive) although very, very, very tiny.

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich       


--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jeffrey,
> 
> ..."if the probability of
> > > observers arising or surviving
> > > decreases as time increases, it can turn out
> that
> > > there is a high
> > > probability that an observer would find himself
> in
> > > the first n years of the
> > > universe's existence."
> >
> > True. Or the potential decrease could be the
> result of
> > a voluntary aggregation/assimilation of
> individuals
> > into a smaller number of "discrete"
> consciousnesses,
> > which is what I hope that the Doomsday Argument is
> > indicating, above any of the alternatives.
> >
> 
> Actually your whole question could be taken as a
> form of Doomsday Argument
> reasoning: it would seem more likely that I am one
> of few (few species, few
> observer moments, few historical eras) rather than
> one of many, especially
> one of infinitely many. The paradox is, even if the
> space of all observer
> moments is infinite, making the measure of each
> individual observer moment
> infinitesimal, that doesn't mean that each observer
> moment should assume it
> doesn't exist. Reality trumps probability every
> time.
> 
> Stathis Papaioannou
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 





 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. 
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html


From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  4 21:47:59 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 14:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <641658.2688.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Eugen,

Eugen wrote:

..."and nobody has recreated a large enough setting 
in
order to make measurements about the chemistry change
in a realistic
(the original version has very little to do with
prebiotic Earth)
version of Miller/Urey over time, if any."

I would really like to see that experiment funded and
performed. It would actually have high value as
compared to say a brand new multi-million dollar study
to conclude that eating saturated-fatty foods is bad
for your health. Gee... ya think?! ;-)

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich





 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.  
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097


From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  4 22:15:13 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoassembly Blueprints using Atomic Resolution
	MRI
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0704040721y6218a296s6bf67b2982b803c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <988829.35545.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Robert,

Robert wrote:

"What makes you think this?  The primary requirement
> for off-Earth
> sustainability is the ability to convert X watts of
> solar or nuclear energy
> into resources (primarily water and reduced
> carbohydrates)  required to
> sustain human bodies as currently designed (humans
> are generally 100W
> machines, but if you look at plant food source
> efficiencies it probably
> requires 5-10,000 W of solar energy to produce the
> required food).  You have
> to make a case that the direct synthesis of the
> required molecules
> (nanoassembly) would be more efficient than existing
> nanoscale based systems
> (plants, bacteria, chemical synthesis, etc.)"

The main "advantages" I was thinking of were a
possibly considerable size(space) and weight savings
for the space colony, plus a potentially much simpler
(probably cheaper) internal environment. For example,
if you could just rebuild a strawberry to eat, you
wouldn't require any specialized light sources, soil,
bacteria, nutrients, additional physical space, etc.

Whatever the case turns out to be, the near future
will, without a doubt, be very exciting. :-)

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich


--- Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/3/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > http://www.csulb.edu/~mbarbic/atomres.htm
> >
> > [Beware: Twice when I clicked the internal
> hyperlink to this professor's
> > home page (not the above page), IE had to shut
> down due to an error. Just an
> > innocent glitch I'm sure, but all the same.]
> 
> 
> Which is funny since the pages seem to have been
> written in MS-Word (ROTFL).
> It is worth noting that the Diagrams in his pages do
> not display because the
> image path he is using is using a backslash rather a
> slash to indicate
> directories (may work on Windows but isn't standard
> HTML!)
> 
> If AR-MRI does become possible (and I guess it looks
> both possible and
> > practical), it could potentially improve our
> chances of achieving true
> > "outside-Earth" sustainability; like in a space
> colony for example.
> 
> 
> What makes you think this?  The primary requirement
> for off-Earth
> sustainability is the ability to convert X watts of
> solar or nuclear energy
> into resources (primarily water and reduced
> carbohydrates)  required to
> sustain human bodies as currently designed (humans
> are generally 100W
> machines, but if you look at plant food source
> efficiencies it probably
> requires 5-10,000 W of solar energy to produce the
> required food).  You have
> to make a case that the direct synthesis of the
> required molecules
> (nanoassembly) would be more efficient than existing
> nanoscale based systems
> (plants, bacteria, chemical synthesis, etc.)
> 
> With the appropriate software (and a practical level
> of hardware), it
> > appears to me that scanning with AR-MRI could
> provide on-the-fly blueprints
> > for a nanofactory or nanoassembler.
> 
> 
> We already have nanoassemblers.  They are called DNA
> polymerase, RNA
> polymerase and ribosomes.  We already have
> "nanofactories". Sugar cane is a
> good example.  Cyanobacteria are another.  I think
> what you mean to say is
> "general purpose" nanoassembler and "universal"
> nanofactories.
> 
> Having AR-MRI doesn't give you squat with respect to
> blueprints for
> structures which currently *do  not exist*.  Those
> have to be designed or
> evolved.  That was the primary point behind the
> Nano at Home proposal that I
> wrote several years ago.  The only thing AR-MRI
> gives you, potentially, is
> the ability to precisely read existing structures. 
> That means that
> structures which are difficult to read using other
> methods, such as precise
> reading of synaptic junctions of frozen neurons, may
> be feasible.  In my
> mind AR-MRI is only useful for assisting in the
> determination of molecular
> structures which are impossible to crystalize (which
> is likely to be help in
> the scientific understanding of complex
> multi-molecule structures,
> particularly for example those involved in oxidative
> phosphorylation in the
> mitochondria, or potentially the process of mind
> uploading).
> 
> For example the blueprints of a variety of foods
> could be obtained and used
> > to reconstitute those objects. The applications
> for this would be huge. But,
> > like most things technology, it could also be used
> to harm. Hopefully, the
> > good uses will overcome the potentially bad ones.
> 
> 
> We know the enzyme pathways required to produce
> sugar (and more complex
> carbohydrates), fats and amino acids.  The
> blueprints for the machines
> needed in these molecular assembly lines are sitting
> in Genbank (in may
> cases we have dozens of variations on the
> assemblers).  We do not *yet* have
> the blueprints for the machines which efficiently
> assemble less common
> molecules such as resveratrol or cone snail toxins
> or very complex molecules
> such a brevitoxin B (though I believe in all cases
> we can chemically
> synthesize them).
> 
> Robert
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL


From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  4 22:26:29 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704041029n623db042o3cdf9715f048d59b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <25205.40805.qm@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


One of the simplest reasons I tend to dislike the idea
of the possibility of "free will" is that it seems,
under any conceivable circumstances, to be so severely
and arbitrarily limited. ... Okay, I "will" to win 200
million dollars tommorow...

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich 


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Apr  5 00:31:27 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:31:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
Message-ID: <002401c7771a$13d6fca0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Eugen writes

> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 12:59:58PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>> It was inevitable that this discussion come sooner or later to hinge right
>> on the point of free will.
> 
> How can you prove you've got free will, or not, empirically?

For exactly what kind of information are you asking?  I'm not sure
anything can be "proved" outside of mathematics. Can you prove
that the island of Manhatten exists?


The kinds of systems that should be said to be willful are those
that exhibit a certain integrity of purpose.

Systems, then, that are willful and make decisions can be 
said to have free will when---as I said in my earlier email---
when they analyse a great deal of data towards the resolution
of some query, or towards picking a single action from a large
number of possible actions. (Take that as a characterization,
not a definition.)

For example, a weather forecasting program ought to be able
to be said to have free will, since its output is a complex function
of all the inputs that must be carefully weighed.   The system
would be said to be exhibiting almost no free will if a programmer
maliciously stuffed data into an output buffer, or somewhere near
the terminus of the calculation, which effectively short-circuited
the calculation.

Do you ever decide anything?  If so, how can you defend the
notion that you decide things, when---if we live in determinism
---the answer was decided long ago.  I can answer that one
myself, but can you?

> If I gave you a dump from /dev/random along with /dev/urandom,
> would you be able to tell those apart?

Given enough bytes from urandom, I can presumably eventually
discover entropy falling off. But pray, what has this to do with anything?

> What does it even mean in a process that is us, since the top-level
> lags in realization of a made-up decision at a lower level.

I may identify with the entire process, top to bottom. If the real
reason that I turn down a certain applicant is because she smells,
I still should accept responsibility for that decision, even though
I've meanwhile unconsciously fabricated all sorts of rationalizations
for why she isn't suitable for the job.  True:  my decision wasn't
quite as free as it would have been if my nasal equipment hadn't
led to a short-circuiting of my decision process.

> Assuming you knew the universe is deterministic at sub-Planck
> level, would it help you to make a killing on blue chips, or
> even avoid that car speeding round the corner?

Why, no, of course determinism doesn't help *me* make decisions.
They're still mine to make;  determinism changes nothing. 

Time to go on offense again:  if all your actions are predetermined,
why do you try so hard to avoid the speeding car?  Oh---because
it was determined that you would so strive?  I see.  But then, isn't
that an explanation or reason for everything you do?

Lee



From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Thu Apr  5 00:19:49 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:19:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing.
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<20070403201828.GT9439@leitl.org>	<003001c77637$01aef2f0$49054e0c@MyComputer>
	<20070404072255.GX9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <461440A5.3010404@thomasoliver.net>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:28:02PM -0400, John K Clark wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>How can you prove you've got free will, or not, empirically?
>>>      
>>>
>>You can't prove it, not for any deep reason it's just that the term "free
>>will" is just a noise some people like to make with their mouth, that's it,
>>nothing more. Personally I never cared much for the sound of it myself, I
>>don't find it particularly musical and so I seldom make that noise with
>> my mouth.
>>
>>I don't believe there is any idea in philosophy (or criminal law)
>>stupider than free will, not even immaculate conception.
>>It's a classic example of an idea so bad it's not even wrong.
>>    
>>
>
>We're in 120% agreement here.
>
I don't know what "some people" mean, but I thought "free will" meant 
more self than other determined.  I thought it reflected, to some 
degree, a "human" qualification.  I learned that respect for it provides 
a simple and efficient means of proper social interaction.  How wrong 
could I be?  -- Thomas




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Apr  4 23:28:21 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:28:21 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoassembly Blueprints using Atomic Resolution
 MRI
In-Reply-To: <988829.35545.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <deaa866a0704040721y6218a296s6bf67b2982b803c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 03:15 PM 4/4/2007 -0700, Jeffrey wrote:

snip

>The main "advantages" I was thinking of were a
>possibly considerable size(space) and weight savings
>for the space colony, plus a potentially much simpler
>(probably cheaper) internal environment. For example,
>if you could just rebuild a strawberry to eat, you
>wouldn't require any specialized light sources, soil,
>bacteria, nutrients, additional physical space, etc.

The entire problem of feeding people in space was worked over in a great 
deal of detail over 30 years ago.  I can't point you to an on-line site, 
but if you can find a copy of the Space Manufacturing Conference for 1975, 
"how to grow food" is spelled out in considerable detail with a pretentious 
title on the paper.  Incidentally, in space you have all the light you 
want, and area isn't that hard to make either.

You don't need soil or bacteria.  In a closed system, what comes out of the 
sewage plant incinerator has everything except a bit of nitric acid for a 
hydroponics solution that will keep the plants happy.  Now it might 
eventually be easy to rebuild strawberries to eat, but if you are that far 
into nanotechnology, why not just run on electricity and simulate eating a 
berry?

>Whatever the case turns out to be, the near future
>will, without a doubt, be very exciting. :-)

There is good exciting and bad exciting.  Unfortunately, the odds are 
stacked by the long evolutionary history of our species against the future 
being good.

But if you want to do something to improve the odds of a bright future, I 
have a number of suggestions.  Even so, the most likely number for physical 
state humans 100 years from now is zero.

Keith




From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Thu Apr  5 00:57:05 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:57:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <25205.40805.qm@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <46144961.9080200@thomasoliver.net>

A B wrote:

>One of the simplest reasons I tend to dislike the idea
>of the possibility of "free will" is that it seems,
>under any conceivable circumstances, to be so severely
>and arbitrarily limited. ... Okay, I "will" to win 200
>million dollars tommorow...
>
>Best Wishes,
>
>Jeffrey Herrlich 
>
That sounds more like whimsy than will.  A rational will would include a 
context.  Are *free* and *rational* not compatible?  -- Thomas





From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  5 03:16:05 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoassembly Blueprints using Atomic Resolution
	MRI
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <950369.26932.qm@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Keith,

Keith wrote:

"But if you want to do something to improve the odds
> of a bright future, I 
> have a number of suggestions."

At this point, all ideas will be helpful. Being a
non-genius myself, I don't really know how much I
could usefully contribute, except in the form of
donations to SIAI and the like. Unfortunately, I don't
have a great deal of money to do that with. But I'm
definitely listening to any suggestions you may have.

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich

Keith wrote:
--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> At 03:15 PM 4/4/2007 -0700, Jeffrey wrote:
> 
> snip
> 
> >The main "advantages" I was thinking of were a
> >possibly considerable size(space) and weight
> savings
> >for the space colony, plus a potentially much
> simpler
> >(probably cheaper) internal environment. For
> example,
> >if you could just rebuild a strawberry to eat, you
> >wouldn't require any specialized light sources,
> soil,
> >bacteria, nutrients, additional physical space,
> etc.
> 
> The entire problem of feeding people in space was
> worked over in a great 
> deal of detail over 30 years ago.  I can't point you
> to an on-line site, 
> but if you can find a copy of the Space
> Manufacturing Conference for 1975, 
> "how to grow food" is spelled out in considerable
> detail with a pretentious 
> title on the paper.  Incidentally, in space you have
> all the light you 
> want, and area isn't that hard to make either.
> 
> You don't need soil or bacteria.  In a closed
> system, what comes out of the 
> sewage plant incinerator has everything except a bit
> of nitric acid for a 
> hydroponics solution that will keep the plants
> happy.  Now it might 
> eventually be easy to rebuild strawberries to eat,
> but if you are that far 
> into nanotechnology, why not just run on electricity
> and simulate eating a 
> berry?
> 
> >Whatever the case turns out to be, the near future
> >will, without a doubt, be very exciting. :-)
> 
> There is good exciting and bad exciting. 
> Unfortunately, the odds are 
> stacked by the long evolutionary history of our
> species against the future 
> being good.
> 
> But if you want to do something to improve the odds
> of a bright future, I 
> have a number of suggestions.  Even so, the most
> likely number for physical 
> state humans 100 years from now is zero.
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. 
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html 


From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  5 03:41:33 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <46144961.9080200@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <35261.5003.qm@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Thomas,

Could you somehow rephrase your objection/question,
I'm afraid I don't really understand it. Exceptional
reading comprehension is not one of my strengths.

The point that I'm trying to make is that if "free
will" (as it is commonly interpreted) really exists
(which I don't believe at all) then perhaps we should
all acknowledge that it is quite limited (severely in
my opinion). If it were not limited, I would have
everything I've ever wanted, no matter how
fantastical. Furthermore, these severe limitations
appear to me to be so numerous and arbitrary that they
reduce the meaning of "free will" to the point of
being meaningless; because "free will" doesn't exist.
That's just my opinion, and everyone is entitled to
their own.

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich


--- Thomas <Thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:

> A B wrote:
> 
> >One of the simplest reasons I tend to dislike the
> idea
> >of the possibility of "free will" is that it seems,
> >under any conceivable circumstances, to be so
> severely
> >and arbitrarily limited. ... Okay, I "will" to win
> 200
> >million dollars tommorow...
> >
> >Best Wishes,
> >
> >Jeffrey Herrlich 
> >
> That sounds more like whimsy than will.  A rational
> will would include a 
> context.  Are *free* and *rational* not compatible? 
> -- Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love 
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 


From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Apr  5 04:54:10 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:54:10 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704040843h7fee304dh9d599e69c18b0a58@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704040843h7fee304dh9d599e69c18b0a58@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704042154t363f51a0jbbde358542ef4c17@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

On 4/4/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think I've strayed a bit from my original purpose, which was to try to
> > persuade you that thought experiments in which extremely improbable
> things
> > happen by chance should not be summarily dismissed as irrelevant.
>
> Isn't this assertion the very antithesis of rationality?!
>
> With full regard to remaining open to surprising new observations, but
> little regard for assigning "relevance" without justification.


I was referring to certain philosophical arguments, such as John Searle's
Chinese room, which is wrong for philosophical reasons, not becauseof the
undoubted practical difficulties it would pose. Engineering and philosophy
are not the same discipline.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070405/253c01a2/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Apr  5 05:33:56 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:33:56 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:

[I have the pdf of this paper, if somebody is interested]
>
> Behav.Sci. Law. Feb 23, 2007
> 'The concept of free will:
> philosophy, neuroscience and the law.'
> -S.Pockett
> Various philosophical definitions of free will are first considered.
> The compatibilist definition, which says simply that acts are freely
> willed
> if they are not subject to constraints, is identified as much used in the
> legal system and essentially impervious to scientific investigation. A
> middle-ground "incompatibilist" definition, which requires that freely
> willed acts be consciously initiated, is shown to be relevant to the idea
> of mens rea and in the author's view not actually incompatible in
> principle
> with a fully scientific worldview. Only the strong libertarian definition,
> which requires that freely willed acts have no physical antecedents
> whatsoever, makes the existence of free will very hard to swallow
> scientifically.


A non-believer in free will can still go along with the law as something
which is instrumental in bringing about the determined behaviours. We put
roofs on our houses in order to stay dry, and we stay dry because the roofs
are in place. Similarly, we punish criminals to prevent further crimes and
further crimes are prevented because we punish criminals. However, I keep in
mind the fact that the criminals engage in their behaviour either because it
is determined by their genes and environment (in which case it isn't their
fault) or due to random processes (in which case it isn't their fault).
Blaming and revenge are in keeping with a belief in free will; tolerance and
compassion are in keeping with the absence of such a belief, although
tolerance and compassion do not prevent us from taking practical measures to
prevent crimes.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070405/edd6c5a9/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr  5 10:13:24 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:13:24 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704042154t363f51a0jbbde358542ef4c17@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704040843h7fee304dh9d599e69c18b0a58@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704042154t363f51a0jbbde358542ef4c17@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070405101324.GH9439@leitl.org>

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:54:10PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    I was referring to certain philosophical arguments, such as John
>    Searle's Chinese room, which is wrong for philosophical reasons, not

He's wrong because you can't simulate a person with paper by
another person, not by lookup. A billion Indians with a lot
paper and a rather complex algorithm might do, but I'm not
sure. It would be certainly too slow.

>    becauseof the undoubted practical difficulties it would pose.

Not difficulties. It Can't Be Done, in this universe. End of story. 
That's all the argumentation it takes. 

>    Engineering and philosophy are not the same discipline.

I think most people realize what the utility of a philosopher is.
Unlike a mathematician, these don't even produce theorems if
given coffee... 

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Thu Apr  5 11:02:34 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:02:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <35261.5003.qm@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4614D74A.6010000@thomasoliver.net>

A B wrote:

>Hi Thomas,
>
>Could you somehow rephrase your objection/question,
>
I took issue with the idea that "free will" means something akin to 
having or becoming a fairy godmother.  I don't think it means absolute 
free will.  I think it just reflects the advantage humans have over 
other species which don't have the rational means for such skills as 
tool making or intellectual intercourse.  It reflects the fairly 
uniquely human quality of having a wide range of rational means for 
survival -- whereas, less "free" species are limited to genetically 
determined hard wired behavior patterns.  

If people do not "commonly interpret" free will as I do, then I can 
understand your dislike for the term.  It would, indeed, seem nigh to 
meaningless.  How can self determinism supplant other deteriminism 
without vanishing other?  That sounds like irrational solipsism.  

I hope I expressed myself better this time.  I really intended to put 
forth a simpler idea of free will.  -- Thomas

>[...]
>
>The point that I'm trying to make is that if "free
>will" (as it is commonly interpreted) really exists
>(which I don't believe at all) then perhaps we should
>all acknowledge that it is quite limited (severely in
>my opinion). If it were not limited, I would have
>everything I've ever wanted, no matter how
>fantastical. 
>
I acknowledge that absolute free will limits itself to a fantasy (or 
maybe a virtual) world.  I prefer to define free will in the context of 
human survival on Earth.  I realize that context expands every passing 
moment, but the definition still seems useful since I believe respect 
for free will offers the best hope for human survival.  The disrespect 
it received on this list moved me to dissent.

>That's just my opinion, and everyone is entitled to
>their own.
>  
>
You are free to opine as you will, Jeffery.  And you have my respect. 
 -- Thomas

>
>--- Thomas <Thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>A B wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>One of the simplest reasons I tend to dislike the
>>>      
>>>
>>idea
>>    
>>
>>>of the possibility of "free will" is that it seems,
>>>under any conceivable circumstances, to be so
>>>      
>>>
>>severely
>>    
>>
>>>and arbitrarily limited. ... Okay, I "will" to win
>>>      
>>>
>>200
>>    
>>
>>>million dollars tommorow...
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>That sounds more like whimsy than will.  A rational
>>will would include a 
>>context.  Are *free* and *rational* not compatible? 
>>-- Thomas
>>
>>    
>>



From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Apr  5 12:53:48 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 05:53:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704042154t363f51a0jbbde358542ef4c17@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704040843h7fee304dh9d599e69c18b0a58@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704042154t363f51a0jbbde358542ef4c17@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704050553t386a3e91y8544ced010e2580d@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/4/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I think I've strayed a bit from my original purpose, which was to try to
>>> persuade you that thought experiments in which extremely improbable
>>> things happen by chance should not be summarily dismissed as irrelevant.

>> Isn't this assertion the very antithesis of rationality?!

>  I was referring to certain philosophical arguments, such as John Searle's
> Chinese room, which is wrong for philosophical reasons, not because of the
> undoubted practical difficulties it would pose. Engineering and philosophy
> are not the same discipline.

I don't understand your reasoning here, since Searle's Chinese Room
doesn't involve "extremely improbable things."  It's wrong for quite
different reasons.

I do understand that there's a binary distinction between "slightly
possible" and "impossible", but that doesn't seem to apply here.

There may be little value in pursuing the source of this disconnect,
but if you wish to continue, you have my attention.

- Jef


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Apr  5 13:57:59 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:57:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoassembly Blueprints using Atomic Resolution
	MRI
In-Reply-To: <950369.26932.qm@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<950369.26932.qm@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704050657j65ca9934wc3b416c241b887d2@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/4/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:

> At this point, all ideas will be helpful. Being a non-genius myself, I
> don't really know how much I could usefully contribute, except in the form
> of donations to SIAI and the like.


Not being quite so pessimistic as Keith, the chapter I'm writing for
Damien's forthcoming collection will I think include physical humans 100
years from now (within an MBrain developed solar system).

There may be multiple "perfect futures" [1].  I believe one requires a fast
uplift of the physical condition of the majority of humanity.  That in turn
requires a rapid distribution of open source nanotechnology.  If everyone
*knows* in advance of the development of the first nanoassemblers that they
will be able to share in the benefits of that there is less likely to be an
"arms race" or a fight over the spoils, etc.

Nanorex will be releasing its nanoengineer software sometime later this
year.  Supporting the concept of a few prizes that would allow Nano at Home to
develop in a robust fashion is an alternative to SIAI.  There are thousands
of people aware of nanotechnology in India but they don't know how to
approach it.  Combine cheap computers + software + a project framework +
prizes and you have recipe for producing hundreds of nanoengineers and
thousands of open source nanopart designs.

For those who are not familiar with my perspectives regarding nanotechnology
development I believe that a "dual" path is possible -- an open source,
public path which gives everyone "volkswagons" and a closed source, VC
financed, business path which gives those who really want them "mercedes".
The difference between volkswagons and mercedes tends to be relatively
subjective as both tend to get one from point A to point B.  Unlike historic
development paths where one generally got the expensive cars before the
cheap cars, if one has the designs in hand both may come out of the factory
at the same time.

Robert

1. Unlike Trance Gemini, my mind yields several, though at least for now we
don't have the Magog to face.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070405/0b5d67be/attachment.html>

From scerir at libero.it  Thu Apr  5 15:53:02 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:53:02 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>

Stathis Papaioannou:
> A non-believer in free will can still go along with the law as something
> which is instrumental in bringing about the determined behaviours. We put
> roofs on our houses in order to stay dry, and we stay dry because the
roofs
> are in place. Similarly, we punish criminals to prevent further crimes and
> further crimes are prevented because we punish criminals. However, I keep
in
> mind the fact that the criminals engage in their behaviour either because
it
> is determined by their genes and environment (in which case it isn't their
> fault) or due to random processes (in which case it isn't their fault).
> Blaming and revenge are in keeping with a belief in free will; tolerance
and
> compassion are in keeping with the absence of such a belief, although
> tolerance and compassion do not prevent us from taking practical measures
to
> prevent crimes.

I tend to agree here. But I think the criminals
engage in their behaviour also because it is
determined by their 'will', and not just by
their genes or by contextuality.

I always found difficult to define 'free will'.
There are several definitions. My personal
definition was something like 'the 'will' does
not depend on the past story of (this) universe'.
After some reflection I also wrote 'the 'will'
does not depend both on the past story and on the
future story of (this) universe'. This definition
seems to be strong indeed :-) and perhaps also
false and useless :-)

s.




From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Apr  5 16:34:20 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:34:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:

> Stathis Papaioannou:
> > A non-believer in free will can still go along with the law as something
> > which is instrumental in bringing about the determined behaviours. We put
> > roofs on our houses in order to stay dry, and we stay dry because the
> roofs
> > are in place. Similarly, we punish criminals to prevent further crimes and
> > further crimes are prevented because we punish criminals. However, I keep
> in
> > mind the fact that the criminals engage in their behaviour either because
> it
> > is determined by their genes and environment (in which case it isn't their
> > fault) or due to random processes (in which case it isn't their fault).
> > Blaming and revenge are in keeping with a belief in free will; tolerance
> and
> > compassion are in keeping with the absence of such a belief, although
> > tolerance and compassion do not prevent us from taking practical measures
> to
> > prevent crimes.
>
> I tend to agree here. But I think the criminals
> engage in their behaviour also because it is
> determined by their 'will', and not just by
> their genes or by contextuality.
>
> I always found difficult to define 'free will'.
> There are several definitions. My personal
> definition was something like 'the 'will' does
> not depend on the past story of (this) universe'.
> After some reflection I also wrote 'the 'will'
> does not depend both on the past story and on the
> future story of (this) universe'. This definition
> seems to be strong indeed :-) and perhaps also
> false and useless :-)

My opinion is that this is all very silly.  But let me add to the
silliness since that seems to be the game:

<silliness>

IF I have free will, then in order to exercise my will I must depend
on (this) universe being deterministic from this point forward.

</silliness>

There's no paradox here folks, it's just about using the appropriate
context.  We have no problem at all describing the behavior of *other*
agents in fully deterministic terms.  It's only when we consider
volition from our own point of view that we are seduced and overcome
by the illusion that something special is going on.

- Jef


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Apr  5 16:42:19 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:42:19 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/4/07, Thomas <Thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:

> >
> >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22
> >
> Yes, that exposed the main "swindle" part.  It also showed the hypocrisy
> of environmentalists expecting suffering third worlders to forego
> industrial development while they continue to enjoy the benefits of
> cheap electricity.  Having watched Al Gore's movie just a few days ago,
> I found myself better persuaded by these naysayers.  -- Thomas
>
### Interestingly, Al Gore's electricity bill in his lavish mansion is
about 4000$/month.

Preachers frequently don't live the lives they preach.

Rafal


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr  5 17:35:57 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:35:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070405122707.02267bd8@satx.rr.com>

At 09:34 AM 4/5/2007 -0700, Jef wrote:

>We have no problem at all describing the behavior of *other*
>agents in fully deterministic terms.

Of course we do. That's why certain children are called "willful". 
Criminals are held responsible for their ill deeds because we know 
that while they might have a powerful disposition to act in a malign 
and antisocial fashion they also have the capacity to choose 
otherwise (except where the disposition overwhelms all other motives 
or external circumstances restrict their options too brutally).

Damien Broderick




From jonkc at att.net  Thu Apr  5 17:37:02 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:37:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704032303i530e7016m7aabe23849568387@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070404011448.023fa2a8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <01e601c777a9$1286a1e0$5d064e0c@MyComputer>

Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com

> Surely what we mean by "free to choose"
> does not mean *canned but distinctive*

It means I haven't finished processing my input information yet so I don't
yet know how I'm going to respond to it, so I feel I am "free to choose".
However if your mind worked more quickly than mine then you could
theoretically know exactly what I'm going to do about it, but I haven't
figured it out yet so I'm still free to choose.

 > And quite obviously it doesn't mean "random".

Things happen because of cause an effect or they don't happen because of
cause and effect. Everything! You can be a pair of dice or a Cuckoo clock,
those are the only options. But remember, even a Cuckoo clock does not feel
like Cuckoo clock, it doesn't know when it's going to pop out for all the
world to see until it actually decides to do so. It's exactly the same
principle with people. Well OK..., it is a few hundred thousand million
billion trillion times as complex in humans, but that is a minor matter.

Sometimes even in a purely deterministic world the only way to know what
something will do next is to watch it and see. It would take five minutes or
less to program a computer to find the first even number greater than 4 that
is not the sum of two primes greater than 2, and then stop. When will the
computer decide to stop? Nobody knows, not even the computer knows, all you
can do it watch it and see what it does. In that sense the computer has free
will, and that is the only sense I've found for the term that is not
complete gibberish.

  John K Clark




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr  5 17:43:02 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:43:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>

At 12:42 PM 4/5/2007 -0400, Rafal wrote:

>### Interestingly, Al Gore's electricity bill in his lavish mansion is
>about 4000$/month.

In the context of the "climate swindle" allegation, this is about as 
relevant as dismissing the claims of an astronomer who reports 
evidence that a killer asteroid is heading our way by pointing out 
that she holidays each year in the Swiss Alps and wears fuck-me shoes.

It might bear on Gore's recommended methods of remediation, but 
that's another point entirely.

Damien Broderick 



From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Thu Apr  5 18:24:36 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:24:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46153EE4.9060102@thomasoliver.net>

Jef Allbright wrote:

>[...]
>
>There's no paradox here folks, it's just about using the appropriate
>context.  We have no problem at all describing the behavior of *other*
>agents in fully deterministic terms.  It's only when we consider
>volition from our own point of view that we are seduced and overcome
>by the illusion that something special is going on.
>
>- Jef
>
Yes, but don't you think it a little special that the range of human 
determinism has evolved into rational consciousness?  Even allowing for 
the possibility that "self" is an illusion, does not respect for human 
self determinism fuel the transhuman impulse?  -- Thomas




From brian at posthuman.com  Thu Apr  5 18:18:02 2007
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:18:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46153D5A.6000901@posthuman.com>

Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> ### Interestingly, Al Gore's electricity bill in his lavish mansion is
> about 4000$/month.
> 

FYI, he is putting in a solar power system currently according to the local 
paper. He actually had already tried to put one in before this news came out, 
but ran into some stupid overly broad local law against "generators".

Remember, We Must ALL Stop ManBearPig.

;-)
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From scerir at libero.it  Thu Apr  5 18:09:38 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 20:09:38 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] a nano question
References: <p06230900c238f49274b7@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <001001c777ad$93f0d530$66901f97@archimede>

Amara wrote:

> in Italian (today),
> 
> 10^3 = one thousand = uno mille
> 10^6 = one million = uno milione
> 10^9 = one billion = uno miliardo
> 
> (from Latin, I think)


'Miliardo' is a French ('Milliard') word (and it is 
a common word to many other languages other than English).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milliard

It seems we (Italians) also have
'Bilione' (10^12) and 'Biliardo'
(10^15), but we did not use them,
as far as I know.

s.

For another kind of 'Biliardo' see
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/its-the-kinematics-stupid/




From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Apr  5 18:59:45 2007
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:59:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <46154721.2090903@pobox.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 12:42 PM 4/5/2007 -0400, Rafal wrote:
> 
> 
>>### Interestingly, Al Gore's electricity bill in his lavish mansion is
>>about 4000$/month.

 From what I've heard, he buys carbon credits to offset this.  It's an 
interesting policy - I have to approve the dry rationalist chutzpah of it.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From davidmc at gmail.com  Thu Apr  5 19:17:59 2007
From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:17:59 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <46154721.2090903@pobox.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<46154721.2090903@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <c934387b0704051217l50b460eevdeabbe593f770d77@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
>  From what I've heard, he buys carbon credits to offset this.  It's an
> interesting policy - I have to approve the dry rationalist chutzpah of it.

Time recently published this article about the hypocrisy of carbon credits>>
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599714,00.html


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Apr  5 19:35:25 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:35:25 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <c934387b0704051217l50b460eevdeabbe593f770d77@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<46154721.2090903@pobox.com>
	<c934387b0704051217l50b460eevdeabbe593f770d77@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704051235s7d9b0e52x7e2e4dc5430fa11c@mail.gmail.com>

David & the Time article point out an extremely valid point.  The so called
"Green" promoters are not really going green at all.  The bottom line is you
are promoting sustainability or you are not.  Sustainability does not
involve choices which result in a net increase in CO2 deposited in the
atmosphere.

One cannot take it out of the ground, oxidize it and place it into the
atmosphere and claim one is "green" -- it is complete hypocrisy.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070405/8b6d8998/attachment.html>

From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Thu Apr  5 19:07:57 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:07:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4615490D.6030809@thomasoliver.net>

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> On 4/5/07, scerir <scerir at libero.it <mailto:scerir at libero.it>> wrote:
>
>     [...]
>     The compatibilist definition, which says simply that acts are
>     freely willed
>     if they are not subject to constraints, is identified as much used
>     in the
>     legal system and essentially impervious to scientific investigation.
>
That sounds irrational to me.  

>     A
>     middle-ground "incompatibilist" definition, which requires that
>     freely
>     willed acts be consciously initiated, is shown to be relevant to
>     the idea
>     of mens rea and in the author's view not actually incompatible in
>     principle
>     with a fully scientific worldview. 
>
That suits me better than speaking of a cuckoo clock making "decisions." 
 It would help to establish the level of consciousness context.  The 
sensation level of earthworm consciouness seems barely capable of any 
kind of will.  The conceptual level of the human forebrain seems the 
proper context.  

>     Only the strong libertarian definition,
>     which requires that freely willed acts have no physical antecedents
>     whatsoever, makes the existence of free will very hard to swallow
>     scientifically.
>
And not really sane, eh?

> [...] Blaming and revenge are in keeping with a belief in free will; 
> tolerance and compassion are in keeping with the absence of such a 
> belief, although tolerance and compassion do not prevent us from 
> taking practical measures to prevent crimes.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou

Well then, we certainly need a better definition and understanding of 
"free will."  I, for one, have chosen, by self determined means, to 
avoid blame and revenge.  I see very little compassion amongst creatures 
who survive without rational volition.  The practice of punishment seems 
like a (probably false) solution for the social problems arising from 
disrespect of "free will." -- Thomas





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr  5 20:18:14 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:18:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Martian warming
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070405151436.021e5860@satx.rr.com>



Global warming rapidly heating Mars

Thursday, 5 April 2007
Agen?e France-Presse
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1148

PARIS: Climate change could be warming Mars four 
times faster than Earth due to a mutually 
reinforcing interplay of wind-swept dust and 
changes in reflected heat from the Sun.

Scientists have long observed a perplexing 
correlation on Mars between the darkening or 
lightening of swathes of its surface and the 
planet's fluctuating temperatures; which range 
from -87?C to -5?C depending on the season and the location.

The explanation may lie in the dirt, according to a report published today.

Glistening Martian dust lying on the ground 
reflects the Sun's light - and its heat - back 
into space, a phenomenon called albedo. But when 
this reddish dust is churned up by violent winds, 
the storm-ravaged surface loses its reflective 
qualities and more of the Sun's heat is absorbed 
into the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise.

The study, published today by the British journal 
Nature, shows for the first time that these 
variations not only result from the storms but 
help cause them too. It also suggests that 
short-term climate change is currently occurring 
on Mars and at a much faster rate than on Earth.

The report's authors, led by planetary scientist 
Lori Fenton, with U.S. space agency NASA's Ames 
Research Centre in California, describe the 
phenomenon as a "positive feedback" system. In 
other words, a vicious circle, in which changes 
in albedo strengthen the winds, which in turn 
kick up more dust and further add to the warming.

In the same way, if a snow-covered area on Earth 
warms and the snow melts, the reflected light 
decreases and more solar radiation is absorbed, 
causing local temperatures to increase. If new 
snow falls, a cooling cycle starts.

On Mars, there have been an unusual number of 
massive, planet-darkening storms over the last 30 
years, and computer models indicate that surface 
air temperatures on the Red Planet increased by 
0.65?C from the 1970s to the 1990s. Residual ice 
on the Martian south pole, the researchers note, 
has steadily retreated over the last four years.

By comparison, the average temperature of Earth 
increased by 0.75?C over the last century.

To measure the change in patterns of reflected 
light, Fenton and her colleagues compared thermal 
spectrometer images of Mars taken by NASA's 
Viking mission in the late 1970s with similar 
images gathered more than 20 years later by the 
Global Surveyor. They then analysing the 
correlation between albedo variations, the 
presence of atmospheric dust and change in temperature.

Exactly what triggers the planet's so-called 
"global dust storms" remains a mystery. But any 
future research must now consider albedo 
variations as one of the factors that drive 
Martian climate change, they conclude.

Mars ... atmosphere is composed mostly of carbon dioxide.

The albedo of Earth, averaged across all its 
different surfaces, is about 30 times greater 
than that of Mars, which is far darker.




From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Apr  5 21:59:29 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:59:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <46153EE4.9060102@thomasoliver.net>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
	<46153EE4.9060102@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704051459o135d0a2bkba35c9c8f6e4afe2@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, Thomas <Thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:
> Jef Allbright wrote:
>
> >[...]
> >
> >There's no paradox here folks, it's just about using the appropriate
> >context.  We have no problem at all describing the behavior of *other*
> >agents in fully deterministic terms.  It's only when we consider
> >volition from our own point of view that we are seduced and overcome
> >by the illusion that something special is going on.
> >
> >- Jef
> >
> Yes, but don't you think it a little special that the range of human
> determinism has evolved into rational consciousness?  Even allowing for
> the possibility that "self" is an illusion, does not respect for human
> self determinism fuel the transhuman impulse?  -- Thomas

First, I should amend my statement above from "we have no problem at
all" to "we have no problem in principle" describing the behavior of
*other* agents in fully deterministic terms. [Thanks to Damien for
highlighting my sloppy writing.]  We can look, in principle, as deeply
as desired into the patterns of motivations of a "willful child" and
follow a deterministic chain of cause and effect.  It's when we try to
describe our own volition from within that we fall into the "strange
loop" that prompts so much philosophical discussion.  In practice, we
ascribe "free-will" to the behavior of others because we actually
conceive interactions between entities at this level of abstraction,
for very pragmatic reasons of limited cognitive capability.

Thomas, I'm afraid I'm not sure I fully understand your comment, but
I'll try to respond:

I don't think there's anything special, as in fundamentally
mysterious, involved in human cognition.  As Eliezer says, there are
no mysterious answers, only mysterious questions.

Likewise, I don't think there's anything special, as in fundamentally
mysterious, in the observation that intelligent life has evolved.
Indeed I think self-awareness is an inevitable product of the
evolutionary process.  I would hesitate, however, to emphasize "human"
or "rational" in that regard.

As for the "transhuman impulse", I think that it's a deep part of our
nature that our reach continues to exceed our grasp[1], and that this
is best exemplified, but not restricted to our species.

I do think that humanity is special, mainly because I'm currently an
active member of that club.

- Jef

[1] Apologies to Robert Browning.


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Apr  5 22:55:28 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:55:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 12:42 PM 4/5/2007 -0400, Rafal wrote:
>
> >### Interestingly, Al Gore's electricity bill in his lavish mansion is
> >about 4000$/month.
>
> In the context of the "climate swindle" allegation, this is about as
> relevant as dismissing the claims of an astronomer who reports
> evidence that a killer asteroid is heading our way by pointing out
> that she holidays each year in the Swiss Alps and wears fuck-me shoes.
>
> It might bear on Gore's recommended methods of remediation, but
> that's another point entirely.

### Well, I see Mr Gore as another evangelist, thumping his green book
against the pulpit, invoking fire and brimstone (or rather, high AC
bills) to bring us sinners to the path of righteous self-denial.

That he is using some known scientific facts (like global warming) as
the excuse for proselytizing doesn't exonerate him - what matters is
that he willfully neglects all the other facts (like the benefits of
CO2 for agriculture, and economic analyses) that are inconvenient for
his position. This excludes him from among serious thinkers, and makes
him a preacher - and a hypocritical one, too.

I find it is quite relevant to bring such personal, moral arguments to
bear here, since it is a moral, not a scientific discussion.

Rafal


From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Apr  5 23:21:57 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:21:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49213AA8-DF10-4BB6-9EEA-1FAA896468FA@mac.com>


On Apr 5, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> ### Well, I see Mr Gore as another evangelist, thumping his green book
> against the pulpit, invoking fire and brimstone (or rather, high AC
> bills) to bring us sinners to the path of righteous self-denial.
>

Really?  I have always considered you far more rational that that.   
Why would you stoop to tar and feathering the messenger?  AFAIK, Gore  
is not an advocated of self-denial anywhay.

> That he is using some known scientific facts (like global warming) as
> the excuse for proselytizing doesn't exonerate him - what matters is
> that he willfully neglects all the other facts (like the benefits of
> CO2 for agriculture, and economic analyses) that are inconvenient for
> his position. This excludes him from among serious thinkers, and makes
> him a preacher - and a hypocritical one, too.
>

That is an overstatement.

> I find it is quite relevant to bring such personal, moral arguments to
> bear here, since it is a moral, not a scientific discussion.

The important part is scientific and serious so I find these personal  
argument tedious and utterly irrelevant.

- samantha


From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Apr  5 23:44:48 2007
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:44:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <461589F0.2000708@pobox.com>

Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>In the context of the "climate swindle" allegation, this is about as
>>relevant as dismissing the claims of an astronomer who reports
>>evidence that a killer asteroid is heading our way by pointing out
>>that she holidays each year in the Swiss Alps and wears fuck-me shoes.
> 
> ### Well, I see Mr Gore as another evangelist, thumping his green book
> against the pulpit, invoking fire and brimstone (or rather, high AC
> bills) to bring us sinners to the path of righteous self-denial.
> 
> I find it is quite relevant to bring such personal, moral arguments to
> bear here, since it is a moral, not a scientific discussion.

But Rafal, that fails even as a moral argument.  Logical fallacy of ad 
hominem tu quoque.  Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean 
they're wrong.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Apr  5 23:49:18 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:49:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <49213AA8-DF10-4BB6-9EEA-1FAA896468FA@mac.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<49213AA8-DF10-4BB6-9EEA-1FAA896468FA@mac.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704051649v2699572g81eae93e02ba75bf@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> > I find it is quite relevant to bring such personal, moral arguments to
> > bear here, since it is a moral, not a scientific discussion.
>
> The important part is scientific and serious so I find these personal
> argument tedious and utterly irrelevant.

### I don't see an important scientific question here. Global warming
is real. No scientific controversy here. Whether it is anthropogenic
or not is still a matter of scientific debate (I think it is, at least
in a large part) but it still doesn't matter to me. What matters is
the economic impact, and the cost-benefit effects of various courses
of action - and Mr Gore is a living example of how not to do
cost-benefit analysis.

That he is also a hypocrite is an icing on the cake but boy, it really
strengthens the flavor.

Rafal


From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  6 00:01:02 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoassembly Blueprints using Atomic Resolution
	MRI
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0704050657j65ca9934wc3b416c241b887d2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <694507.21825.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Robert,

I agree that this is a great and highly-leveraged
approach to help "deal" with dangers from
nanotechnology. Not to mention all the other benefits.
I'm really glad to see that Nanorex is making that
generous move. What do you think of the possibility of
including a side project that encourages the design of
dangerous products? Obviously not with the intent that
those designs will ever be used, but for the purpose
of encouraging the designing of a broad arsenal of
effective defenses. Or, do you believe this is a bad
idea that would probably lead to bad outcomes? One
argument that could be made in its defense is that
some jilted geek somewhere is almost certainly going
to be intentionally designing dangerous nano-things,
with or without an open-source project. The legitimate
side project might even fully satisfy their need to
tinker. Not that I dislike geeks in general - I love
geeks.     :-)

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich
  


--- Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/4/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > At this point, all ideas will be helpful. Being a
> non-genius myself, I
> > don't really know how much I could usefully
> contribute, except in the form
> > of donations to SIAI and the like.
> 
> 
> Not being quite so pessimistic as Keith, the chapter
> I'm writing for
> Damien's forthcoming collection will I think include
> physical humans 100
> years from now (within an MBrain developed solar
> system).
> 
> There may be multiple "perfect futures" [1].  I
> believe one requires a fast
> uplift of the physical condition of the majority of
> humanity.  That in turn
> requires a rapid distribution of open source
> nanotechnology.  If everyone
> *knows* in advance of the development of the first
> nanoassemblers that they
> will be able to share in the benefits of that there
> is less likely to be an
> "arms race" or a fight over the spoils, etc.
> 
> Nanorex will be releasing its nanoengineer software
> sometime later this
> year.  Supporting the concept of a few prizes that
> would allow Nano at Home to
> develop in a robust fashion is an alternative to
> SIAI.  There are thousands
> of people aware of nanotechnology in India but they
> don't know how to
> approach it.  Combine cheap computers + software + a
> project framework +
> prizes and you have recipe for producing hundreds of
> nanoengineers and
> thousands of open source nanopart designs.
> 
> For those who are not familiar with my perspectives
> regarding nanotechnology
> development I believe that a "dual" path is possible
> -- an open source,
> public path which gives everyone "volkswagons" and a
> closed source, VC
> financed, business path which gives those who really
> want them "mercedes".
> The difference between volkswagons and mercedes
> tends to be relatively
> subjective as both tend to get one from point A to
> point B.  Unlike historic
> development paths where one generally got the
> expensive cars before the
> cheap cars, if one has the designs in hand both may
> come out of the factory
> at the same time.
> 
> Robert
> 
> 1. Unlike Trance Gemini, my mind yields several,
> though at least for now we
> don't have the Magog to face.
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!  
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 00:36:52 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 20:36:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <461589F0.2000708@pobox.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<461589F0.2000708@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704051736n6dda133dw5a510174412fce38@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> > On 4/5/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>In the context of the "climate swindle" allegation, this is about as
> >>relevant as dismissing the claims of an astronomer who reports
> >>evidence that a killer asteroid is heading our way by pointing out
> >>that she holidays each year in the Swiss Alps and wears fuck-me shoes.
> >
> > ### Well, I see Mr Gore as another evangelist, thumping his green book
> > against the pulpit, invoking fire and brimstone (or rather, high AC
> > bills) to bring us sinners to the path of righteous self-denial.
> >
> > I find it is quite relevant to bring such personal, moral arguments to
> > bear here, since it is a moral, not a scientific discussion.
>
> But Rafal, that fails even as a moral argument.  Logical fallacy of ad
> hominem tu quoque.  Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean
> they're wrong.
>
### I would be guilty of ad hominem tu quoque if I were arguing that
Mr Gore's pronouncements about facts were untrue because he behaves as
if they were untrue ("He is burning electricity as if it didn't matter
for the climate, so maybe it really doesn't matter for the climate!").
That is not what I do. I know that the more electricity you use, the
more impact you may have on the climate.

In highlighting his hypocrisy I take issue with Mr Gore when he makes
moral statements, or prescribes courses of action based on some moral
standard ("we Americans should", "we must", "we must not"). Now, a
hypocrite could make moral claims that I could see as valid, if the
hypocrite was using my own moral system to generate them. In that case
his hypocrisy would not matter, since all statements are made in the
same moral system.

What Mr Gore does is however different - he aims to spread moral
notions that, if adopted, would result in great material harm to me
and almost everybody else, forcing a much lower standard of living. He
personally would benefit, as one of the leaders of statist
environmentalism. Yet by living an energy-profligate life he would
avoid the harm his ideas inflict on others.

In this context, in a clash of competing moral notions, pointing out
hypocrisy is a valid argument. The preachers of communism spouted
about equality, while elevating themselves above others. The preachers
of the Roman church preached self-denial, while wallowing in avarice.
The preachers of environmentalism also preach self-denial, but only to
others.

A loathing for hypocrisy brought about the Reformation, and the fall
of communism. May environmentalism follow this path.

Rafal


From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Fri Apr  6 00:40:40 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:40:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>	<46153EE4.9060102@thomasoliver.net>
	<f7bfe5740704051459o135d0a2bkba35c9c8f6e4afe2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46159708.3040905@thomasoliver.net>

Jef Allbright wrote:

>On 4/5/07, Thomas <Thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Jef Allbright wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>[...] It's only when we consider
>>>volition from our own point of view that we are seduced and overcome
>>>by the illusion that something special is going on.
>>>
>>>- Jef
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes, but don't you think it a little special that the range of human
>>determinism has evolved into rational consciousness?  Even allowing for
>>the possibility that "self" is an illusion, does not respect for human
>>self determinism fuel the transhuman impulse?  -- Thomas
>>
>
>Thomas, I'm afraid I'm not sure I fully understand your comment, but
>I'll try to respond:
>
>I don't think there's anything special, as in fundamentally
>mysterious, involved in human cognition.  
>
But doesn't "special" mean simply "of a distinct or particular kind?" 
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/special)  Can we not distinguish 
between human cognition and non primate brain function?  Does that make 
my comments hard for you to understand?  : )   (Sorry.  Cheap shot, but 
just too funny to pass up.)

>[...]
>Indeed I think self-awareness is an inevitable product of the
>evolutionary process.  I would hesitate, however, to emphasize "human"
>or "rational" in that regard.
>
Do not the "human" and "rational" cognitive developments hallmark our 
expanded self determinism at the point where we see our will as 
relatively "free?"  The evidence of rational failures and inhumanity 
serves to emphasize the optional quality of volitional efforts. --  So, 
sure, hesitate, but humanity has evolved and so has rational cognition.  

>As for the "transhuman impulse", I think that it's a deep part of our
>nature that our reach continues to exceed our grasp[1], and that this
>is best exemplified, but not restricted to our species.
>
>I do think that humanity is special, mainly because I'm currently an
>active member of that club.
>
>- Jef
>
Does that mean we (or just you) are fundamentally mysterious?  : )   -- 
Thomas




From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 01:17:07 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:17:07 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704050553t386a3e91y8544ced010e2580d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704040843h7fee304dh9d599e69c18b0a58@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704042154t363f51a0jbbde358542ef4c17@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704050553t386a3e91y8544ced010e2580d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704051817i41ea08d3ka5d83f9e1407a08b@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

>  I was referring to certain philosophical arguments, such as John Searle's
> > Chinese room, which is wrong for philosophical reasons, not because of
> the
> > undoubted practical difficulties it would pose. Engineering and
> philosophy
> > are not the same discipline.
>
> I don't understand your reasoning here, since Searle's Chinese Room
> doesn't involve "extremely improbable things."  It's wrong for quite
> different reasons.
>
> I do understand that there's a binary distinction between "slightly
> possible" and "impossible", but that doesn't seem to apply here.


Eugen argues that you can't simulate a brain by hand; Frank Tipler in "The
Physics of Immortality" calculates that the energy requirements alone would
forbid such a thing, at least in real time. But, as I think you see, that
misses the point of the argument.

Extreme difficulty despite purposeful effort is a different situation to
extreme improbability given random processes. An example of the latter would
be a Turing-equivalent machine implementing my brain being realised by
cosmic dust clouds. It's far from clear that this could never happen (what
if the universe is very large, or long-lived? what if there are multiple
universes? what about the fact that there are multiple different abstract
machines implementing a particular computation, each multiply realisable?),
but even if it could be shown that it was as close to impossible as doesn't
matter, that doesn't invalidate it as a thought experiment which says
interesting things about functionalism and personal identity.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070406/bd3ba8af/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Apr  5 23:17:46 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:17:46 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta: Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704051459o135d0a2bkba35c9c8f6e4afe2@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <46153EE4.9060102@thomasoliver.net>
	<011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
	<46153EE4.9060102@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070405191653.02c361d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>


If there is a topic which should go on a universal banned list, this is it.

Keith 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Apr  6 02:17:49 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:17:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Improvements to Newcomb's Paradox
Message-ID: <009c01c777f2$798f8bb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Newcomb's Paradox has only one admissable subject
behavior: take just the one box.

An evolutionary proof of this is as follows:  suppose that
box A either does or does not contain dinner, and box
B always contains dessert.  One may live on a steady 
diet of box A, but one gradually dies of nutritional
deficiencies by selecting only box B.

(Those familiar with Newcomb's Paradox should skip
the present paragraph. The AI, or Deity, or whatever
entity has an unassailable track record of always 
seeming to know whether you will always take just
box A or whether you will succumb to the temptation
to take both boxes. In some accounts---like wikipedia's
---it is "box B" which contains the necessary (or extremely
desireable) reward, but in other accounts that box is
called "A".)

Thus evolution would suggest that taking just one box
is an ESS. Or, as Jef Albright would say, taking only
the one box works.

In my own essay, I provide reasons why we should
regard "changing the past" as eminently reasonable
from the point of view of the subject. (See
http://www.leecorbin.com/UseOfNewcombsParadox.html).

Note the analogy to the free will discussion that we have
been having. If you imagine an audience, especially one 
composed of physicists (and--better yet--physicists who
love you and want only the best for you), then as the
Alien made his assignment for the boxes two weeks
ago in their plain public view, the past will not be changed 
by anything you do.  Moreover, since the Alien is always
correct, from the point of view of the audience you do 
not have free will.

But from your point of view---which should be regarded
as on an equal footing with theirs, at least operationally,
you do!

For if you try on some days to take both dinner and dessert,
then you cannot avoide the unmistakeable feeling that you can
*control* whether or not the main box contains dinner. As
a functioning organism you must adopt this point of view
that you *can* decide. Philosophical niceties such as "oh, well,
it's all determined what you will do" are not usefully
descriptive of your actions or your situation.

If you were part of a team who every night had to make
a *decision* as to whether to take one or both boxes, 
your patter about not having choice, or about the contents
of the boxes being already determined, would be received
with jeers and sneers by the others. You would quickly
abandon the language-modality [1] of determinism, and adopt
the language-modality of free will. 

Many people here are quick to disparage the concept of
free will as utter nonsense. But we compatibalists counter
by emphasizing its utility in daily discourse, and are wont
to remind our critics of the primary role of language in
describing not only our world, but necessarily a world
in which we devices are embedded. 

As in every night when you hold arguments with the fools
who want to take both boxes, you (and they) really are
agreeing that choice is possible. 

Go ahead if you want and discard the notion of free will,
but are you going to also discard the notion of a machine
(e.g. you) being able to make a decision?  I have not
heard any of the anti-compatiblists answer this question.

Lee

[1] Language-modality is my much more sophisticated,
refined, and scientific term for what John Clark calls
mouth noises.



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Apr  6 02:46:46 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:46:46 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070405224627.043baeb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 08:36 PM 4/5/2007 -0400, Rafal wrote:

snip

>### I would be guilty of ad hominem tu quoque if I were arguing that
>Mr Gore's pronouncements about facts were untrue because he behaves as
>if they were untrue ("He is burning electricity as if it didn't matter
>for the climate, so maybe it really doesn't matter for the climate!").
>That is not what I do. I know that the more electricity you use, the
>more impact you may have on the climate.

This is not true.  Do you want to reconsider the last sentence?

Or should I tell you what is wrong with it?

Keith



From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 02:47:16 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:47:16 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704051947o20791ba7tcfa6453b1af5654@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
>
> Stathis Papaioannou:
> > A non-believer in free will can still go along with the law as something
> > which is instrumental in bringing about the determined behaviours. We
> put
> > roofs on our houses in order to stay dry, and we stay dry because the
> roofs
> > are in place. Similarly, we punish criminals to prevent further crimes
> and
> > further crimes are prevented because we punish criminals. However, I
> keep
> in
> > mind the fact that the criminals engage in their behaviour either
> because
> it
> > is determined by their genes and environment (in which case it isn't
> their
> > fault) or due to random processes (in which case it isn't their fault).
> > Blaming and revenge are in keeping with a belief in free will; tolerance
> and
> > compassion are in keeping with the absence of such a belief, although
> > tolerance and compassion do not prevent us from taking practical
> measures
> to
> > prevent crimes.
>
> I tend to agree here. But I think the criminals
> engage in their behaviour also because it is
> determined by their 'will', and not just by
> their genes or by contextuality.


Isn't their will determined by their genes and environment? What other
factors could possibly be at play?

I always found difficult to define 'free will'.
> There are several definitions. My personal
> definition was something like 'the 'will' does
> not depend on the past story of (this) universe'.
> After some reflection I also wrote 'the 'will'
> does not depend both on the past story and on the
> future story of (this) universe'. This definition
> seems to be strong indeed :-) and perhaps also
> false and useless :-)


Some people find a place for free will in indeterminacy, perhaps the
indeterminacy in QM (or at least the CI of QM). But at best, that means free
will is *randomness*, and why should we be any happier to believe that our
behaviour is random than that it is determined?

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070406/bec5fea2/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 02:50:46 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:50:46 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704051950r377d91ebj7f0cf359476d45c2@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

There's no paradox here folks, it's just about using the appropriate
> context.  We have no problem at all describing the behavior of *other*
> agents in fully deterministic terms.  It's only when we consider
> volition from our own point of view that we are seduced and overcome
> by the illusion that something special is going on.


So you agree that free will consists only in the fact that we don't know
what we're going to do until we do it?

A digression: does God have free will? It would seem to be inconsistent with
omniscience.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070406/74f64caa/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Fri Apr  6 02:24:41 2007
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:24:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hypocrisy and Preaching (was The great global
	warming swindle)
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <490861.1337.qm@web37212.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:

> ### Interestingly, Al Gore's electricity bill in his
> lavish mansion is about 4000$/month.

> Preachers frequently don't live the lives they
> preach.

I don't understand. How much does the mansion next to
Al Gore spend on electricity?  I thought that what he
was preaching about energy efficiency, if so, why
wouldn't a $3000.00 reduction be a valid amount
compared to $7000.00?   If the difference is $4000.00
then I would assume that Al Gore is preaching and
practising about energy efficiency. Ofcourse, if his
bill is $4000.00 a month and the next door neighbor's
bill is $4200.00, I could rationalize that he is being
a hypocrite. 

I have heard the comment "practice what you preach",
I'm just not convinced anybody can 100% "practice what
they preach". 

How do you determine who is a hypocrite and who isn't?
 If I listen to someone preach that smoking is bad yet
watch them light a cigarette the next moment, I would
consider them a hypocrite. I thought it was about the
proof?  

Just some curious questions and thoughts on my mind.
Thanks
Anna


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 03:10:14 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:10:14 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070405122707.02267bd8@satx.rr.com>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405122707.02267bd8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704052010j42e47290ge0b8613a8c668ba7@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

Criminals are held responsible for their ill deeds because we know
> that while they might have a powerful disposition to act in a malign
> and antisocial fashion they also have the capacity to choose
> otherwise...


But how is this true in a deterministic world? Children and criminals are
just collections of matter which follow the laws of physics (scene in court:
"Your Honour, I submit that my client is just a collection of matter with no
choice other than to obey the laws of physics, and I challenge the
prosecution to prove otherwise!"). If I push a pen off my desk, it *has* to
fall off my desk given the sum of the forces acting on it; only if the
forces had been different could it have chosen differently. Similarly, if
the world is deterministic, a person who makes a particular choice *had* to
make that choice, and only if the physical facts had been different (his
childhood, his genes, his brain chemistry, the alignment of the planets -
whatever) could he have chosen differently. The fact that neither the person
nor an external observer cannot predict which way the choice would go does
not make it "free".

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070406/a1a7be8e/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Apr  6 03:39:10 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 20:39:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704051950r377d91ebj7f0cf359476d45c2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704051950r377d91ebj7f0cf359476d45c2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704052039k2576bbadkfa8fab13d9175591@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/6/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>
> > There's no paradox here folks, it's just about using the appropriate
> > context.  We have no problem at all describing the behavior of *other*
> > agents in fully deterministic terms.  It's only when we consider
> > volition from our own point of view that we are seduced and overcome
> > by the illusion that something special is going on.
>
> So you agree that free will consists only in the fact that we don't know
> what we're going to do until we do it?

Agreed.

> A digression: does God have free will? It would seem to be inconsistent with
> omniscience.

Correct.


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 04:14:18 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 05:14:18 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704052010j42e47290ge0b8613a8c668ba7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405122707.02267bd8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30704052010j42e47290ge0b8613a8c668ba7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704052114n7189a7ces68ec21e3ccb1d1ca@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> But how is this true in a deterministic world? Children and criminals are
> just collections of matter which follow the laws of physics (scene in court:
> "Your Honour, I submit that my client is just a collection of matter with no
> choice other than to obey the laws of physics, and I challenge the
> prosecution to prove otherwise!").
>

And what of it? From that perspective, juries are just collections of matter
with no choice other than to obey the laws of physics, and you can't call
them wrong for convicting the accused - you can't consistently even use
concepts like right and wrong. Once you switch to a higher level of
organization and allow there can be such a thing as wrongful conviction,
you're invoking morality, which implies free will, so you must allow that a
criminal can be held responsible for his actions. This is simple logic;
whether electrons are deterministic or not has nothing to do with it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070406/db608e7f/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 04:18:12 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:18:12 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Improvements to Newcomb's Paradox
In-Reply-To: <009c01c777f2$798f8bb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <009c01c777f2$798f8bb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704052118o22337da8t2d1dae77bf3fde31@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

Newcomb's Paradox has only one admissable subject
> behavior: take just the one box.
>
> An evolutionary proof of this is as follows:  suppose that
> box A either does or does not contain dinner, and box
> B always contains dessert.  One may live on a steady
> diet of box A, but one gradually dies of nutritional
> deficiencies by selecting only box B.
>
> (Those familiar with Newcomb's Paradox should skip
> the present paragraph. The AI, or Deity, or whatever
> entity has an unassailable track record of always
> seeming to know whether you will always take just
> box A or whether you will succumb to the temptation
> to take both boxes. In some accounts---like wikipedia's
> ---it is "box B" which contains the necessary (or extremely
> desireable) reward, but in other accounts that box is
> called "A".)
>
> Thus evolution would suggest that taking just one box
> is an ESS. Or, as Jef Albright would say, taking only
> the one box works.
>
> In my own essay, I provide reasons why we should
> regard "changing the past" as eminently reasonable
> from the point of view of the subject. (See
> http://www.leecorbin.com/UseOfNewcombsParadox.html).
>
> Note the analogy to the free will discussion that we have
> been having. If you imagine an audience, especially one
> composed of physicists (and--better yet--physicists who
> love you and want only the best for you), then as the
> Alien made his assignment for the boxes two weeks
> ago in their plain public view, the past will not be changed
> by anything you do.  Moreover, since the Alien is always
> correct, from the point of view of the audience you do
> not have free will.
>
> But from your point of view---which should be regarded
> as on an equal footing with theirs, at least operationally,
> you do!
>
> For if you try on some days to take both dinner and dessert,
> then you cannot avoide the unmistakeable feeling that you can
> *control* whether or not the main box contains dinner. As
> a functioning organism you must adopt this point of view
> that you *can* decide. Philosophical niceties such as "oh, well,
> it's all determined what you will do" are not usefully
> descriptive of your actions or your situation.
>
> If you were part of a team who every night had to make
> a *decision* as to whether to take one or both boxes,
> your patter about not having choice, or about the contents
> of the boxes being already determined, would be received
> with jeers and sneers by the others. You would quickly
> abandon the language-modality [1] of determinism, and adopt
> the language-modality of free will.
>
> Many people here are quick to disparage the concept of
> free will as utter nonsense. But we compatibalists counter
> by emphasizing its utility in daily discourse, and are wont
> to remind our critics of the primary role of language in
> describing not only our world, but necessarily a world
> in which we devices are embedded.
>
> As in every night when you hold arguments with the fools
> who want to take both boxes, you (and they) really are
> agreeing that choice is possible.
>
> Go ahead if you want and discard the notion of free will,
> but are you going to also discard the notion of a machine
> (e.g. you) being able to make a decision?  I have not
> heard any of the anti-compatiblists answer this question.


This is an interesting take on Newcomb's Paradox. The one-boxers will
ultimately prevail, and therefore one-boxing will become the accepted way of
life. But doesn't this just show that a belief in free will has been
cultivated by the Alien's experiment while, at the same time, even the
variability in choice you would expect from a wild population is being
expunged? Truth is not a matter of utility.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070406/c59c3757/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 04:41:15 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:41:15 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0704052114n7189a7ces68ec21e3ccb1d1ca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405122707.02267bd8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30704052010j42e47290ge0b8613a8c668ba7@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0704052114n7189a7ces68ec21e3ccb1d1ca@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704052141i4cc8d975k58f6afab560bdd@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/6/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But how is this true in a deterministic world? Children and criminals
> > are just collections of matter which follow the laws of physics (scene in
> > court: "Your Honour, I submit that my client is just a collection of matter
> > with no choice other than to obey the laws of physics, and I challenge the
> > prosecution to prove otherwise!").
> >
>
> And what of it? From that perspective, juries are just collections of
> matter with no choice other than to obey the laws of physics, and you can't
> call them wrong for convicting the accused - you can't consistently even use
> concepts like right and wrong. Once you switch to a higher level of
> organization and allow there can be such a thing as wrongful conviction,
> you're invoking morality, which implies free will, so you must allow that a
> criminal can be held responsible for his actions. This is simple logic;
> whether electrons are deterministic or not has nothing to do with it.
>

There can be wrongful conviction in the sense of certain facts being wrong.
However, I reject absolute morality just as I reject free will. There are
certain behaviours in people which are more desirable than others (because
we have evolved to find some things pleasant and other things unpleasant),
and as a matter of utility we set about encouraging the desirable behaviours
and discouraging the undesirable ones. "Moral responsibility" is just a
concept that is sometimes useful in organising society.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070406/e4c6eca2/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Apr  6 04:37:58 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 21:37:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <46154721.2090903@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <200704060446.l364kDKt001989@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
> 
> Damien Broderick wrote:
> > At 12:42 PM 4/5/2007 -0400, Rafal wrote:
> >
> >
> >>### Interestingly, Al Gore's electricity bill in his lavish mansion is
> >>about 4000$/month.
> 
>  From what I've heard, he buys carbon credits to offset this.  It's an
> interesting policy - I have to approve the dry rationalist chutzpah of it.
> 
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          


I have heard of this buying carbon credits.  How does that work?  Who owns
them?  Can I sell Algore some?  Can I sell them on eBay?  Can I sell some to
anyone here?

spike








From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Apr  6 04:49:01 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 21:49:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704032303i530e7016m7aabe23849568387@mail.gmail.com>
	<00a301c777fb$89befbc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00ab01c77802$a87becb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <00c101c77807$970cc850$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 11:03 PM

>> I claim that if one *totally* banishes from his or her consciousness
>> the idea of non-determinism (to the point that it is unthinkable), and
>> only then asks "do I have a choice?", the answer must be "Yes".
>> But so long as there remains even the slightest vestige of the notion
>> of an uncaused event, or the slightest vestige of the soul, then the
>> silly answer "No" may still be entertained.
>>
> You could say that, or you could say that the silly answer "yes"
> should be banished once you have understood the impossibility of 
> something being neither determined nor random, which is
> (I believe) the common notion of free will.

True.  Your post has made me see the symmetrical nature of
whether or not to accept free will.

>> (When for example, you ask yourself, do I have a choice about
>> regarding answering this email, the answer "No" is less informative
>> and less true than the answer "Yes".)
>
> But I know that I don't have a choice; I was destined to answer it,
> but I just didn't know it until after the fact.

You probably meant to write "But I know that I *didn't* have a 
choice". It is precisely use of the present tense in denying choice
that so aggravates us compatibists.

>> The machine must decide!
>> So---recalling that we have utterly and without reservation totally
>> gone beyond even a hint of uncaused events---this can *only* mean
>> that the machine is taking these factors into account, i.e., a decision
>> is simply "taking factors into account". (What else could it be?)
>
> It *can't* mean anything else. But then, the concept of a "decision"
> becomes trivialised. If I push my pen off the desk, the pen takes
> into account all the forces acting on it and "decides" to fall; had the
> forces on it been different, it would have "decided" differently.

Good point. Yet for the sake of coherent descriptions of the world
around us, we do want to reserve some qualities for people and
other complex machinery;  "to be conscious", for example, as well
as "to make decisions". 

> Is the pen exercising free will? Is an intelligent agent subject to
> deterministic laws any more free than the pen is?

I agree that an intelligent agent is no freer from deterministic laws
than is the [falling] pen. On that score, you make a very good point.

But my point is that it's very descriptive and exceedingly useful to
describe our ontology as containing creatures like ourselves who
"decide" things, who make "choices" and "decisions", and whose
will is free unless it's constrained by situations or agents that
interfere with its usual processing.

> The only difference I can see between external compulsion
> and internal compulsion is that in the former case you are aware that 
> you are being compelled, and resent it. A really powerful and
> skilful dictator would make his subjects do exactly what he wants 
> them to do while letting them think all the while that they are
> making free choices; this is the ultimate aim of propaganda.

That's a very good point, and a good example. It results from 
a change in viewpoint, and also a change in ease of prediction,
two very, very important points.

I mentioned also tonight that from a certain point of view, one
can control what happens in the past. Depending on the situation,
this is not an entirely absurd view.

But here is another nice qualification:  recall that your behavior
is probably unpredictable in principle.  As a chaotic system,
there is no shortcut to obtaining your future states other than
by running the calculation, in which case you are conscious
anyway.   When---as in your example---there *are* shortcuts,
e.g., what a person feels after being exposed to the dictator's
propaganda, is entirely predictable, then even we compatibilists
would refrain from heartily endorsing that one's will was free.

>> I'd maintain that it is not conceivable that free will is an illusion, when
>> what HAS to be meant by the phrase is as explained above

Here I will do the unusual step of mocking my own stance.
I very well could have contrived an argument proving God's
existence in the same way.  I could have said "clearly
there there can be no supernatural forces, the only admissable
concept of God doesn't have supernatural attributes, and
didn't make these obviously false historical gestures. Therefore
if we smartly interpret "God" to mean, say, "the sense of 
Spirituality", then clearly God exists.

So I back down from my position (do other people on this list
every do this?) and admit that the notion of "free will" has as
many disadvantages as advantages.

I will end by suggesting that either statement:

     (A) free will does not exist
     (B) free will does exists

are no more meaningful than saying that "Julius Caesar is prime".
(Neither than nor its negation is true.)

>> It serves the purpose of identifying who or what made a decision.
>> Either I can go visit the prison by my own free will, say as a reporter
>> and thus exercise my free will, or I can be arrested and forced to go
>> to prison, in which case my free will has been abrogated
>
> It becomes a matter of semantics, in that case. If you still believe
> that "free will" applies in the example of the chess player I have
> given above, then we agree, although we are calling it different things.

That is so.

Lee



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Apr  6 04:55:10 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 21:55:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704051649v2699572g81eae93e02ba75bf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<49213AA8-DF10-4BB6-9EEA-1FAA896468FA@mac.com>
	<7641ddc60704051649v2699572g81eae93e02ba75bf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CC3DE455-84F6-4E1A-97CC-5F5DC2D51C29@mac.com>


On Apr 5, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> On 4/5/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> > I find it is quite relevant to bring such personal, moral  
>> arguments to
>> > bear here, since it is a moral, not a scientific discussion.
>>
>> The important part is scientific and serious so I find these personal
>> argument tedious and utterly irrelevant.
>
> ### I don't see an important scientific question here. Global warming
> is real. No scientific controversy here. Whether it is anthropogenic
> or not is still a matter of scientific debate (I think it is, at least
> in a large part) but it still doesn't matter to me. What matters is
> the economic impact, and the cost-benefit effects of various courses
> of action - and Mr Gore is a living example of how not to do
> cost-benefit analysis.
>

Then we would better employ our energies thinking of workable  
solutions and how to get them implemented, yes?

- s



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Apr  6 05:05:31 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:05:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704051947o20791ba7tcfa6453b1af5654@mail.gmail.com>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704051947o20791ba7tcfa6453b1af5654@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6D18B51F-8A3B-402C-B6A7-DFB01CC3834F@mac.com>


On Apr 5, 2007, at 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
> On 4/6/07, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou:
> > A non-believer in free will can still go along with the law as  
> something
> > which is instrumental in bringing about the determined  
> behaviours. We put
> > roofs on our houses in order to stay dry, and we stay dry because  
> the
> roofs
> > are in place. Similarly, we punish criminals to prevent further  
> crimes and
> > further crimes are prevented because we punish criminals.  
> However, I keep
> in
> > mind the fact that the criminals engage in their behaviour either  
> because
> it
> > is determined by their genes and environment (in which case it  
> isn't their
> > fault) or due to random processes (in which case it isn't their  
> fault).
> > Blaming and revenge are in keeping with a belief in free will;  
> tolerance
> and
> > compassion are in keeping with the absence of such a belief,  
> although
> > tolerance and compassion do not prevent us from taking practical  
> measures
> to
> > prevent crimes.
>
> I tend to agree here. But I think the criminals
> engage in their behaviour also because it is
> determined by their 'will', and not just by
> their genes or by contextuality.
>
> Isn't their will determined by their genes and environment? What  
> other factors could possibly be at play?

Nope.  At least people as far as we can reasonably tell with nearly  
identical genes and environments turn out so differently that you  
would have to believe the flutter of a butterflies wing causes a  
typhoon on the other side of the world.  It is not reasonable to  
prattle on about physics being physics when the system or behaviors  
being studied cannot be fruitfully and practically analyzed,  
understood or predicted at such a level.

>
> Some people find a place for free will in indeterminacy, perhaps  
> the indeterminacy in QM (or at least the CI of QM). But at best,  
> that means free will is *randomness*, and why should we be any  
> happier to believe that our behaviour is random than that it is  
> determined?
>

At the point you choose from among alternatives you are exercising  
free will.   I will not dance on the head of some philosophical pin  
that a sufficiently powerful and near all knowing mind could predict  
with perfect accuracy how you will choose in any situation.   It has  
nothing to do with behavior being either random or determined.  That  
false dichotomy is fruitless to pursue.  Something more fruitful as  
how we can choose thee best values and exercise the best decision  
making process in our choices that maximize our gaining and keeping  
those values.    The rest seems to me a colossal waste of (for now)  
all too limited time.

- s

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070405/8685fa38/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Apr  6 05:06:47 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:06:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704051950r377d91ebj7f0cf359476d45c2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704051950r377d91ebj7f0cf359476d45c2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A75E20FC-C1CE-4D12-BBE4-185D0FBA20C7@mac.com>


On Apr 5, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
> On 4/6/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>
> There's no paradox here folks, it's just about using the appropriate
> context.  We have no problem at all describing the behavior of *other*
> agents in fully deterministic terms.  It's only when we consider
> volition from our own point of view that we are seduced and overcome
> by the illusion that something special is going on.
>
> So you agree that free will consists only in the fact that we don't  
> know what we're going to do until we do it?
>
> A digression: does God have free will? It would seem to be  
> inconsistent with omniscience.
>

So now you want to talk about invisible unicorns?   I rest my case  
regarding the merits of this topic.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070405/116ddaa4/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Apr  6 05:19:33 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:19:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoassembly Blueprints using Atomic Resolution
	MRI
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <deaa866a0704040721y6218a296s6bf67b2982b803c5@mail.gmail.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <FB2C060C-6AED-4682-81D6-9676FB7EC747@mac.com>


On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Keith Henson wrote:

> At 03:15 PM 4/4/2007 -0700, Jeffrey wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> The main "advantages" I was thinking of were a
>> possibly considerable size(space) and weight savings
>> for the space colony, plus a potentially much simpler
>> (probably cheaper) internal environment. For example,
>> if you could just rebuild a strawberry to eat, you
>> wouldn't require any specialized light sources, soil,
>> bacteria, nutrients, additional physical space, etc.
>
> The entire problem of feeding people in space was worked over in a  
> great
> deal of detail over 30 years ago.  I can't point you to an on-line  
> site,
> but if you can find a copy of the Space Manufacturing Conference  
> for 1975,
> "how to grow food" is spelled out in considerable detail with a  
> pretentious
> title on the paper.  Incidentally, in space you have all the light you
> want, and area isn't that hard to make either.

I have doubts about putting  massive numbers of normal body form  
human beings in space.  The technology required to do so changes the  
equations so much is becomes doubtful whether humans or something  
distinctly not today's kind of human would colonize space.    
Supporting a lot of bodies designed for earth conditions does not  
seem optimal.   It is certainly tremendously expensive.   It could be  
done employing telepresence and robotics to build a lot of the needed  
infrastructure and with beanstalks or something much cheaper to get  
out of the gravity well.  But that implies building out technology  
that may make homo saps irrelevant and seriously non-competitive in  
space.

>
> You don't need soil or bacteria.  In a closed system, what comes  
> out of the
> sewage plant incinerator has everything except a bit of nitric acid  
> for a
> hydroponics solution that will keep the plants happy.  Now it might
> eventually be easy to rebuild strawberries to eat, but if you are  
> that far
> into nanotechnology, why not just run on electricity and simulate  
> eating a
> berry?

For that matter, why should you choose to keep a body configuration  
that requires such primitive forms of energization as digestion and  
elimination cycles?

>
>> Whatever the case turns out to be, the near future
>> will, without a doubt, be very exciting. :-)
>
> There is good exciting and bad exciting.  Unfortunately, the odds are
> stacked by the long evolutionary history of our species against the  
> future
> being good.
>

Yes.  It could be argued that any evolved species is likely to have  
evolved many counterproductive traits making its successful emergence  
into and beyond technological singularity extremely unlikely.   This  
is probably part of the answer to "Where are the aliens?"   They  
didn't make it past this stage.


> But if you want to do something to improve the odds of a bright  
> future, I
> have a number of suggestions.  Even so, the most likely number for  
> physical
> state humans 100 years from now is zero.

I for one would love to hear some of the suggestions.

- samantha




From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Apr  6 05:22:13 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:22:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <35261.5003.qm@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <35261.5003.qm@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <15A71117-3028-4E99-A319-A59C93DAD5AB@mac.com>


On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:41 PM, A B wrote:

> Hi Thomas,
>
> Could you somehow rephrase your objection/question,
> I'm afraid I don't really understand it. Exceptional
> reading comprehension is not one of my strengths.
>
> The point that I'm trying to make is that if "free
> will" (as it is commonly interpreted) really exists
> (which I don't believe at all) then perhaps we should
> all acknowledge that it is quite limited (severely in
> my opinion). If it were not limited, I would have
> everything I've ever wanted, no matter how
> fantastical.

What?  Free will is about being able to choose between alternatives,  
including alternative courses of action.  It is not remotely about  
being able to impose your will on the universe.

- s




From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 06:15:47 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:15:47 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <6D18B51F-8A3B-402C-B6A7-DFB01CC3834F@mac.com>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704051947o20791ba7tcfa6453b1af5654@mail.gmail.com>
	<6D18B51F-8A3B-402C-B6A7-DFB01CC3834F@mac.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704052315h168d2575kf8e17eb39791174c@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

>
> > I tend to agree here. But I think the criminals
> > engage in their behaviour also because it is
> > determined by their 'will', and not just by
> > their genes or by contextuality.
>
>
> Isn't their will determined by their genes and environment? What other
> factors could possibly be at play?
>
>
> Nope.  At least people as far as we can reasonably tell with nearly
> identical genes and environments turn out so differently that you would have
> to believe the flutter of a butterflies wing causes a typhoon on the other
> side of the world.  It is not reasonable to prattle on about physics being
> physics when the system or behaviors being studied cannot be fruitfully and
> practically analyzed, understood or predicted at such a level.
>

Recall that even though a chaotic system is unpredictable it is still
deterministic. And while identical twins can have the same genes, it is not
possible that they have exactly the same environment; for a start, they
cannot both occupy the same space. It's not inconceivable that butterflies
fluttering in Iraq today will have an effect on George Bush's foreign policy
decisions a few months down the track. However, as you and Lee point out,
there is not much practical value in invoking determinism when the system
that is supposed to be determined cannot be analysed, and in this
compatibilists find room for free will, whereas I find room for the illusion
of free will.

Some people find a place for free will in indeterminacy, perhaps the
> indeterminacy in QM (or at least the CI of QM). But at best, that means free
> will is *randomness*, and why should we be any happier to believe that our
> behaviour is random than that it is determined?
>
>
> At the point you choose from among alternatives you are exercising free
> will.   I will not dance on the head of some philosophical pin that a
> sufficiently powerful and near all knowing mind could predict with perfect
> accuracy how you will choose in any situation.   It has nothing to do with
> behavior being either random or determined.  That false dichotomy is
> fruitless to pursue.  Something more fruitful as how we can choose thee best
> values and exercise the best decision making process in our choices that
> maximize our gaining and keeping those values.    The rest seems to me a
> colossal waste of (for now) all too limited time.
>

Fair enough. That puts you in Eugen Leitl's philosophy-hating camp.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070406/5c5af3dc/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 06:21:14 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:21:14 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <A75E20FC-C1CE-4D12-BBE4-185D0FBA20C7@mac.com>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704051950r377d91ebj7f0cf359476d45c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<A75E20FC-C1CE-4D12-BBE4-185D0FBA20C7@mac.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704052321v6bc5c824ycfe866d9f320e060@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> A digression: does God have free will? It would seem to be inconsistent
> with omniscience.
>
>
> So now you want to talk about invisible unicorns?   I rest my case
> regarding the merits of this topic.
>

Well, like the concept of an invisible pink unicorn, this shows a logical
contradiction in theism. Personally I don't need more reasons not to believe
in God, but I collect them as a harmless hobby.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070406/555d3c61/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 14:27:54 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:27:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <CC3DE455-84F6-4E1A-97CC-5F5DC2D51C29@mac.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<49213AA8-DF10-4BB6-9EEA-1FAA896468FA@mac.com>
	<7641ddc60704051649v2699572g81eae93e02ba75bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC3DE455-84F6-4E1A-97CC-5F5DC2D51C29@mac.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704060727y411924e2rca49c4de795de2cb@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 5, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> > On 4/5/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > I find it is quite relevant to bring such personal, moral
> >> arguments to
> >> > bear here, since it is a moral, not a scientific discussion.
> >>
> >> The important part is scientific and serious so I find these personal
> >> argument tedious and utterly irrelevant.
> >
> > ### I don't see an important scientific question here. Global warming
> > is real. No scientific controversy here. Whether it is anthropogenic
> > or not is still a matter of scientific debate (I think it is, at least
> > in a large part) but it still doesn't matter to me. What matters is
> > the economic impact, and the cost-benefit effects of various courses
> > of action - and Mr Gore is a living example of how not to do
> > cost-benefit analysis.
> >
>
> Then we would better employ our energies thinking of workable
> solutions and how to get them implemented, yes?
>
### By all means! Especially if there were problems that would need to
be addressed. But, since the predicted net effect of global warming on
the US economy is a gain of about 50 billion dollars over the next few
decades (after adding losses from increased cooling loads, minor
losses from the few inches of rising ocean levels, and adding gains
from reduced heating bills and greatly improved agricultural output),
I feel no pressing need to find solutions.

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 14:29:06 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:29:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070405215352.043d4008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<461589F0.2000708@pobox.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070405215352.043d4008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704060729l5aeb105n423bdd32a9287108@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> At 08:36 PM 4/5/2007 -0400, Rafal wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >### I would be guilty of ad hominem tu quoque if I were arguing that
> >Mr Gore's pronouncements about facts were untrue because he behaves as
> >if they were untrue ("He is burning electricity as if it didn't matter
> >for the climate, so maybe it really doesn't matter for the climate!").
> >That is not what I do. I know that the more electricity you use, the
> >more impact you may have on the climate.
>
> This is not true.  Do you want to reconsider the last sentence?
>
> Or should I tell you what is wrong with it?
>
### I am looking forward to your opinion.

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 15:45:43 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:45:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hypocrisy and Preaching (was The great global
	warming swindle)
In-Reply-To: <490861.1337.qm@web37212.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<490861.1337.qm@web37212.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704060845k796fa5b9le3ba0d8dd66db46d@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, Anna Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> --- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ### Interestingly, Al Gore's electricity bill in his
> > lavish mansion is about 4000$/month.
>
> > Preachers frequently don't live the lives they
> > preach.
>
> I don't understand. How much does the mansion next to
> Al Gore spend on electricity?  I thought that what he
> was preaching about energy efficiency, if so, why
> wouldn't a $3000.00 reduction be a valid amount
> compared to $7000.00?   If the difference is $4000.00
> then I would assume that Al Gore is preaching and
> practising about energy efficiency. Ofcourse, if his
> bill is $4000.00 a month and the next door neighbor's
> bill is $4200.00, I could rationalize that he is being
> a hypocrite.
>
### The environmentalists I know are not really any more efficient
than me, although they frequently pay lip service to it. They are
really after a diminished "ecological footprint" of humans, and
especially other humans. Mr Gore's ecological footprint is huge (which
I see as not bad, as long as he is paying for it himself) but he
demands from me (and other Americans) to reduce my footprint, and he
is willing to use the force of the state to cut me down to size. I see
this as very bad.

Whether his neighbor's mansion burns 3000$ or 10000$ a month doesn't
matter, as long as the neighbor is not a crusading environmentalist
(and pays his bills).

--------------------------------------
> I have heard the comment "practice what you preach",
> I'm just not convinced anybody can 100% "practice what
> they preach".

### Absolutely everybody can reduce their preaching until it fits
exactly with what they already practice.
--------------------------------------
>
> How do you determine who is a hypocrite and who isn't?
>  If I listen to someone preach that smoking is bad yet
> watch them light a cigarette the next moment, I would
> consider them a hypocrite. I thought it was about the
> proof?

### I prefer to reserve the word "hypocrite" to somebody falsely
claiming to have certain moral beliefs with the aim of manipulating
others for his ends. The smoker in your example may very well believe
that smoking is bad for his health but be too weak to quit, so he
would neither falsely describe his beliefs, nor use such claims to
manipulate others for his ends.

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 15:57:42 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:57:42 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704011344g2ab182f2o3036707ab9bd3eef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30703270503i57581b1g5543892972b5905f@mail.gmail.com>
	<02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704011344g2ab182f2o3036707ab9bd3eef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704060857o77d6c446x6dd7fab9cdf3e327@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/1/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> On 4/1/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/30/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Did the number 0x0bd11a0bb188f291956549705169a996110841d4 exist?
> >
> > ### Yes! Always and forever, timeless, just as any element of the
> > platonic plenum.
>
> Rafal, I don't pretend to be able to dissuade anyone from any abstract
> belief, but along with infinite primes and infinite variations on
> infinities, do you also believe that "redness" "exists" in the
> "platonic plenum?"

### Yes, I can even see it sometimes.

There is a problem with believing in too few entities - if one insists
that entities not proven to exist should be assumed not to exist, then
one necessarily places himself at the conceptual center of the
universe. If I say that there is nothing beyond the most distant
object I can see, then my position is very special.

Since I don't think I am that special, I am forced to assume that
there are entities in existence (i.e. having at least one property)
that I have not observed, nor will ever be able to observe or think of
even in principle. This leads me to modal realism, and therefore, yes,
"redness" exists.

Rafal


From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Apr  6 16:05:42 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:05:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704060727y411924e2rca49c4de795de2cb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<49213AA8-DF10-4BB6-9EEA-1FAA896468FA@mac.com>
	<7641ddc60704051649v2699572g81eae93e02ba75bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC3DE455-84F6-4E1A-97CC-5F5DC2D51C29@mac.com>
	<7641ddc60704060727y411924e2rca49c4de795de2cb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1BE43E82-DCD4-409A-A2D4-1C9BF290139A@mac.com>


On Apr 6, 2007, at 7:27 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

>>
> ### By all means! Especially if there were problems that would need to
> be addressed. But, since the predicted net effect of global warming on
> the US economy is a gain of about 50 billion dollars over the next few
> decades (after adding losses from increased cooling loads, minor
> losses from the few inches of rising ocean levels, and adding gains
> from reduced heating bills and greatly improved agricultural output),
> I feel no pressing need to find solutions.


Predicted by whom and with what biases?  There are many possible  
scenarios and many of them are not so rosy.  How much would a few  
Katrina-like storms cost?  How much for major drought? How much for a  
Katrina or larger storm hitting the oil and shipping of the Gulf more  
directly?  $50 billion?  Pocket change in this time of $9 trillion in  
admitted deficits.    Are you willing to bet on your scenario to the  
extent of saying nothing needs to be done?

And what happens to the rest of the world?


- samantha




From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 16:13:17 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:13:17 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
References: <f21c22e30703270503i57581b1g5543892972b5905f@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704060913p38131d30we9d384da29e66843@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/3/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 03:09:36PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> > > Not all circuits can count, it take special ones.
> >
> > ### You evaded the question. What is so special about certain material
> > objects (human brains, ink on paper, certain circuits) that makes
>
> Ink on paper, no, (unless it's one of them fancy inkjet-printed
> electronics which is smart enough to count). Human brains and certain circuits,
> yes, because through evolutionary optimization (all smart human artifacts are
> causally entangled with said optimization, which is not true for dumb
> objects, man-made, or otherwise) they have evolved to be able to make
> measurements on their environment/tracking certain aspects of state
> (including themselves), which is externally denoted (in your, mine,
> and a fair number of other heads) as "counting" and "numbers".
>
> The pigment marks on dead tree are completely meaningless without any
> such systems and said measurements (unless it's one damn smart paper).
>
> > their states able to support the existence of numbers (and be
> > absolutely necessary to the existence of numbers), while other
> > material objects do support the existence of numbers?
>
> The numbers are not in the object but the observer (the systems
> have to agree on a common code as to configuration states of the object, which
> requires communication, or a common point of origin acting as
> a communication channel equivalent). Observer complex, external
> encoding trivial. Sufficiently so that the observer can encode
> internally, without breaking a sweat.

### OK, there are certain networks in the temporal and parietal
cortices, a part of ventral processing stream (the "what" stream),
that form the concept of "chicken". Then there are other networks,
located slightly more dorsally in the parietal cortex, that subserve
numerosity and the even higher level parietal and frontal cortices
that allow the manipulation of abstract representations of numbers.

All of these cortices need to use continuous, highly structured data
streams for their development. The data is generated by sense organs
and various subcortical structures, and are eventually traceable to
objects and processes in the external world. There are referents to
"chickens". There are referents to "numbers". The referents exist
independently of the cortices that form the concepts related to them.

In what way are the referents of the concept "chicken" existentially
different from the referents of the concept "17"?

Rafal


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Apr  6 16:19:08 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 18:19:08 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <1BE43E82-DCD4-409A-A2D4-1C9BF290139A@mac.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<49213AA8-DF10-4BB6-9EEA-1FAA896468FA@mac.com>
	<7641ddc60704051649v2699572g81eae93e02ba75bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC3DE455-84F6-4E1A-97CC-5F5DC2D51C29@mac.com>
	<7641ddc60704060727y411924e2rca49c4de795de2cb@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BE43E82-DCD4-409A-A2D4-1C9BF290139A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20070406161908.GI9439@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 09:05:42AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> > ### By all means! Especially if there were problems that would need to
> > be addressed. But, since the predicted net effect of global warming on
> > the US economy is a gain of about 50 billion dollars over the next few

I've heard some estimates that total world GNP is to take a 20% dive
due to global warming. Looking at Collapse, it appears plausible.
Precipitation shifts->crop failure->famine->migrations->wars, etc.

Notice that I have no idea whether this is true, and don't have
any personal interest debating the minutiae. To me, personally,
waste of energy is an earmark of both poor stewardship, and primitive
technology. I like neither the former, nor the latter.

While I can't match Gore's 4 k$/month electricity bill (if it not be 
apocryphal), our ~720 EUR/year are rather excessive.

> > decades (after adding losses from increased cooling loads, minor
> > losses from the few inches of rising ocean levels, and adding gains
> > from reduced heating bills and greatly improved agricultural output),
> > I feel no pressing need to find solutions.
> 
> 
> Predicted by whom and with what biases?  There are many possible  
> scenarios and many of them are not so rosy.  How much would a few  
> Katrina-like storms cost?  How much for major drought? How much for a  
> Katrina or larger storm hitting the oil and shipping of the Gulf more  
> directly?  $50 billion?  Pocket change in this time of $9 trillion in  
> admitted deficits.    Are you willing to bet on your scenario to the  
> extent of saying nothing needs to be done?
> 
> And what happens to the rest of the world?

S?ils n?ont plus de pain, qu?ils mangent de la brioche.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Apr  6 16:24:55 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 18:24:55 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704060913p38131d30we9d384da29e66843@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704060913p38131d30we9d384da29e66843@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070406162455.GJ9439@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 12:13:17PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> In what way are the referents of the concept "chicken" existentially
> different from the referents of the concept "17"?

No different, as long as you don't count them before they hatch.

More seriously, when you track your external environment, you have 
to do both the quantity and the quality part. Numbers are not at
all different from chickens, as far as neuron spike-counters are
concerned.

Mmh, all this talk about beans and chickens is making me hungry.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From jonkc at att.net  Fri Apr  6 16:20:16 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:20:16 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede><f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com><002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede><f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30704051950r377d91ebj7f0cf359476d45c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<A75E20FC-C1CE-4D12-BBE4-185D0FBA20C7@mac.com>
Message-ID: <006d01c77867$858d19d0$b3064e0c@MyComputer>

Samantha Atkins Wrote:

>So you agree that free will consists only in the fact that we don't know
> what we're going to do until we do it? A digression: does God
> have free will?

No. For the mind to totally understand itself it must form a perfect
internal model of itself. The model must not only describe the
rest of the mind in every detail but it must also depict the
model itself with a micro model. This micro model must represent
the rest of the brain and the micro model itself with a micro
micro model. This path leads to an impossible infinite regress.
Both the brain and the model must be made up of a finite number
of elements. If we are not to lose accuracy the components of
the brain must have a one to one correspondence with the elements
of the model. But this is impossible because the brain as a whole
must have more members than the part that is just the model.

This argument does not hold if the mind is infinite, that is if
it has an infinite number of segments. It would be possible to
find a one to one correspondence with a proper subset of itself;
for example you CAN find a one to one correspondence between
the set of odd integers with the set of all integers. Thus an
infinite intellect could predict all its actions without error.

So humans have free will but GOD if SHE exists does not.

> So now you want to talk about invisible unicorns?
> I rest my case regarding the merits of this topic.

The topic has merit because a misunderstanding of it has caused gross 
confusion in philosophy and absurdities in criminal law; but that's not to 
say all the posts on this list on the subject have had merit.

  John K Clark












From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 16:40:26 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:40:26 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704060727y411924e2rca49c4de795de2cb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<49213AA8-DF10-4BB6-9EEA-1FAA896468FA@mac.com>
	<7641ddc60704051649v2699572g81eae93e02ba75bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC3DE455-84F6-4E1A-97CC-5F5DC2D51C29@mac.com>
	<7641ddc60704060727y411924e2rca49c4de795de2cb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0704060940i11874d7dse3d721ca90cb926e@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> ### By all means! Especially if there were problems that would need to
> be addressed. But, since the predicted net effect of global warming on
> the US economy is a gain of about 50 billion dollars over the next few
> decades (after adding losses from increased cooling loads, minor
> losses from the few inches of rising ocean levels, and adding gains
> from reduced heating bills and greatly improved agricultural output),
> I feel no pressing need to find solutions.
>


No overlooked side-effects?


I think I shall take this as a new definition of 'chutzpah'.

One humorous example of chutzpah is often given as follows: "A boy is
on trial for murdering his parents, and he begs of the judge leniency
because he is an orphan."


BillK


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 16:43:43 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:43:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704060727y411924e2rca49c4de795de2cb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403193302.0231ce58@satx.rr.com>
	<4613523E.8000200@thomasoliver.net>
	<7641ddc60704050942v6f8f26d5w8ef76c690618fbb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405123804.02257798@satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60704051555s592fc8few21cdcab19f66a1ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<49213AA8-DF10-4BB6-9EEA-1FAA896468FA@mac.com>
	<7641ddc60704051649v2699572g81eae93e02ba75bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC3DE455-84F6-4E1A-97CC-5F5DC2D51C29@mac.com>
	<7641ddc60704060727y411924e2rca49c4de795de2cb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704060943w73d9c62doa4d165bb012c66ac@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ### By all means! Especially if there were problems that would need to
> be addressed. But, since the predicted net effect of global warming on
> the US economy is a gain of about 50 billion dollars over the next few
> decades (after adding losses from increased cooling loads, minor
> losses from the few inches of rising ocean levels, and adding gains
> from reduced heating bills and greatly improved agricultural output),
> I feel no pressing need to find solutions.


Rafal, I believe you are going to have to cite a reference for this.  And in
particular, is the perspective only a U.S. perspective or a "world neutral"
perspective?  And if it were framed in "world neutral" perspectives (i.e. we
relocate all individuals living on islands < 10m above sea level to Great
Bear lake in CA [significantly warmer at some point in the future]) would
the consequences still be $50B+?

If you are not arguing from a world perspective then one is arguing from the
perspective of "I win, you lose, so?"  As $500B misspent in Iraq shows that
perspective may be flawed [1].

I would like to see the discussion take a perspective of "What is the most
extropic path?"  How does one save the greatest number of people at the
least cost?  So one might devote those funds toward advancing things like
nanotechnology R&D.  In the face of robust MNT global warming is a *red
herring*.  I've stated it before and I'll state it again "global warming
does not matter if one has robust MNT."  If one has robust MNT one simply
removes all of the CO2 and CH4 from the atmosphere, piles it up in nice
refrigerated storage areas and watches while all the plant life dies.  It is
*really* that simple.  So what this entire conversation is about is a
perspective involving some window between when global warming becomes
"critical" and robust MNT is unavailable.  I would like to see anyone frame
that argument (with references of course).

Robert

1. And let us *not* get into this since it goes back into the history of
colonial powers carving up regions of land encompassing tribes relatively
incapable of coexisting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070406/ebe0657f/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Fri Apr  6 17:36:05 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:36:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle.
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00c801c77872$1339abe0$b3064e0c@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> global warming is the favored model
> of experts in all the relevant fields.

Nearly everybody agrees that the world has been getting warmer over the last
century or so and most people think humans probably had something to do with
it; the debate is how important is this and even if it's a bad thing;
Siberia and Canada and the Sahara would benefit, Bangladesh would not.
This is what Freeman Dyson had to say on the subject:

"Global warming theories are unreliable, exaggerated, and based on models
with many flaws and the researchers in this field create a lot of hype to
steal money from more legitimate human activities"

"Climate change is a real problem, partly caused by human activities, but
its importance has been grossly exaggerated. "It is far less important than
other social problems such as poverty, infectious diseases, deforestation,
extinction of species on land and in the sea, not to mention war, nuclear
weapons and biological weapons."

"We do not know whether the observed climate changes are on balance good or
bad for the health of the biosphere.  And the effects of atmospheric carbon
dioxide as a fertilizer of plant growth are at least as important as its
effects on climate."

John K Clark





From scerir at libero.it  Fri Apr  6 17:47:18 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 19:47:18 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede><f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com><002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704051947o20791ba7tcfa6453b1af5654@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000301c77873$9f917270$b2bf1f97@archimede>

> > I tend to agree here. But I think the criminals
> > engage in their behaviour also because it is
> > determined by their 'will', and not just by
> > their genes or by contextuality.

Stathis Papaioannou
> Isn't their will determined by their genes and
> environment? What other factors could possibly
> be at play?

I do not think that genes and environment
play a major role when people buy, or sell,
(or keep) shares of IBM, or Apple.
But for sure genes and environment are
important factors, in general.

> Some people find a place for free will in indeterminacy, 
> perhaps the indeterminacy in QM (or at least the CI of QM). 
> But at best, that means free will is *randomness*, 
> and why should we be any happier to believe that our
> behaviour is random than that it is determined?

Asher Peres wrote several pages (with calculations)
about free will, especially in case of (possible) 
physical 'entanglements' between a subject and 
another subject. But he found that the 'will' was
'free' enough, in any possible condition. 

Note that the 'free will' of the observer is itself
a precondition if one wants to prove Bell
theorems. If you remove the essential assumption
of 'free will' you can also explain the so called 
quantum nonlocality, via a sort of 'superdeterminism',
as Bell called it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism 

s.

"It has been argued that quantum mechanics is not locally causal and
cannot be embedded in a locally causal theory. That conclusion depends on
treating certain experimental parameters, typically the orientations of
polarization filters, as free variables. But it might be that this apparent
freedom is illusory. Perhaps experimental parameters and experimental
results are both consequences, or partially so, of some common hidden
mechanism. Then the apparent non-locality could be simulated."
-John Bell, "Free Variables and Local Causality",  'Epistemological
Letters', 15, (1977)




From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Apr  6 18:10:00 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:10:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704060857o77d6c446x6dd7fab9cdf3e327@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com>
	<02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704011344g2ab182f2o3036707ab9bd3eef@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60704060857o77d6c446x6dd7fab9cdf3e327@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704061110n3767cd56sbc75f7c5220e0ca2@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> > On 4/1/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3/30/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Did the number 0x0bd11a0bb188f291956549705169a996110841d4 exist?
> > >
> > > ### Yes! Always and forever, timeless, just as any element of the
> > > platonic plenum.
> >
> > Rafal, I don't pretend to be able to dissuade anyone from any abstract
> > belief, but along with infinite primes and infinite variations on
> > infinities, do you also believe that "redness" "exists" in the
> > "platonic plenum?"
>
> ### Yes, I can even see it sometimes.

Thanks, your response contributes significantly to my understanding of
your position.  If I may ask another calibrating question:  Do you
have an opinion on the validity of subjective Bayesian probability?


> There is a problem with believing in too few entities - if one insists
> that entities not proven to exist should be assumed not to exist, then
> one necessarily places himself at the conceptual center of the
> universe.

I agree with Einstein's statement that explanations should be as
simple as possible, but not simpler.

My POV is that *every* agent is necessarily at the "conceptual center"
of their universe, and by recognizing this one forms a more accurate
model of "the way things work", formerly known as "reality."

Since understanding is essentially modeling, at various levels of
abstraction, it seems obvious to me that a model gains nothing (and
necessarily loses by misallocating its probability mass which must sum
to unity) by positing entities for which there is no evidence.  This
is not the same as denying the possibility of other entities, (indeed,
acknowledgment of the inherent incompleteness of any model implies the
existence of entities outside the model) but only saying there is
nothing to say about them, so for *all* practical purposes, they don't
exist.

Let's keep in mind though that all observation is necessarily indirect
to some extent so it's not as if we're ruling out any of the fringe
observations, highly indirect and nearly in the noise that must be
included in our observational unity.


> If I say that there is nothing beyond the most distant
> object I can see, then my position is very special.

We should distinguish between "saying there is nothing", and "there is
nothing to say".
-- Zen Jef

If I were to say "there is nothing", that would imply a claim of
additional information outside my model, and such a claim is clearly
incoherent. I am left with "nothing to say." This seems to me the
strongest possible argument for the necessity of the subjective point
of view.

The logical incoherence in your rendition of platonism may be more
apparent if we point out that by positing the "existence" of
unobservable entities, we must admit that there's nothing to
distinguish between highly probable unobservable entities and highly
improbable unobservable entities.  Therefore, it seems to me, the
"platonic plenum" amounts to a meaningless mush.


> Since I don't think I am that special, I am forced to assume that
> there are entities in existence (i.e. having at least one property)
> that I have not observed, nor will ever be able to observe or think of
> even in principle. This leads me to modal realism, and therefore, yes,
> "redness" exists.

To address your repeated point that you are not justified in thinking
you are special, I certainly agree.  You take this to mean that you
are forced to reason from an approximation of an objective view.  I
take it to mean that any agent reasons from an expanding subjective
view.  The essential difference is that my view is ontologically
simpler.

- Jef


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Apr  6 19:58:26 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:58:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoassembly Blueprints using Atomic Resolution
 MRI
In-Reply-To: <FB2C060C-6AED-4682-81D6-9676FB7EC747@mac.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<deaa866a0704040721y6218a296s6bf67b2982b803c5@mail.gmail.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 10:19 PM 4/5/2007 -0700, Samantha wrote:

>On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Keith Henson wrote:

snip

>I have doubts about putting  massive numbers of normal body form
>human beings in space.  The technology required to do so changes the
>equations so much is becomes doubtful whether humans or something
>distinctly not today's kind of human would colonize space.
>Supporting a lot of bodies designed for earth conditions does not
>seem optimal.   It is certainly tremendously expensive.   It could be
>done employing telepresence and robotics to build a lot of the needed
>infrastructure and with beanstalks or something much cheaper to get
>out of the gravity well.  But that implies building out technology
>that may make homo saps irrelevant and seriously non-competitive in
>space.

You need to remember that this topic was *the* hot technical topic in the 
mid to late 70s.  People such as Eric Drexler put a lot of effort into the 
design and economic studies.  *Given* an industrial seed in space, the cost 
falls very rapidly.  You can achieve some truly remarkable economic effects 
in space.  The prime "figure of merit" for industrial machines in space is 
how rapidly they make their own mass in product.

One of the papers Eric and I presented was for a solar powered metal boiler 
suitable for depositing thick metal on objects with dimension in the km range.

Most of the mass was for the solar concentrator which in space is not very 
heavy.  There were a lot of considerations in the design because the boiler 
was operating *really* hot and you had to deal with such things as 
re-depositing carbon which had evaporated off the solar absorber surfaces.

But the analysis made the case that such a gadget could deposit its own 
mass in aluminum or iron in *8 hours*.  (There was a lot more to the 
subject of making living area because of fracture mechanics.  This is 
covered in the vapor phase fabrication paper.)

snip

>For that matter, why should you choose to keep a body configuration
>that requires such primitive forms of energization as digestion and
>elimination cycles?

I don't know.  The discussion of such questions rapidly drifts into the 
extended Fermi question.  "Why don't we see the engineering works of 
advanced civilizations?"

There are none in our light cone (that we have seen so far) which leaves 
the possibility that we are the only outpost of intelligent life.  The 
alternative is that every one of the technophilic species that arises goes 
down some kind of rat hole and leaves no physical traces in the 
universe.  I frankly don't know what to think, but I suspect a very short 
existence for an evolved creature who learns how to reach inside and tweek 
his pleasure knob.  Minsky had a good deal to say about this in his 
previous book.

snip

> > There is good exciting and bad exciting.  Unfortunately, the odds are
> > stacked by the long evolutionary history of our species against the
> > future being good.
>
>Yes.  It could be argued that any evolved species is likely to have
>evolved many counterproductive traits making its successful emergence
>into and beyond technological singularity extremely unlikely.   This
>is probably part of the answer to "Where are the aliens?"   They
>didn't make it past this stage.

If they didn't chances we will are very poor.  But that wasn't what I was 
thinking about here.  We live in an era where massive engineering works to 
extract energy and turn it into food have resulted in a population much 
larger than is sustainable on the current technological base.  The "peak 
oil" pinch I think is very likely to set off wars since that is the evolved 
mechanism whereby human populations were reduced to the level the 
environment could feed them.

> > But if you want to do something to improve the odds of a bright
> > future, I
> > have a number of suggestions.  Even so, the most likely number for
> > physical
> > state humans 100 years from now is zero.
>
>I for one would love to hear some of the suggestions.

Completely independent of global warming, the human race needs something to 
replace carbon fuels.  I have my proposal, SEPS, space elevator/power 
satellites, which is subject to physical and economic analysis.  I am not 
welded to this proposal, and am willing to look at any others.  Propose, 
analyze, and try to get the word out.  If there is a physically sound 
solution that can be implemented, work on getting people to understand it 
and support it.

If people see a bleak future, xenophobic memes will dominate their thinking 
and lead to wars.  We can have our heads in the uploading clouds and it 
won't help a bit when wars disrupt the economy so badly that we starve.

Keith Henson



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 20:39:45 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:39:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704061110n3767cd56sbc75f7c5220e0ca2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704011344g2ab182f2o3036707ab9bd3eef@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60704060857o77d6c446x6dd7fab9cdf3e327@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704061110n3767cd56sbc75f7c5220e0ca2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704061339q65bbe4d5nb41abc3f499a9df8@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

  If I may ask another calibrating question:  Do you
> have an opinion on the validity of subjective Bayesian probability?
>
### Can you expand on the question?

---------------------------------------

> My POV is that *every* agent is necessarily at the "conceptual center"
> of their universe, and by recognizing this one forms a more accurate
> model of "the way things work", formerly known as "reality."

### Is there any thing else than the "model"?

--------------------------------

>
> Since understanding is essentially modeling, at various levels of
> abstraction, it seems obvious to me that a model gains nothing (and
> necessarily loses by misallocating its probability mass which must sum
> to unity) by positing entities for which there is no evidence.  This
> is not the same as denying the possibility of other entities, (indeed,
> acknowledgment of the inherent incompleteness of any model implies the
> existence of entities outside the model) but only saying there is
> nothing to say about them, so for *all* practical purposes, they don't
> exist.

### Do you think that there are stars that are too far from us to ever
reach the Earth, given the expansion of the universe? If yes, what are
their spectral characteristics? Are they the same as the
characteristics of local stars? Different? In principle unknowable?

If you really believe that your location is not special, then you have
to ascribe the same spectral characteristics to stars in your vicinity
and stars that are too far be seen, even in principle. And if they
have spectral characteristics, they exist.

You cannot say "there is nothing to say" about entities that are
entailed by the existence of known entities.

-----------------------------------
>
> The logical incoherence in your rendition of platonism may be more
> apparent if we point out that by positing the "existence" of
> unobservable entities, we must admit that there's nothing to
> distinguish between highly probable unobservable entities and highly
> improbable unobservable entities.  Therefore, it seems to me, the
> "platonic plenum" amounts to a meaningless mush.

### Do you think the likelihood that unobservable stars have the same
spectral characteristics as observable ones is identical to their
likelihood of having any other arbitrary characteristics?

Knowledge about the observable universe informs you about the
unobservable parts as well. You can and should have an opinion about
the probabilities of various unobservable entities (i.e. measures of
the relative sizes of the parts of the plenum that make up these
entities).

I can suggest to you "The End of Time" by the theoretical physicist,
Julian Barbour for a discussion of the plenum.

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 20:40:56 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:40:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <20070406162455.GJ9439@leitl.org>
References: <f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704060913p38131d30we9d384da29e66843@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070406162455.GJ9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60704061340p6d4b501bmf44af38ba3ee0e2e@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> More seriously, when you track your external environment, you have
> to do both the quantity and the quality part. Numbers are not at
> all different from chickens, as far as neuron spike-counters are
> concerned.

### But what about the existence of the referents of these spikes? Do
they exist?

Rafal


From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Apr  6 22:22:17 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:22:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704061339q65bbe4d5nb41abc3f499a9df8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704011344g2ab182f2o3036707ab9bd3eef@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60704060857o77d6c446x6dd7fab9cdf3e327@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704061110n3767cd56sbc75f7c5220e0ca2@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60704061339q65bbe4d5nb41abc3f499a9df8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704061522t77a31e89na2fdd63911fbd8aa@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/6/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>
>   If I may ask another calibrating question:  Do you
> > have an opinion on the validity of subjective Bayesian probability?
> >
> ### Can you expand on the question?
The philosophical foundation of Bayesian probability highlights the
ultimate subjectivity of any observer (although embedded in a
consistent, but only indirectly knowable reality.)  That is the view I
am promoting.  I figured that it would provide another highly relevant
data point to get your view on that topic.  I thought there was also a
chance that it might trigger in you a better understanding of my
position, because it's clear to me that I'm not making myself clear to
you.

> > My POV is that *every* agent is necessarily at the "conceptual center"
> > of their universe, and by recognizing this one forms a more accurate
> > model of "the way things work", formerly known as "reality."
>
> ### Is there any thing else than the "model"?
That depends very much on the context of your question, which isn't
clear to me.  In the view I am promoting here there is an agent, with
a model of its "reality" and its interactions with that local reality.
 It seems that your view has much the same, with the ontological
addition of a "platonic plenum" containing a hyperinfinite set of
somehow "real" entities.


> > Since understanding is essentially modeling, at various levels of
> > abstraction, it seems obvious to me that a model gains nothing (and
> > necessarily loses by misallocating its probability mass which must sum
> > to unity) by positing entities for which there is no evidence.  This
> > is not the same as denying the possibility of other entities, (indeed,
> > acknowledgment of the inherent incompleteness of any model implies the
> > existence of entities outside the model) but only saying there is
> > nothing to say about them, so for *all* practical purposes, they don't
> > exist.
>
> ### Do you think that there are stars that are too far from us to ever
> reach the Earth, given the expansion of the universe? If yes, what are
> their spectral characteristics? Are they the same as the
> characteristics of local stars? Different? In principle unknowable?

I would certainly infer that there are stars beyond our observation,
and (if Gordon gts wasn't watching) I would apply the Principle of
Indifference and infer that their properties are distributed similar
to the stars that we do observe.  But this gives me absolutely zero
new information about any of those hypothetical stars, and this is
key.

But it appears that you take this even further, and believe not only
that those hypothetical stars exist, but their specific mathematical
coordinates exist in some sense independent of any observer.

If there were a row of boxes, and inside each box I found a ball, then
(all else being equal) with increasing number of boxes I would develop
increasing confidence that a subsequent box held a ball, but it could
easily be empty. My inference doesn't provided any information about
the actual existence of a ball in the next box.  I would claim a high
probability that there is a ball in the box, but I wouldn't be
justified in claiming that there IS a ball in the box independent from
some observation, no matter how indirect.


> If you really believe that your location is not special, then you have
> to ascribe the same spectral characteristics to stars in your vicinity
> and stars that are too far be seen, even in principle. And if they
> have spectral characteristics, they exist.

As argued above.


> You cannot say "there is nothing to say" about entities that are
> entailed by the existence of known entities.

Inductive inference does not entail entailment.

Is this perhaps the crux of our disagreement?


> > The logical incoherence in your rendition of platonism may be more
> > apparent if we point out that by positing the "existence" of
> > unobservable entities, we must admit that there's nothing to
> > distinguish between highly probable unobservable entities and highly
> > improbable unobservable entities.  Therefore, it seems to me, the
> > "platonic plenum" amounts to a meaningless mush.
>
> ### Do you think the likelihood that unobservable stars have the same
> spectral characteristics as observable ones is identical to their
> likelihood of having any other arbitrary characteristics?
>
> Knowledge about the observable universe informs you about the
> unobservable parts as well. You can and should have an opinion about
> the probabilities of various unobservable entities (i.e. measures of
> the relative sizes of the parts of the plenum that make up these
> entities).

It appears that the crux of our disagreement is your implication that
inference adds information.  Did you ever review our earlier
disagreement about Occam's Razor?  It might be related.


> I can suggest to you "The End of Time" by the theoretical physicist,
> Julian Barbour for a discussion of the plenum.

I read this several years ago, and a similar concept in _Time's Arrow
and Archimedes' Point_ by Huw Price a few years earlier.  The "block
universe" concept is intriguing, mainly because it aims to reduce the
number of ontological entities by eliminating time, but I remember Huw
Price in particular, explicitly backing away from what this might mean
in subjective terms.

- Jef


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Apr  6 22:19:04 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:19:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to make a brain transparent
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070406181733.02c25c10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>


  Forwarded from an EP group.  Keith

  How to make a brain transparent
16:26 02 April 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Roxanne Khamsi


The new ultramicroscopy technique images a whole mouse brain in 3D
(Image: Hans-Ulrich Dodt et al./Nature Methods)
The entire neural network of a mouse's brain has been seen in 3D for the 
first time, using a new technique that renders tissues transparent.

The method - dubbed "ultramicroscopy" - has also enabled researchers to 
visualise the detailed anatomy of a mouse embryo in 3D. It will provide new 
insight into how organs such as the brain develop, the researchers say.

Until now, it has been impossible to visualise entire neuronal networks in 
an intact brain - techniques such as computer tomography (CT scans) or 
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) do not have the resolution to reveal 
detail at the cellular level. Slicing the brain for microscopic imaging is 
possible, but creating a 3D image from many slices is laborious and prone 
to distortion problems.

Hans-Ulrich Dodt, now at Vienna University of Technology in Austria, and 
colleagues, have combined two old techniques to make a new tool that allows 
researchers to look at an entire brain on a microscopic level.

Take a look at a selection of images and video clips of the process here.


The new technique can also be used to image whole mouse embryos
(Image: Hans-Ulrich Dodt et al./Nature Methods)

Refractive index
Using rodents genetically engineered to produce florescent molecules in 
their nerve cells, the team extracted whole mouse brains and submerged them 
in alcohol to flush the water out of the tissues. The dehydrated brains 
were then placed into an oil mixture containing the solvents 
benzyl-benzoate and benzyl-alcohol.

Importantly, this medium has exactly the same light refractive index as 
protein - meaning that any light passing through the medium would continue 
to pass through the brain tissue at the same angle. Usually, when light 
enters a body tissue, it is scattered by the different refractive index of 
the tissue, in the same way that light is bent as it passes through water, 
making submerged items appear distorted.

The medium effectively made the organ transparent, much like a drop of oil 
on a piece of paper can make light pass more easily through the page, Dodt 
explains.


A whole mouse brain showing individual neurons fluorescing
(Image: Hans Ulrich Dodt)

Nerve connection
The next step involved viewing cross-sections of the brain by shining a 
thin sheet of light through the organ. As this sliver of light about six 
micrometres thick passed through the brain, it caused all of the neurons in 
its path to fluoresce. A computer then integrated the images obtained from 
scanning the thin sheet of light across the brain to give a 3D picture of 
how the nerves connect (see the results pictured, lower right)

Dodt claims the technique is a significant advance over previous methods to 
image the brain. Typically, approaches have involved physically cutting the 
brain into thin slices, and then staining the neurons in each slice. But 
the act of physically slicing the organ can distort the position of the 
nerves, he explains.

By comparing the scans of mouse embryos with those of adult mice they hope 
to get a better view on how mammalian brain networks change during 
development. This could give new insight into how mammalian brains change 
over time and what happens to information networks as a result of disease.

Journal reference: Nature Methods (DOI: 10.1038/nmeth1036)

Source: NewScientist
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn11518?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn11518 





From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr  7 01:51:21 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 18:51:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] uh oh, something's right
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070405151436.021e5860@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200704070149.l371nMFi006899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Friends,

Today we had another hit with the THAAD missile system, the seventh
consecutive success.  Most remarkable is this, considering that when trying
to hit a missile with another missile, there is so little target and so damn
much sky.  THAAD development is now three years ahead of schedule; likely
deployment will be in 2009 instead of 2012.

But I noticed another remarkable thing.  The mainstream news agencies
uttered not one word about it, and nary a syllable about the previous two
hits in January or September.  Think this over: to achieve kinetic kill
represents an astounding technological achievement, control systems at the
bleeding edge of technology, sensors at the limit of our ability, a
supercomputer flying at four times the speed of sound on a mission to
destroy a mass destroyer of life.  

Back in the 90s when we couldn't hit a barn with these things, the press
couldn't get enough of the story, all the drooling rage it was.  But now
when we are smacking out of the sky everything that we aim at, they find it
far less newsworthy than the latest shaven-headed movie harlot or the
playboy bunny who managed to slay her self by devouring everything in the
medicine chest.  This is news.

I was pondering this as I drove home, and suddenly noticed that everything
around me is basically functional.  I see utter competence everywhere.
Anyone who wants a job can get one, even if not their dream career.  Traffic
is dense, but it moves along.  We go weeks at a time between even seeing a
traffic accident.  We often go months between malfunctions of household
appliances, years between being a victim of even a minor crime, decades
between an untimely death of a close friend or family member due to anything
other than natural causes.  Things are working.  They are working damn well,
working early and often.  Something is right.

But we are afraid to congratulate ourselves.  Why don't we all take some
time to recognize all the things that are working right, such as the THAAD
missile, the highway system, capitalism incorporated.

Let us congratulate ourselves unapologetically, shall we?

spike

  





From max at maxmore.com  Sat Apr  7 02:17:45 2007
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:17:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle.
In-Reply-To: <00c801c77872$1339abe0$b3064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <4eaaa0d90704031325h7d53aa72gbaebb232cae989a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070403154239.022e37a0@satx.rr.com>
	<00c801c77872$1339abe0$b3064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <200704070216.l372Gfv2029508@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com>

A commentary I wrote yesterday on an article in Chief Executive.

Global Greenspin
http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO45071041574

Feeling chilly? Then gather round the fire and 
let me tell you a tale of global warming. And 
such a tale it is! It?s a tale of huge, evil 
corporations intent on fattening their purses as 
they destroy the world. It?s a tale of the 
messiah, the One called Gore, who comes to us 
with his message (Inconvenient but True) of 
redemption through carbon reduction. It?s a tale 
of the believers?the Kyotoists, the Ehrlichists, 
the catastrophists, the righteous hordes of 
apocalyptics, and their wicked enemies the 
?environmental skeptics.? Or, is it actually tale 
of the latest pretext to expand the power of the 
government over the economy and the power of 
established commercial powers over potential 
upstarts? Or even a little of each?

This commentator confesses considerable sympathy 
for J.P. Donlon?s concerns about the demands that 
we all kneel before a supposed ?undisputed 
scientific consensus? concerning global warming. 
In fact, at least two consensus views are being 
pushed on us?and pushed hard. One is that global 
warming is not only happening but is primarily 
anthropogenic. The second is that we must 
immediately institute a set of strong global 
controls on carbon dioxide production. As Donlon 
notes, the controversy is troubling in part 
because of the ?smug, moral transcendence of the 
climatologically correct.? The true believers 
have not only abandoned but actively oppose the 
Enlightenment championing of scientific vitality 
through skepticism and questioning. For those 
with short memories, Donlon reminds us similar 
pronouncement back in 1970s, except that then the 
great threat was global cooling.

Even if we buy into the idea that global warming 
is real, significant, sustained, and largely 
human-caused, too many of us are being bludgeoned 
into accepting a set of solutions as following 
automatically. Donlon cites research by Bjorn 
Lomborg (whose work, including The Skeptical 
Environmentalist, is highly worth looking into) 
who asked UN ambassadors from 24 countries 
representing 54 percent of the world?s population 
this question: If you had an extra $50 billion to 
spend to improve the world what would your 
priorities be? ?Mitigating climate change came 
dead last on their list.? Similarly to Lomborg?s 
experts (as reported in depth in Global Crises, 
Global Solutions) the diplomats would prefer to 
spend limited funds on problems such as 
communicable diseases, sanitation, malnutrition, and education.

Donlon goes on to raise questions about the most 
sensible response to global warming, even if we 
accept human use of fossil fuels is the main 
cause. Apparently it?s easy to buy into an 
existing proposal like the Kyoto agreement, but 
does it really make any sense? Not to most of the 
world. It may well make sense to advocates of 
greater government control, as well as to more 
private concerns: some see this issue as an 
excuse to shovel more subsidies and protectionist 
favors to industry such as ethanol and to 
companies such as GE, DuPont, Alcoa and BP which 
cleverly support cap and trade limits on carbon dioxide.

If you follow the link above, you'll find links 
to other relevant items, including some highly practical suggested solutions.

Max




From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Apr  7 02:42:55 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 04:42:55 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704061340p6d4b501bmf44af38ba3ee0e2e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704060913p38131d30we9d384da29e66843@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070406162455.GJ9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704061340p6d4b501bmf44af38ba3ee0e2e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070407024255.GQ9439@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 04:40:56PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> ### But what about the existence of the referents of these spikes? Do
> they exist?

Yes, there was a system observing another system. If there were no
systems, there would be no measurements, and no spikes.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Apr  7 03:01:24 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:01:24 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <000301c77873$9f917270$b2bf1f97@archimede>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704051947o20791ba7tcfa6453b1af5654@mail.gmail.com>
	<000301c77873$9f917270$b2bf1f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704062001w5507b71dv53c87ef83df07337@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/7/07, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:

I do not think that genes and environment
> play a major role when people buy, or sell,
> (or keep) shares of IBM, or Apple.
>

No? What else could *possibly* be at play here?

> Some people find a place for free will in indeterminacy,
> > perhaps the indeterminacy in QM (or at least the CI of QM).
> > But at best, that means free will is *randomness*,
> > and why should we be any happier to believe that our
> > behaviour is random than that it is determined?
>
> Asher Peres wrote several pages (with calculations)
> about free will, especially in case of (possible)
> physical 'entanglements' between a subject and
> another subject. But he found that the 'will' was
> 'free' enough, in any possible condition.
>
> Note that the 'free will' of the observer is itself
> a precondition if one wants to prove Bell
> theorems. If you remove the essential assumption
> of 'free will' you can also explain the so called
> quantum nonlocality, via a sort of 'superdeterminism',
> as Bell called it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism


The "free" choices in Bell inequality type experiments are really random
choices. Is there a difference between free will and randomness? My view of
it is that the feeling that we are not constrained in making a choice is
what we term "free will", and it doesn't feel any more or less free if the
choice really is constrained or if it is random.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070407/51f05346/attachment.html>

From amara at kurzweilai.net  Sat Apr  7 03:34:00 2007
From: amara at kurzweilai.net (Amara D. Angelica)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:34:00 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoengineered terrestrial solar vs. nanoengineered
	space solar power
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><deaa866a0704040721y6218a296s6bf67b2982b803c5@mail.gmail.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <026501c778c5$957e20b0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER>

I'm looking for information and leads for a research project. In switching
from oil to solar, what are the economical tradeoffs between terrestrial and
space solar power, based on cost per megawatt?

What is the projected increase in cost-efficiency of batteries and other
energy storage systems needed to provide power at night and deal with
seasonal and weather variations?

What is the cost-efficiency of geographically distributed vs. centralized
power sources? 

http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ec.htm is one good source, but is limited in
technology forecasts, such as nanoengineered batteries. 

Looks like India is planning to invest heavily in space solar power. More on
that later...





From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Sat Apr  7 04:33:22 2007
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 21:33:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanogenerator
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40704062133q78d97273q79deda88662e290b@mail.gmail.com>

Hmmmm.  Acoustic-powered.  Very Drexlerian.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/giot-npc040107.php

Nanogenerator provides continuous power by harvesting energy from the
environment

For powering nanodevices

Researchers have demonstrated a prototype nanometer-scale generator
that produces continuous direct-current electricity by harvesting
mechanical energy from such environmental sources as ultrasonic waves,
mechanical vibration or blood flow.
-- 
Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles


From scerir at libero.it  Sat Apr  7 10:01:04 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 12:01:04 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede><f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com><002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede><f21c22e30704051947o20791ba7tcfa6453b1af5654@mail.gmail.com><000301c77873$9f917270$b2bf1f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704062001w5507b71dv53c87ef83df07337@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000301c778fb$a80283d0$1f961f97@archimede>

> > I do not think that genes and environment
> > play a major role when people buy, or sell,
> > (or keep) shares of IBM, or Apple.

Stathis:
> No? What else could *possibly* be at play here?

According to W.Buffett our goal as investors should
simply be to purchase, at a rational price,
a part interest in an easily understandable business
whose earnings are virtually certain to be materially
higher 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

It is secret the strategy of the funds directed
by the well known mathematician J.Simons (Chern-Simons
theory).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies_Corp
http://stochastix.wordpress.com/2006/12/23/dr-james-simons-selected-as-the-2
006-iafesungard-financial-engineer-of-the-year/

Imo in both cases above genes and environment only play
a little role. There is some room for 'free will' in finance.
Sometimes it is called intuition.

> The "free" choices in Bell inequality type experiments
> are really random choices. Is there a difference between
> free will and randomness?

In any description, information is sacrificed through
the coarse graining that yields decoherence between
histories and gives rise to probabilities for histories.
This coarse graining might be an important concept.
I do not know if the essential 'randomness'
(uncomputability) or the essential 'contextuality'
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079
are really relevant, regarding the problem of
(human) 'free will'.

> My view of it is that the feeling that we are not
> constrained in making a choice is what we term "free will",
> and it doesn't feel any more or less free if the
> choice really is constrained or if it is random.

Maybe. Rafal (?) pointed out a difference between the
'first person' and the 'third person' description
of 'free will'.




From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Apr  7 10:09:25 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 12:09:25 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoengineered terrestrial solar vs.
	nanoengineered space solar power
In-Reply-To: <026501c778c5$957e20b0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<026501c778c5$957e20b0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER>
Message-ID: <20070407100925.GU9439@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:34:00PM -0400, Amara D. Angelica wrote:

> I'm looking for information and leads for a research project. In switching
> from oil to solar, what are the economical tradeoffs between terrestrial and
> space solar power, based on cost per megawatt?

Launch costs need to go down for at least an order of magnitude in
order for space solar to become cost competitive.
 
> What is the projected increase in cost-efficiency of batteries and other
> energy storage systems needed to provide power at night and deal with
> seasonal and weather variations?

There is no weather in space, and in a high enough orbit insolation
is quantitative. Peak demand is during day, however. Batteries are actually
already quite good on the efficiency part, but their longevity needs
to be improved.
 
> What is the cost-efficiency of geographically distributed vs. centralized
> power sources? 

Electricity doesn't travel well. As far as I can see, PV isn't suitable
as a centralized power source, with the possible exception of north-south
transport (which can be hydrogen).
 
> http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ec.htm is one good source, but is limited in
> technology forecasts, such as nanoengineered batteries. 
> 
> Looks like India is planning to invest heavily in space solar power. More on
> that later...

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Sat Apr  7 13:15:15 2007
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:15:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoengineered terrestrial solar vs.
	nanoengineered space solar power
In-Reply-To: <20070407100925.GU9439@leitl.org>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<026501c778c5$957e20b0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER>
	<20070407100925.GU9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <5366105b0704070615g763b087cm5b16e9ddee9c0f1@mail.gmail.com>

You might check NASA's Space Settlement Design Study (available
on-line via Google or del.icio.us/jay.dugger) for descriptions of the
space environment with respect to solar power satellites (SPS).

The following thoughts also come to mind.

Will photovoltaics degrade in-orbit and by what mechanism? Radiation?
Corrosion? Impact?

Do you assume SPS based on photovoltaics? Is that really a good model?
What about using sunlight to heat a working fluid for a generator?

More to follow, when I return from work.

-- 
Jay Dugger
http://jaydugger.suprglu.com
Sometimes the delete key serves best.


From mfj.eav at gmail.com  Sat Apr  7 13:17:59 2007
From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 06:17:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Viva La Global Warming
Message-ID: <61c8738e0704070617w7478a39ai90c2bd38b9974069@mail.gmail.com>

I am from an area where the ethanol-bioproduct-oil vs bio scenario is going
on this very moment.
I hear that Gore is coming to a city Regina Sk on the 23 to do his
presentation.
5000 Tickets are 75 for adults 20 for students with saskpower underwriting
all other costs.

Yes global warming may be happening.
Yes it is a scam in that on one really understands the mechanisms to
reliably
manage weather long term on a global scale.

However the diversion of sugar cane, corn and wheat to biofuels and the
building of about 200 plants accross North America
is good.  Ethanol may be a political product but the same technology can
produce a wide range of fuels , industrial chemicals
and complex bioproducts will emerge to make the equation viable.  Genetic
modification of plants and algae to produce perhaps 10-100 times the biomass
on current inputs is required to make the thermodynamic equation a winner.
The capital investment will push such bioengineering advances.

So some scams are simply required to push the lazy stupid risk averse molly
coddled masses
to get off their worthless asses into action to do noble things.

As far as gore spending money and using energy... to get someone who might
be another billionaire if let loose in the private sector
to dedicate his life to relatively poorly paid public service you better cut
him some slack.

So  am a firm supporter of global warming as it will force society to
undertake global scale projects they would not otherwise have.

One of the first singularity scale computational projects will be the
development of a tightly managed global ecosystem.
Ice in polar caps is worthless; release of polar Water and  hydrocarbon
carbon into  a dynamic ecosystem creates  wonderous new possibilities.

 "Viva La Global Warming"


-- 
LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc.
Extropian Agroforestry Ventures  Inc.
306-290-8734
Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan
Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals
http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan
http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com
megao at sasktel.net,  arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com
extropian.pharmer at gmail.com

Extreme Life-Extension ..."The most dangerous idea on earth"
-Leon Kass , Bioethics Advisor to George Herbert Walker Bush,
June 2005

Extropian Smoke Signals Waft Softly but Carry a big Schtick
... Morris Johnson - June 2005*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070407/b032dd0c/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Apr  7 14:04:43 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 00:04:43 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <000301c778fb$a80283d0$1f961f97@archimede>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704051947o20791ba7tcfa6453b1af5654@mail.gmail.com>
	<000301c77873$9f917270$b2bf1f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704062001w5507b71dv53c87ef83df07337@mail.gmail.com>
	<000301c778fb$a80283d0$1f961f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704070704u3386a80eo237899d3daad1b68@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/7/07, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:

> > I do not think that genes and environment
> > > play a major role when people buy, or sell,
> > > (or keep) shares of IBM, or Apple.
>
> Stathis:
> > No? What else could *possibly* be at play here?
>
> According to W.Buffett our goal as investors should
> simply be to purchase, at a rational price,
> a part interest in an easily understandable business
> whose earnings are virtually certain to be materially
> higher 5, 10 and 20 years from now.
>
> It is secret the strategy of the funds directed
> by the well known mathematician J.Simons (Chern-Simons
> theory).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies_Corp
>
> http://stochastix.wordpress.com/2006/12/23/dr-james-simons-selected-as-the-2
> 006-iafesungard-financial-engineer-of-the-year/
>
> Imo in both cases above genes and environment only play
> a little role. There is some room for 'free will' in finance.
> Sometimes it is called intuition.


But investors are made of atoms, and when they make decisions, the atoms in
their brains, muscles etc. move according to the laws of physics. It's not
as if intuition can miraculously move an investor's hand independently of
the normal causal chain and make him click "buy" rather than "sell". Of
course, we will always be surprised by decisions that people make, but
that's just because we can't rewind the tape and play it back with exactly
the same starting parameters. I believe that the brain follows classical
laws, but even if quantum indeterminacy had a role to play, it wouldn't add
anything that we don't already have with the pseudorandomness provided by
classical chaos.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070408/b5ec1a7d/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr  7 14:42:46 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 07:42:46 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Amara Angelica is looking for editorial
	assistant/researcher
In-Reply-To: <000301c778fb$a80283d0$1f961f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <200704071450.l37EovJw024041@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


-----Original Message-----
From: Amara D. Angelica [mailto:amara at kurzweilai.net]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:34 PM

I'm looking for a freelance editorial assistant/researcher for
KurzweilAI.net, with expertise in writing/editing, blogging, science/tech,
video, Internet tech. 
 
Amara Angelica





From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr  7 14:40:51 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 07:40:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Subject: Nanoengineered terrestrial solar vs.
	nanoengineered space solar power
In-Reply-To: <000301c778fb$a80283d0$1f961f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <200704071451.l37EpoUJ000404@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



-----Original Message-----
From: Amara D. Angelica [mailto:amara at kurzweilai.net]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:34 PM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: Nanoengineered terrestrial solar vs. nanoengineered space solar
power

I'm looking for information and leads for a research project. In switching
from oil to solar, what are the economical tradeoffs between terrestrial and
space solar power, based on cost per megawatt?

What is the projected increase in cost-efficiency of batteries and other
energy storage systems needed to provide power at night and deal with
seasonal and weather variations?

What is the cost-efficiency of geographically distributed vs. centralized
power sources? 

http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ec.htm is one good source, but is limited in
technology forecasts, such as nanoengineered batteries. 

Looks like India is planning to invest heavily in space solar power. More on
that later...







From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr  7 14:52:03 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 07:52:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoengineered terrestrial solar
	vs.nanoengineered space solar power
In-Reply-To: <5366105b0704070615g763b087cm5b16e9ddee9c0f1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200704071500.l37F0odr013896@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jay Dugger
...
> 
> Will photovoltaics degrade in-orbit...

Yes, but the old fashioned gallium arsenide cells are remarkably durable.


>... and by what mechanism? Radiation?

Yes.  Over time the output gradually decreases from impacts from high energy
particles.  Occasionally you get a cell shorted out from an extremely high
energy cosmic ray that causes an SEGR or single event gate rupture.  A
particle whacks a cell hard enough to cause an ionized path across the NP
region.


> Corrosion?...

Not exactly corrosion as we think of it down here, oxidation.  Metals can
migrate but I wouldn't call that corrosion.


> Impact?

If you meant micrometeoroid, there are so sparse they aren't a major factor.

spike




From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Apr  7 16:02:05 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 17:02:05 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoengineered terrestrial solar
	vs.nanoengineered space solar power
In-Reply-To: <200704071500.l37F0odr013896@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <5366105b0704070615g763b087cm5b16e9ddee9c0f1@mail.gmail.com>
	<200704071500.l37F0odr013896@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0704070902r1efc5cc2m262aec69360ea1d5@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/7/07, spike wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jay Dugger
> >
> > Will photovoltaics degrade in-orbit...
>
> Yes, but the old fashioned gallium arsenide cells are remarkably durable.
>
> >... and by what mechanism? Radiation?
>
> Yes.  Over time the output gradually decreases from impacts from high energy
> particles.  Occasionally you get a cell shorted out from an extremely high
> energy cosmic ray that causes an SEGR or single event gate rupture.  A
> particle whacks a cell hard enough to cause an ionized path across the NP
> region.
>
> > Corrosion?...
>
> Not exactly corrosion as we think of it down here, oxidation.  Metals can
> migrate but I wouldn't call that corrosion.
>
> > Impact?
>
> If you meant micrometeoroid, there are so sparse they aren't a major factor.
>


And solar cell technology is improving all the time.
There is a lot of research in this field now as part of the move to
more 'green' technology.
But, of course,  what works fine on earth may not be suitable for space.



<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070405171830.htm>

Source: Massey University       Date: April 6, 2007

Solar cell technology developed by Massey University's Nanomaterials
Research Centre will enable New Zealanders to generate electricity
from sunlight at a 10th of the cost of current silicon-based
photo-electric solar cells.



BillK


From asa at nada.kth.se  Sat Apr  7 16:18:47 2007
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:18:47 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] uh oh, something's right
In-Reply-To: <200704070149.l371nMFi006899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200704070149.l371nMFi006899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <2265.163.1.72.81.1175962727.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>


spike wrote:
> Things are working.  They are working damn well,
> working early and often.  Something is right.
>
> But we are afraid to congratulate ourselves.  Why don't we all take some
> time to recognize all the things that are working right, such as the THAAD
> missile, the highway system, capitalism incorporated.
>
> Let us congratulate ourselves unapologetically, shall we?

Definitely! Congrats to everybody who gets everything to work!

Of course, there is plenty of stuff left to fix, be it political systems,
climate change, software development or the British banking system, but
that doesn't mean that indeed things are working.

I think you have made an important observation. Friction, that we lose
time, energy, materials, ideas or whatever due to inefficiencies or
incompatibilities in our systems, seems to be decreasing quite nicely. I
think that may be a much better measure of progress than looking at how
much time, energy, FLOPS or whatever are produced. Maybe we should try to
index it?

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University




From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Apr  7 16:59:29 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:59:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoengineered terrestrial solar vs.
	nanoengineered space solar power
In-Reply-To: <5366105b0704070615g763b087cm5b16e9ddee9c0f1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<026501c778c5$957e20b0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER>
	<20070407100925.GU9439@leitl.org>
	<5366105b0704070615g763b087cm5b16e9ddee9c0f1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070407165929.GZ9439@leitl.org>

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 08:15:15AM -0500, Jay Dugger wrote:

> Will photovoltaics degrade in-orbit and by what mechanism? Radiation?
> Corrosion? Impact?

It's a solved problem, lifetime would be counted in decades, and 
arguably the array could be constantly repaired by roving robots.
 
> Do you assume SPS based on photovoltaics? Is that really a good model?
> What about using sunlight to heat a working fluid for a generator?

Bad idea. With PV you have high efficiency and potential separation
in a semiconductor, which is one step removed from reradiating this
towards a particular space segment, where your rectenna is.
 
> More to follow, when I return from work.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Apr  7 16:27:08 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:27:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] "The problem is partly a matter of evolutionary
	psychology."
In-Reply-To: <026501c778c5$957e20b0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<deaa866a0704040721y6218a296s6bf67b2982b803c5@mail.gmail.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070407121537.04349da8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>


Normally I would just post the link, but you can't get into this without a 
fair amount of trouble registering so here is it.  It is interesting that 
some relatively young people just assume evolutionary psychology.  Keith

http://media.www.dailytargum.com/media/storage/paper168/news/2007/04/06/Opinions/This-Is.Our.Time-2826860.shtml

The View from Nowhere
Patrick McKnight / Columnist
Issue date: 4/6/07 Section: Opinions

Forty years ago when baby boomers were our age, they set out to change the 
world through the social movements of the 1960s. They rejected the 
antiquated values of their parents, as it became obvious they were no 
longer practical in a changing world. But now, at a time when we need 
similar social change more than ever, it is the baby boom generation in 
power who are stifling our progress.

Whereas the boomers were born into an era of fear of nuclear holocaust, 
Generation Y faces distinctly different challenges, as it begins its 
ascendancy to political influence. With the advent of global warming, 
civilization-shaking catastrophe is no longer a matter of strategic chess, 
but of time. Furthermore, we will be the first generation to see the world 
run out of oil. Because of the short-term avarice of preceding generations, 
we are left picking up the pieces of a broken planet.

At this point, it's hard to be optimistic about the chances that the 
boomers will turn things around. Many, apparently, bought into Bush's War 
in Iraq, though he had no evidence of an imminent threat to the United 
States. Older voters won him his re-election, though it was clear he was a 
self-serving liar. But when it comes to a real threat, like global warming 
- which is supported by mountains of scientific evidence - people suddenly 
want to wait and see. What's wrong with this picture? If America really 
cared about its young people more than its profits, it wouldn't be sending 
them to die in Iraq while downplaying global warming.

The problem is partly a matter of evolutionary psychology. Humans have been 
slow to evolve a capacity for comprehending long-term threats because, back 
in the day, there were none. Man-made climate change is a process that 
began about 200 years ago with the Industrial Revolution. Our dependence on 
oil has a similar history. This timescale would have been incomprehensible 
to prehistoric man. Not only was life expectancy half of ours, but their 
threats were all immediate, such as finding food, water and shelter. One in 
the hand was worth two in the bush.

That mentality worked fine for cavemen, but is pathetically inadequate in 
2007. We can no longer allow trivial short-term goals like making money to 
take precedence over the long-term sustainability of our country. We are 
playing Russian roulette with the health and well-being of future 
generations. This is one issue that shouldn't be political.

What we need now is not symbolic legislation, but a serious overhaul of our 
national priorities. Tradition can no longer be used as an excuse for 
cultural inertia. The reckless consumption that has traditionally driven 
the U.S. economy is no longer realistically tenable because of the havoc it 
wreaks on natural resources. The United States has just 5 percent of the 
global population, but accounts for about 25 percent of global consumption 
of natural resources. One child born in an industrialized country will 
consume and pollute more over his or her lifetime than 30 to 50 children 
born in developing countries. The United States produces, by far, the most 
carbon emissions and trash per capita. In fact, the United States accounts 
for 40 percent of all trash produced in the world. We're number one! These 
are not the hallmarks of a society that values its future.

For those of you global warming skeptics out there, consider that this 
winter was the warmest on record and that the 10 warmest years on record 
have all been since 1995. Far from taking steps to correct this problem, 
the United States is on track to produce 19 percent more carbon emissions 
in 2020 than it did in 2000. Half of the world's population lives near the 
coast, but sea levels will rise up to three feet by the end of the century. 
We don't need to start hugging trees. We just need to do a simple 
cost-benefit analysis. If humans were really rational, then we wouldn't be 
shooting ourselves in the foot like this. Isn't it better to be safe than 
sorry when so much is at stake?

We will also be the first generation to see the world reach peak oil 
production, potentially as early as 2015. Afterwards, production will peter 
out, leaving our oil-addicted economy strung out in a bad way. Just think 
of the jobs that could be created by converting our economy over from oil. 
Talk about killing two birds with one stone.

As a result of a lack of long-term planning, our generation will pay the 
price for years of self-indulgent consumerism. Instead of encouraging 
consumption, we need to encourage reduction and reuse. We don't just need 
new, cleaner technologies. We need a new, responsible approach to resource 
management. But the critical first step is changing the focus of national 
discourse from celebrity gossip and petty politics to long-term policy 
initiatives.

We can't wait a moment longer to tackle these life or death issues because 
they are affecting us already. Increasingly frequent and intense heat waves 
kill thousands each year, which extreme weather and air pollution does, as 
well. If anyone is going to help turn things around, it has to be 
Generation Y. This is our chance to be great. Protecting the viability of 
human life on this planet is our responsibility to our children, our 
species and our own selves.

Camus said during the Cold War that "each generation doubtless feels called 
upon to reform the world. Mine knows that it will not reform it, but its 
task is perhaps even greater. It consists in preventing the world from 
destroying itself." Today, the only way to prevent the world from 
destroying itself is to reform it. Our generation will change the world, 
not because we are hopelessly na've idealists. Just the opposite: As 
realists, we realize we have no other choice.

Patrick McKnight is a Rutgers College senior, majoring in philosophy and 
sociology. His column "The View from Nowhere" runs on alternate Fridays.



From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Apr  7 17:20:22 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:20:22 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoengineered terrestrial solar
	vs.nanoengineered space solar power
In-Reply-To: <200704071500.l37F0odr013896@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <5366105b0704070615g763b087cm5b16e9ddee9c0f1@mail.gmail.com>
	<200704071500.l37F0odr013896@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20070407172022.GC9439@leitl.org>

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 07:52:03AM -0700, spike wrote:

> Yes, but the old fashioned gallium arsenide cells are remarkably durable.

At current launch costs, the cells can be unobtainium. Very different
from terrestrial applications.
 
> Yes.  Over time the output gradually decreases from impacts from high energy
> particles.  Occasionally you get a cell shorted out from an extremely high
> energy cosmic ray that causes an SEGR or single event gate rupture.  A
> particle whacks a cell hard enough to cause an ionized path across the NP
> region.

You also get micrometeorite surface abrasion, and in lower orbit plasma
glow in ram direction.
 
> 
> Not exactly corrosion as we think of it down here, oxidation.  Metals can

In lower orbit, it can be oxidation. But there you'd get a lot of drag from
a large array, so one would have to use electric or plasma thruster propulsion
to counteract that. Slightly higher orbits are probably the way to go.

> migrate but I wouldn't call that corrosion.
> 
> > Impact?
> 
> If you meant micrometeoroid, there are so sparse they aren't a major factor.

Really? They're a considerable factor on Moon surface, I thought.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sat Apr  7 17:36:57 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:36:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoengineered terrestrial solar vs.
	nanoengineered space solar power
In-Reply-To: <20070407165929.GZ9439@leitl.org>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<026501c778c5$957e20b0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER>
	<20070407100925.GU9439@leitl.org>
	<5366105b0704070615g763b087cm5b16e9ddee9c0f1@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070407165929.GZ9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704071036h191db1e3u1dcfa1e1ec9b3520@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/7/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
>
> > Do you assume SPS based on photovoltaics? Is that really a good model?
> > What about using sunlight to heat a working fluid for a generator?
>
> Bad idea. With PV you have high efficiency and potential separation
> in a semiconductor, which is one step removed from reradiating this
> towards a particular space segment, where your rectenna is.


This may be one of the few times that I disagree with Eugen.  Even with
quadruple layer cells (and boy are those going to be pricey unless you are
producing many square km of them) you are probably only going to be able to
get  maybe 60-65% efficiencies.  The problem is that you lose the UV energy
and the far IR energy.  The only way to recover those is something like a
system of dielectric mirrors [1] and/or dichroic filters [2] which
efficiently split the light so it can be directed at systems optimized for
dealing with photons with specific energies.  You have to remember that UV
photons have enough energy to break atomic bonds and IR photons, especially
far IR, can't do much more than make the atom vibrate a bit (you have to
have a system for adding the energy of a number of IR photons to get
something that can free up an electron).  There may be a reasonable argument
that "heat engines" are the best way to harvest the IR photons.  But Eugen
is right in that using such approaches to harvest the visible light photons
is likely to be inefficient.  Something to keep in mind is that the overall
efficiency of "plants" is 2-4% (sugarcane in Brazil can approach 3-4%, corn
in the U.S. is probably closer to 2% or less).  Pricey satellite cells are
in the 34-38% range, home solar is probably in 16-22% range and cheap low
end solar (calculators?) is probably in the 6-8% range.

Now of course you could argue that if you you are making sq. km of the cells
on an industrial scale then harvesting the UV and IR photons isn't worth the
excess effort.  But if you look at the history solar energy it has been one
of continually harvesting the available energy at increasing efficiencies.
Though I haven't read it in detail, [3] would appear to be a good place for
people unfamiliar with these topics to start.

Robert

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_mirror
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichroic_filter
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cells
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070407/d12e956c/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sat Apr  7 17:48:49 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:48:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] "The problem is partly a matter of evolutionary
	psychology."
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070407121537.04349da8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <deaa866a0704040721y6218a296s6bf67b2982b803c5@mail.gmail.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<026501c778c5$957e20b0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070407121537.04349da8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704071048r1d73f42eg13638d03db881fd9@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/7/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

>
> Patrick McKnight is a Rutgers College senior, majoring in philosophy and
> sociology. His column "The View from Nowhere" runs on alternate Fridays.


It isn't worth my time to take apart the article on a piece by piece basis.
It is nice that he is thinking in terms of "sustainability" but the basis
for many of the claims has significant flaws.  Most importantly I would not
expect a major in philosophy and sociology to have a grasp of what
engineering and technology could accomplish given sufficient economic
incentives (be they "natural" or artificial).

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070407/82854c36/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Sat Apr  7 17:32:39 2007
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:32:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hypocrisy and Preaching (was The great global
	warming swindle)
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60704060845k796fa5b9le3ba0d8dd66db46d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <932576.66127.qm@web37206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
>### The environmentalists I know are not really any
>more efficient than me, although they frequently pay
>lip service to it. They are really after a
>diminished "ecological footprint" of humans, and
>especially other humans. Mr Gore's ecological
>footprint is huge (which I see as not bad, as long as
>he is paying for it himself) but he demands from me 
>(and other Americans) to reduce my footprint, and he
>is willing to use the force of the state to cut me
>down to size. I see this as very bad.

I saw Al Gore on Oprah a while back.  I was aware that
there was a global warming issue but I have to admit
that his presentation made me wonder if the issue was
as serious as he described.  I'm sure that his message
would not have been received if he hadn't been a
prominent figure in politics. On one hand, he is
preaching an essential issue making aware of a serious
situation yet on the other hand, the fact that he is
closely affiliated to politics, his reasons may be
other than making the world a better place.     

>Whether his neighbor's mansion burns 3000$ or 10000$
>a month doesn't matter, as long as the neighbor is
>not a crusading environmentalist(and pays his bills).

I was trying to understand at what point does someone
make a difference?  How can it not matter that he may
reduce his bill by $7000.00?  I thought that would
imply that compared to the next door neighbor, he was
practising what he preached?

### Absolutely everybody can reduce their preaching
until it fits exactly with what they already practice.

Yes I agree.  

### I prefer to reserve the word "hypocrite" to
somebody falsely claiming to have certain moral
beliefs with the aim of manipulating others for his
ends. 

I guess that's the underlying question.  Is Mr. Gore
doing more good than bad?  Although I am not naive
enough to believe that his intentions are 100% honest
and sincere and i'm sure along the way he will use it
to his advantage yet at the same time, with the same
means, he is making aware an important issue that may
not have been widely spread.

I not really sure what is better!  At what point does
manipulation play a role in benefiting others?  Thank
you for bringing up the subject, it has giving me
things to think about.
 
Anna:)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Apr  8 06:04:41 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 01:04:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] "Transhumanist Natasha Vita-More to speak at Summit"
 Montreal April 19-22
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070408004740.0458b3b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


As a follow up (and blatant display of my name in the subject line), since 
I sent info about the Montreal Summit on Reviewing the Future, more 
information has hit the press and I am being featured as "Transhumanist" 
along with several speakers such as Bill Seaman of the Rhode Island School 
of Design and Pierre L?vy, philosopher.  Since much of the writings of the 
summit speakers and audience are based heavily in the ethics of the 
technology/sience/future of human and the practices that may affect the 
future of humanity, I am very excited to be at this conference, giving a 
talk and chairing one of the sessions.  It will be a really great 
opportunity to stand up to many naysayers of transhumanism whose books are 
full of insightful, cutting edge ideas but perpetually ignore transhumans 
and research into transhumanism.

My talk is "Brave BioArt 2:  shedding the bio, amassing the nano, and 
cultivating emortal life."

I hope to see some of you there.

Natasha

"The 'Reviewing the Future: Vision, Innovation, Emergence' Summit will be 
held in Montreal from April 19 to 22, 2007, on the premises of University 
of Quebec in Montreal?s Coeur des Sciences. Among the speakers are many 
internationally recognized artists, thinkers and researchers, such as Roy 
Ascott, founder of the Planetary Collegium, transdisciplinary artist 
Victoria Vesna http://vv.arts.ucla.edu/projects/current.php, astrophysicist 
Roger Malina, nanotechnologist James Gimzewski, philosopher Pierre L?vy, 
culture theoretician Derrick de Kerckhove, media artist and theoretician 
Bill Seaman http://digitalmedia.risd.edu/billseam and many others, 
including me (Natasha).


"[T]he summit will allow 65 presenters from fifteen countries to share the 
results of their latest works and researches with their guests, and with 
the Quebec media arts and technologies community. The Summit will be an 
occasion for members of the different nodes of the Collegium (Plymouth, 
Beijing, Milan and Zurich, which will soon be joined by Seoul and Sao 
Paulo), along with several members pursuing their research on an individual 
basis as part of this international network, to get together. Many of these 
are amongst the best known artist/researchers of their fields.

"Through mostly transdisciplinary research, calling upon artists, 
scientists, engineers, philosophers, educators and communications 
specialists, the Collegium is contributing to the production of new 
knowledge in the field of media arts and to the transfer of this knowledge 
to other fields. Computer science, communications, research on 
consciousness, biotechnologies, cognitive sciences, hypermedia, variable 
environments, robotics are but a few of the disciplines whose development 
feeds and informs the Collegium research in all artistic disciplines : 
performance, dance, architecture, new narrative forms, music, 
installations, design, performing arts and the arts of the screen. Although 
the Summit is first and foremost an occasion to come in contact with unique 
approaches, which cannot be classified into traditional fields and are at 
the cutting edge of contemporary practice, several presentations will 
discuss the theoretical, cultural, social, educational, museological and 
environmental stakes of these practices."

For further information and registration: 
<http://summit.planetary-collegium.net>http://summit.planetary-collegium.net.

Information can be found at http://www.transhumanist.biz/


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, <http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Advisory Committee, <http://www.pietronigro.com/zgac/>Zero Gravity Arts 
Consortium

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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070408/07a315ec/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  7 17:33:07 2007
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:33:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704061522t77a31e89na2fdd63911fbd8aa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704011344g2ab182f2o3036707ab9bd3eef@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60704060857o77d6c446x6dd7fab9cdf3e327@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704061110n3767cd56sbc75f7c5220e0ca2@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60704061339q65bbe4d5nb41abc3f499a9df8@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704061522t77a31e89na2fdd63911fbd8aa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.tqfcdhyuivvpma@shuttle>

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:22:17 -0400, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>  
wrote:

> I would certainly infer that there are stars beyond our observation,
> and (if Gordon gts wasn't watching)...

heh. :)

> ... I would apply the Principle of
> Indifference and infer that their properties are distributed similar
> to the stars that we do observe.

No need here for the Principle of Indifference. The principle is useful  
only in those rare cases in which one has zero prior information, as when  
one is in a state of total ignorance about the nature and properties of  
stars. Obviously that is not the case here.

In your inference above, you're extrapolating from the known to the  
unknown based on empirical data. If the purpose of your inference is to  
set a bayesian prior then you are proceeding as would an empirical  
bayesian.

-gts



From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Apr  7 18:15:46 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:15:46 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hypocrisy and Preaching (was The great global
	warming swindle)
In-Reply-To: <932576.66127.qm@web37206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <7641ddc60704060845k796fa5b9le3ba0d8dd66db46d@mail.gmail.com>
	<932576.66127.qm@web37206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704071115v36f5d36bw516b45292010bfcf@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/7/07, Anna Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:

> I not really sure what is better!  At what point does
> manipulation play a role in benefiting others?

This is a very profound question, and with regard to the answer I
think the form is simple but the implementation is open-endedly
complex.

Sorry I don't have the available resources to contribute further at
this moment, but I think this question is so fundamentally important
in terms of complex social decision-making that it deserves
highlighting and (at least the hope of) some constructive discussion.

- Jef


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Apr  7 17:49:25 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:49:25 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoengineered terrestrial solar vs.
 nanoengineered space solar power
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070407134916.02c348b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 11:34 PM 4/6/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm looking for information and leads for a research project. In switching
>from oil to solar, what are the economical tradeoffs between terrestrial and
>space solar power, based on cost per megawatt?

If it costs the same to put a solar cell in space as it does on the ground, 
the advantage of putting it in space ranges from about 4 to over 20 
depending on location (mostly the effect of clouds on top of night).  BTW, 
making liquid fuels from electricity ranges from moderately expensive 
up.  You can pull carbon out of the air to make hydrocarbons, or you can 
make ammonia as a way to carry hydrogen.

>What is the projected increase in cost-efficiency of batteries and other
>energy storage systems needed to provide power at night and deal with
>seasonal and weather variations?

High, extremely high and very high.

>What is the cost-efficiency of geographically distributed vs. centralized
>power sources?

Less for transmission lines, but we already have an awful lot of 
transmission lines in place

>http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ec.htm is one good source, but is limited in
>technology forecasts, such as nanoengineered batteries.
>
>Looks like India is planning to invest heavily in space solar power. More on
>that later...

That's really interesting.  Pointers please?

Keith



From sentience at pobox.com  Sat Apr  7 18:35:39 2007
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:35:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] "The problem is partly a matter of evolutionary
 psychology."
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070407121537.04349da8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<deaa866a0704040721y6218a296s6bf67b2982b803c5@mail.gmail.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070407121537.04349da8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <4617E47B.2070503@pobox.com>

Keith Henson wrote:
> Normally I would just post the link, but you can't get into this without a 
> fair amount of trouble registering so here is it.  It is interesting that 
> some relatively young people just assume evolutionary psychology.

According to the legend, anything you learn about before age 18 is just 
part of the background.  I was 16, if I recall correctly.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Apr  7 18:36:08 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:36:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <op.tqfcdhyuivvpma@shuttle>
References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704011344g2ab182f2o3036707ab9bd3eef@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60704060857o77d6c446x6dd7fab9cdf3e327@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704061110n3767cd56sbc75f7c5220e0ca2@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60704061339q65bbe4d5nb41abc3f499a9df8@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704061522t77a31e89na2fdd63911fbd8aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.tqfcdhyuivvpma@shuttle>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704071136t70ae941dw86e233a2cfd28927@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/7/07, gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:22:17 -0400, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I would certainly infer that there are stars beyond our observation,
> > and (if Gordon gts wasn't watching)...
>
> heh. :)
>
> > ... I would apply the Principle of
> > Indifference and infer that their properties are distributed similar
> > to the stars that we do observe.
>
> No need here for the Principle of Indifference. The principle is useful
> only in those rare cases in which one has zero prior information, as when
> one is in a state of total ignorance about the nature and properties of
> stars. Obviously that is not the case here.

Hi Gordon.  I'm glad to see you're still around, but sorry I can't
justify another go-around on this topic.  I'm already in time-debt due
to too much posting this week.  I will offer only this, and let you
have the last word if you care to take it:  Information is not what
you know, but what is surprising.

- Jef


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Apr  7 19:32:59 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 12:32:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Improvements to Newcomb's Paradox
References: <009c01c777f2$798f8bb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704052118o22337da8t2d1dae77bf3fde31@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <016301c7794c$1f70ccb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> [Lee wrote]

> > Newcomb's Paradox has only one admissable subject
> > behavior: take just the one box.
> > 
> > An evolutionary proof of this is as follows:  suppose that
> > box A either does or does not contain dinner, and box
> > B always contains dessert.  One may live on a steady 
> > diet of box A, but one gradually dies of nutritional
> > deficiencies by selecting only box B.
> > ...
> > Go ahead if you want and discard the notion of free will,
> > but are you going to also discard the notion of a machine
> > (e.g. you) being able to make a decision?  I have not
> > heard any of the anti-compatiblists answer this question.

> This is an interesting take on Newcomb's Paradox. The one-boxers
> will ultimately prevail, and therefore one-boxing will become the
> accepted way of life. But doesn't this just show that a belief in free
> will has been cultivated by the Alien's experiment 

It could just as well be argued that the Alien's experiment cultivates
*disbelief* in free will.  After all, from the audience's point of view (and
of course, the Alien's), what the subject does is understood beforehand,
and his ability to truly make decisions suspect.

My thoughts on "free will vs. determinism" are still in a state of 
flux, thanks to the discussions here, but it may emerge that I
embrace the idea that it's mainly a POV problem.

Lee

> while, at the same time, even the variability in choice you would
> expect from a wild population is being expunged? Truth is not a
> matter of utility. 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Apr  7 19:44:29 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 12:44:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
Message-ID: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Regarding future enhancements, I consider the dangers of identity
loss to be a

               R E A L       P R O B L E M

To illustrate, let me provide a quickie story.  Vastly superior aliens
come to Earth (and to other planets) on a mission to relieve the
suffering and backwardness of the local denizens.

They say "Oh, uploading is easy.  In fact, it's so easy we call it
'downloading'."  One of them holds up a tiny device and continues
his sales pitch: "Each of you can---just to get you started---
immediately download into one of these chips.  Your immediate
benefits include

       1.  Vastly, vastly increased intelligence
       2.  Cessation of all mundane worries, pains, and
            inconveniences
       3.  Subscription to the galactic newfeeds, both conscious
            and unconscious
       4.  Unlimited communication with all the others who've 
            downloaded, even up to mind-melding, though we don't
            recommend this until you've become a bit settled"

"The only issue," he goes on, "is that some of you may have a problem
about identity.  You see, the moment that your IQ becomes 12,000
and you know everything about Earth history and the pitifully
primitive life forms that you used to be, you no longer resemble the same
person that you used to be at all, any more than you currently resemble the
fetus that you were eight months before birth.

"Now then.  Who wants to go first?"

Unless I had guarantees that there'd be storage enough and the
ability to run lots of old-fashioned Lees in parallel to all the Lee-Pluses,
I'd decline. The reason that I would decline is that I don't believe in
souls, and so cannot see---on scientific grounds---why the new little
device that I was supposedly downloaded into would resemble me
(or be me) at all.

To make the point stronger, suppose that of all the people we know,
half download and half do not. From our point of view, just exactly
what is the difference between "they downloaded" and "they died"?

Say Spike downloads, and Anders does not. Then we simply
do not have Spike around any more, and I contend that he no
longer exists, i.e., that he died:

Clearly a scientific examination of every cubic centimeter of our
solar system would fail to uncover any evidence of the existence
of our dearly departed.  Because, any dismal "records" of their
former mundane existence now residing all those tiny chips, would
not be affecting their thinking or their behavior, their mighty IQs
and vast knowledge having made such "records" totally unuseful.

I issue this caution:  what gaineth a transhuman if he becometh
someone else?  Beware any change at all, and allow only those
that don't change you very much.  If you want to keep on living,
that is.

Lee



From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Sat Apr  7 19:17:49 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:17:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] uh oh, something's right
References: <200704070149.l371nMFi006899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<2265.163.1.72.81.1175962727.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
Message-ID: <4617EE5D.5080505@thomasoliver.net>

Anders Sandberg wrote:

>spike wrote:
>  
>
>>Things are working.  They are working damn well,
>>working early and often.  Something is right.
>>
>>But we are afraid to congratulate ourselves.  Why don't we all take some
>>time to recognize all the things that are working right, such as the THAAD
>>missile, the highway system, capitalism incorporated.
>>
>>Let us congratulate ourselves unapologetically, shall we?
>>    
>>
>
>Definitely! Congrats to everybody who gets everything to work!
>
>Of course, there is plenty of stuff left to fix, be it political systems,
>climate change, software development or the British banking system, but
>that doesn't mean that indeed things are working.
>
>I think you have made an important observation. Friction, that we lose
>time, energy, materials, ideas or whatever due to inefficiencies or
>incompatibilities in our systems, seems to be decreasing quite nicely. I
>think that may be a much better measure of progress than looking at how
>much time, energy, FLOPS or whatever are produced. Maybe we should try to
>index it?
>
The axle grease index?  Spike, you have a great attitude!  Appreciation 
fuels progress.  Kudos to all the advanced grease monkeys on this list! 
 -- Thomas



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr  7 19:48:29 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 12:48:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] uh oh, something's right
In-Reply-To: <2265.163.1.72.81.1175962727.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
Message-ID: <200704072001.l37K1I0s025548@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 9:19 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] uh oh, something's right
> 
> 
> spike wrote:
> > Things are working. ...
> > Let us congratulate ourselves unapologetically, shall we?

> 
> Definitely! Congrats to everybody who gets everything to work!

Thanks Anders.  Coming from you, it means much.

> 
> ... that may be a much better measure of progress than looking at how
> much time, energy, FLOPS or whatever are produced. Maybe we should try to
> index it?
> 
> --
> Anders Sandberg,


Ja, we have some indices, but I am not sure their actual value.  Example,
the number of FLOPS produced by my own favorite idle-CPU background project
GIMPS.  We were going exponential for several years, then it leveled out a
couple years ago at about 70,000 machines and gradual linear increase now
around 20 Teraflops.  

Taking into account the proportion of multi-machine contributors, we can now
estimate the total number of this particular type of math geeks on the
planet: around 50,000.  Considering the total human population, that makes
us rarer than one in a million.  I never would have guessed we were so few.

Are there any internet groksters here interested in setting up a page to
collect trends in accordance with Anders' idea?  We can call them Anders
Indices.  We could take contributions of whatever indices folks think are
relevant, GIMPS output, crime stats, GDP over time, personal wellbeing stats
of various kinds.  With a sufficient number of Anders Indices we might have
a page with a number of trends showing that something is definitely right.

spike







From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Sat Apr  7 20:26:33 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:26:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com>	<7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com>	<20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org>	<7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com>	<f7bfe5740704011344g2ab182f2o3036707ab9bd3eef@mail.gmail.com>	<7641ddc60704060857o77d6c446x6dd7fab9cdf3e327@mail.gmail.com>	<f7bfe5740704061110n3767cd56sbc75f7c5220e0ca2@mail.gmail.com>	<7641ddc60704061339q65bbe4d5nb41abc3f499a9df8@mail.gmail.com>	<f7bfe5740704061522t77a31e89na2fdd63911fbd8aa@mail.gmail.com>	<op.tqfcdhyuivvpma@shuttle>
	<f7bfe5740704071136t70ae941dw86e233a2cfd28927@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4617FE79.2080408@thomasoliver.net>

Jef Allbright wrote:

>  Information is not what
>you know, but what is surprising.
>
>- Jef
>
Ah!  I got so disgusted with the Urantia Book.  I had heard it came from 
space aliens so I thought it would surely reflect a completely new point 
of view.  Instead it read quite a bit like the Bible.  Yeesh!  No 
information.  -- Thomas




From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr  7 20:55:45 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:55:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hypocrisy and Preaching (was The great
	globalwarming swindle)
In-Reply-To: <932576.66127.qm@web37206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200704072053.l37KrjQ7016508@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anna Taylor
...
> 
> >Whether his neighbor's mansion burns 3000$ or 10000$
> >a month doesn't matter, as long as the neighbor is
> >not a crusading environmentalist(and pays his bills).
> 
> I was trying to understand at what point does someone
> make a difference?  How can it not matter that he may
> reduce his bill by $7000.00?  I thought that would
> imply that compared to the next door neighbor, he was
> practising what he preached?
> 
> ### Absolutely everybody can reduce their preaching
> until it fits exactly with what they already practice.
...


Instead of flapping around and making inconvenient movies, Algore could
simply make the capital improvements on his house necessary to lower his
electric bill and make his existence carbon neutral.  Then supply us with
the detailed cost sheet to make that happen.

In the final analysis, everything is dollars and cents.  Algore and others
make a fundamental error assuming governments should control our carbon
footprint.  Governments do not control that, markets do.  If governments try
too hard to influence markets (and in so doing depress the economy) they get
thrown out of office, as they should.  Give us hard numbers so that we can
make market-based decisions.

spike







From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Sat Apr  7 20:17:26 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:17:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hypocrisy and Preaching (was The great global
 warming swindle)
References: <932576.66127.qm@web37206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4617FC56.3030801@thomasoliver.net>

Anna Taylor wrote:

>[...]  ### I prefer to reserve the word "hypocrite" to
>somebody falsely claiming to have certain moral
>beliefs with the aim of manipulating others for his
>ends. 
>
>I guess that's the underlying question.  Is Mr. Gore
>doing more good than bad?  Although I am not naive
>enough to believe that his intentions are 100% honest
>and sincere and i'm sure along the way he will use it
>to his advantage yet at the same time, with the same
>means, he is making aware an important issue that may
>not have been widely spread.
>
>I not really sure what is better!  At what point does
>manipulation play a role in benefiting others?  Thank
>you for bringing up the subject, it has giving me
>things to think about.
> 
>Anna:)
>
Manipulation disrespects the will of others and would not look 
beneficial to these others.  So, I think it reduces the "general 
gratification" index.  Acting to affirm the will of all (or as many as 
possible) affords a more direct approach and increases wealth.  I look 
for leaders who respect and protect individual choice.  Acting according 
to the self determinism of all creates unity and efficiency and avoids 
compulsion and violence.  I admit a tax funded system doesn't foster 
such skills, but we can look for such leaders in areas where people earn 
their way trading positive values with voluntary buyers.  -- Thomas





From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr  7 21:16:37 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 14:16:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
In-Reply-To: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <200704072114.l37LEeTK017532@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
...
> 
> Say Spike downloads, and Anders does not. Then we simply
> do not have Spike around any more, and I contend that he no
> longer exists, i.e., that he died...

Old transhumanists never die, they just download.  Hey cool, if you guys
ever need to have a virtual online funeral for me, just assume I downloaded.
And I am watching you from the ether.  Have we ever had a virtual online
funeral?  Why didn't we think of that when we lost Sasha and FM2030?

...
> 
> I issue this caution:  what gaineth a transhuman if he becometh
> someone else?  ...
> 
> Lee

Unless I can becometh Anders or Damien or Amara, that might be cool.  Their
brains, my attitudes.  What a combination that would be.  {8^D  spike
 








From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sat Apr  7 21:12:09 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:12:09 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
In-Reply-To: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <46180929.1050004@comcast.net>

Lee Corbin wrote:
> Regarding future enhancements, I consider the dangers of identity
> loss to be a
>
>                R E A L       P R O B L E M
>   
<snip>

> The reason that I would decline is that I don't believe in
> souls, and so cannot see---on scientific grounds---why the new little
> device that I was supposedly downloaded into would resemble me
> (or be me) at all

Surely this will not be a problem at all.  There are two critical parts 
of identity, both of which you mention, that would surely be preserved 
by any aliens making us quickly into Gods.

First off is the history of what you were.  Surely part of making us 
Gods, would be the restoration of everything we have ever bin, including 
restoration of everything we have ever forgotten.  So all of us, at any 
point in our history, would be perfectly remembered or even reloaded, 
spawned off, and played with by all at will.  (i.e. I wonder what life 
had been like for me had I married Carolyn instead of Malia...)  And 
even if the Gods didn't restore this for us, that would be the first 
task I would want to get started on with all that infinite knowledge and 
power right?

The second has to do with what you called a "soul".  Loaded words like 
this make discussing this kind of stuff difficult.  I prefer to call 
this a "spirit".  But what I mean by spirit is very different than what 
most people consider a "spirit" to be.  First off, what I believe to be 
our spirit is dependent on our brain.  When the brain stops, or goes to 
sleep, this spirit no longer exists (until the right stuff is put back 
together and it is spiritually or consciously activated again.)  This 
spirit is constructed of "phenomenal properties" or "qualia", like all 
of our conscious knowledge.  For example the phenomenal property of red 
represents 700 nm light.  The funny thing about our spirit, which is our 
knowledge of ourselves or the I that we think is looking out of our 
phenomenal knowledge of our eyes, unlike red, and our knowledge of our 
eyes, has no real "referent" that it represents.  Our knowledge of our 
eyes and skull, in our brain, do have referents that our senses detect.  
Our knowledge of our real skull and our real eyes is very different, and 
located in a very different place than the thing they represent.  One is 
the initial cause of the perception process, and the other is the final 
result or our phenomenal conscious knowledge of it.  We sometimes think 
our knowledge of this, in our brain, as not real, but it most definitely 
is, and even more important is its phenomenal or spiritual nature.  And  
just because this knowledge of ourselves, or our "I" or our spirit, is 
just knowledge itself, looking out of our knowledge of our eyes, and not 
knowledge that represents something else, doesn't mean it doesn't 
exist.  All of our conscious knowledge is composed of this very real 
"spiritual" if you will phenomenal stuff.  Without all this spiritual 
stuff there can be no "virtual reality" right?

I'm betting science will soon discover these phenomenal or spiritual if 
you will properties of nature that our neurons use to represent 
knowledge in a conscious way;  That this will be the greatest scientific 
achievement by far to date.  And that this achievement will finally free 
our "spirits" from the spirit prison walls that are our skulls that 
makes our spiritual knowledge of the spiritual qualities of nature and 
other "minds" ineffable.  I've described in some detail what uploading 
could be like, if this theory is true, in my story "1229 Years After 
Titanic" available here: http://home.comcast.net/~brent.allsop.

In this story I describe how your spirit, or your phenomenal knowledge 
of yourself will be able to tentatively step out of your knowledge of 
your body (as in an out of body experience) and "try out" other 
phenomenally conscious substrates joined (temporarily if you like) with 
the "spirit world" of your conscious knowledge in your brain.  Because 
of this no one will have any of the fears everyone talks about when we 
get uploaded and we destroy our old self - because our phenomenal spirit 
will very literally and consciously no longer be in that old self, and 
will have finally escaped from that skull that was our spiritual 
ineffable prison.

Anyway, I'm willing to bet anyone that this theory will be commonly 
accepted as fact in 10 or so years when we scientifically discover these 
phenomenal properties of nature and start effing and playing with it 
all, and finally break free of these spiritual prison walls that are our 
skull.

If you're out there, Gods, I tell you know.  Stop hiding from us and I 
want all this now or as fast as is possible!  I'm sick and tired of 
being trapped in this lonely ineffable spirit prison.

Brent Allsop






From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sat Apr  7 22:27:52 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:27:52 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] uh oh, something's right
In-Reply-To: <200704070149.l371nMFi006899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070405151436.021e5860@satx.rr.com>
	<200704070149.l371nMFi006899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704071527j3965e4f0webdf2b4239a7537f@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/7/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> But we are afraid to congratulate ourselves.  Why don't we all take some
> time to recognize all the things that are working right, such as the THAAD
> missile, the highway system, capitalism incorporated.
>
> Let us congratulate ourselves unapologetically, shall we?
>

Agreed, and well put!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070407/65ee5d44/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Apr  7 22:31:20 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 15:31:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
References: <f21c22e30703270503i57581b1g5543892972b5905f@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com><20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org><7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com><20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org><7641ddc60704011209w4fc50028nf599e41f3b1be491@mail.gmail.com><20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org><7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com><20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60704060913p38131d30we9d384da29e66843@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01ad01c77964$af273020$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Rafal writes
 
> All of these cortices need to use continuous, highly structured data
> streams for their development. The data is generated by sense organs
> and various subcortical structures, and are eventually traceable to
> objects and processes in the external world. There are referents to
> "chickens". There are referents to "numbers". The referents exist
> independently of the cortices that form the concepts related to them.
> 
> In what way are the referents of the concept "chicken" existentially
> different from the referents of the concept "17"?

17 is a concept much more manifest in the universe than are chickens.
(David Deutsch in his "Fabric of Reality" convincingly argues that
real bears (as in ursine) are present to a greater degree in the multiverse
than are Great Bears (as in constellations). The reason is that the former
is an attractor among evolutionary species, whereas the latter arises
only from the strictly random configurations of stars as seen from, say,
planets with observers like, say, us.

This is directly connected to 17 having less KC (Kolmogorov Complexity)
than do chickens.

I consider myself to be a mathematical platonist because all of mathematics
is so manifest in our universe, and consider myself not to be a plain
"Platonist" because chairs, chickens, and the number 13768699846355858630-
01717769722972562433720395628643218679801536774402 are less
manifest (and have lower KC). It's all a matter of degree.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Apr  7 22:38:32 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 15:38:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede><f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com><002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede><f21c22e30704051947o20791ba7tcfa6453b1af5654@mail.gmail.com><000301c77873$9f917270$b2bf1f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704062001w5507b71dv53c87ef83df07337@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01be01c77966$1615c8e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> On 4/7/07, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:

> > I do not think that genes and environment
> > play a major role when people buy, or sell,
> > (or keep) shares of IBM, or Apple.

> No? What else could *possibly* be at play here?

Well, after Serafino has pointed it out that there is a
question here, I can't understand why I didn't see it
before.  Certainly in discussions of rationality we have
recognized the importance of

Memes!  Oh, sure, we could think of memes as being
just a part of the environment, and perhaps in the particular
discussion that you (Stathis) are having, I could understand
that. But normally when we weigh genes and environment,
or nature and nurture, we are trying to account for what
made us the way we are.

Now whether the original influences were mostly genetic
(which I think is right) or environmental, the *current*
determinants of our thinking are largely memetic. In other
words, whatever your current configuration today, tomorrow
you will be being strongly run by the latest viral memeplex
fallen under the sway of.

Lee



From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca  Sat Apr  7 23:36:20 2007
From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Josh Cowan)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:36:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] uh oh, something's right
In-Reply-To: <200704070149.l371nMFi006899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200704070149.l371nMFi006899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <6b937cdaeed64fe1a654ab82e79387a8@sympatico.ca>

Hi Spike,

    For what it's worth, this morning CBC Radio One ran a fifteen second 
blip on the THAAD success, though they said it was only the second 
success in a row.

Cheers,

Josh
On Apr 6, 2007, at 9:51 PM, spike wrote:

> Friends,
>
> Today we had another hit with the THAAD missile system, the seventh
> consecutive success.  Most remarkable is this, considering that when 
> trying
> to hit a missile with another missile, there is so little target and 
> so damn
> much sky.  THAAD development is now three years ahead of schedule; 
> likely
> deployment will be in 2009 instead of 2012.
>
> But I noticed another remarkable thing.  The mainstream news agencies
> uttered not one word about it, and nary a syllable about the previous 
> two
> hits in January or September.  Think this over: to achieve kinetic kill
> represents an astounding technological achievement, control systems at 
> the
> bleeding edge of technology, sensors at the limit of our ability, a
> supercomputer flying at four times the speed of sound on a mission to
> destroy a mass destroyer of life.
>
> Back in the 90s when we couldn't hit a barn with these things, the 
> press
> couldn't get enough of the story, all the drooling rage it was.  But 
> now
> when we are smacking out of the sky everything that we aim at, they 
> find it
> far less newsworthy than the latest shaven-headed movie harlot or the
> playboy bunny who managed to slay her self by devouring everything in 
> the
> medicine chest.  This is news.
>
> I was pondering this as I drove home, and suddenly noticed that 
> everything
> around me is basically functional.  I see utter competence everywhere.
> Anyone who wants a job can get one, even if not their dream career.  
> Traffic
> is dense, but it moves along.  We go weeks at a time between even 
> seeing a
> traffic accident.  We often go months between malfunctions of household
> appliances, years between being a victim of even a minor crime, decades
> between an untimely death of a close friend or family member due to 
> anything
> other than natural causes.  Things are working.  They are working damn 
> well,
> working early and often.  Something is right.
>
> But we are afraid to congratulate ourselves.  Why don't we all take 
> some
> time to recognize all the things that are working right, such as the 
> THAAD
> missile, the highway system, capitalism incorporated.
>
> Let us congratulate ourselves unapologetically, shall we?
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
>




From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Sat Apr  7 23:49:26 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:49:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <46182E06.2090000@thomasoliver.net>

Lee Corbin wrote:

>Regarding future enhancements, [and] the dangers of identity
>loss [...]
>
>I issue this caution:  what gaineth a transhuman if he becometh
>someone else?  Beware any change at all, and allow only those
>that don't change you very much.  If you want to keep on living,
>that is.
>
>Lee
>
I have felt similar misgivings about a heavenly afterlife.  My identity 
would need considerable purging for me to fit in.  

Reincarnation violates basic logic's law of identity.  How could I have 
a past (or future) life as someone other than me?  Yet, surprisingly, I 
have a recalled a couple "memories" of past lives.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

Uploading with knowledge/memory enhancement would skew me Borgishly. 
 With who's knowledge/memory would I blend?  How could you still call 
that me?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation_%28Star_Trek%29

Lee, your warning has scared me into investigating 
identity/consciousness.  Ack!  More reading for my tired eyes.  If your 
identity turns out to consist of a process -- then it couldn't continue 
without change.  Keeping your identity would involve keep the changes 
going.  You've already changed from barely-self-aware-Lee to 
extropian-Lee.  Would the upshift to "trans-Lee" work better if it 
included an implanted memory of years of gradual changes?  

I suspect that identity might consist a good deal in what the subject 
considers his or her or its identity  So if you identify with your body, 
best not drop it if you don't want to feel dead.  

Last month Sondre Bjell?s told us how she identified with her family and 
friends so much that she felt their length of life might determine her 
length of life.  What if I identified with all humans?  --  Thomas



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Apr  8 01:56:16 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:56:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
References: <f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com><20070401204100.GK9439@leitl.org><7641ddc60704031209n31896412i8ed5af2ec837d780@mail.gmail.com><20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org><f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com><20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org><f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740704040843h7fee304dh9d599e69c18b0a58@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30704042154t363f51a0jbbde358542ef4c17@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740704050553t386a3e91y8544ced010e2580d@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704051817i41ea08d3ka5d83f9e1407a08b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01e401c77981$6213df00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> Eugen argues that you can't simulate a brain by hand;
> Frank Tipler in "The Physics of Immortality" calculates
> that the energy requirements alone would forbid such
> a thing, at least in real time. But, as I think you see,
> that misses the point of the argument. 

Yes.  To me these dismissals have the air of protests
given to Bruno's ideas in 1600 that the stars are really
just suns, only very very far away.  A critic could have
said, "such distances simply would have no practical
consequences in our lives, even if they were conceivable,
which they are not".   And his conjecture that there are
infinitely many stars would likewise have been dismissed
on the *exact* same grounds that some people want to
dredge up to dispatch our extremely theoretical notions
of what could constitute a calculation. 

> Extreme difficulty despite purposeful effort is a different
> situation to extreme improbability given random processes.
> An example of the latter would be a Turing-equivalent
> machine implementing my brain being realised by cosmic
> dust clouds.

You're often very good about giving proper lip service even
to theories you disagree with, but I cannot help reminding 
readers that dust clouds are static arrangements of particles,
no dust cloud being causally related to any other, and no
information flow between them being performed in real time.

>  It's far from clear that this could never happen (what if the
> universe is very large, or long-lived? what if there are multiple
> universes? what about the fact that there are multiple different
> abstract machines implementing a particular computation,
> each multiply realisable?), but even if it could be shown
> that it was as close to impossible as doesn't matter, that
> doesn't invalidate it as a thought experiment which says
> interesting things about functionalism and personal identity. 

I agree, except for the proviso that I insist on causality in order
for a process to be said to be a computation.  Note that my
statement is much stronger than it would have been five years
ago;  many people who are giving up on string theory are
turning to causal-based theories, in which causality is viewed
as fundamental or axiomatic. (Smolin's recent book aludes to
several of these.)

Lee



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Apr  8 01:17:03 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:17:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoengineered terrestrial solar vs.
 nanoengineered space solar power
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070407211556.02c1e528@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 06:59 PM 4/7/2007 +0200, you wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 08:15:15AM -0500, Jay Dugger wrote:
>
> > Will photovoltaics degrade in-orbit and by what mechanism? Radiation?
> > Corrosion? Impact?
>
>It's a solved problem, lifetime would be counted in decades, and
>arguably the array could be constantly repaired by roving robots.

It is a problem that will take some thinking about.

> > Do you assume SPS based on photovoltaics? Is that really a good model?
> > What about using sunlight to heat a working fluid for a generator?
>
>Bad idea. With PV you have high efficiency and potential separation
>in a semiconductor,

Many of the early power sat designs, particularly the ones from Boeing, 
used heat engines, thermionic was another option.  If you bring 
extraterrestrial resources into the picture where mass isn't such a 
problem, I think heat engines may be the way to go.

They have the advantage that the high voltage sections can be kept small 
enough to insulate them in pipes, something you can't do for 100 square km 
of pv cells.  The problem with heat engines is dumping the waste 
heat.  Boeing designs had the radiators working at yellow heat to keep the 
mass down.

But if you can afford the mass, Drexler and I figured out how to build 
radiators up to rejecting the waste heat at near room temperature.  (Yeah 
they are *big*.)

>which is one step removed from reradiating this
>towards a particular space segment, where your rectenna is.

There is a geometry problem in that the transmitting antenna needs to be 
pointed toward the earth while the power creating part needs to point at 
the sun.  This makes for a bunch of problems like multi Gw slip rings.

Keith

> > More to follow, when I return from work.
>
>--
>Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
>______________________________________________________________
>ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
>8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Apr  8 02:17:05 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:17:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<46180929.1050004@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <01fc01c77984$3071b230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Brent writes

>> The reason that I would decline [downloading, i.e., as I define it a
>> paltry form of uploading in which one *immediately* assumes an
>> unrecognizablely advanced form that has almost nothing in common
>> with one's present form] is that I don't believe in souls, and so
>> cannot see---on scientific grounds---why the new little device
>> that I was supposedly downloaded into would resemble me
>> (or be me) at all
> 
> Surely this will not be a problem at all.  There are two critical parts 
> of identity, both of which you mention, that would surely be preserved 
> by any aliens making us quickly into Gods.
> 
> First off is the history of what you were.  Surely part of making us 
> Gods, would be the restoration of everything we have ever been, including 
> restoration of everything we have ever forgotten.  So all of us, at any 
> point in our history, would be perfectly remembered or even reloaded, 
> spawned off, and played with by all at will.

Yes, I agree.  A benevolent upload program offered by the first AI to 
take control of the solar system would include

      1. by "uploading" definition, all your memories would be
          preserved, including---as you wisely add---memories
          that you've already forgotten (to the degree that they
          can be retrieved).  This step is *vital*, else uploading
          has failed.
      2. a councilor/mentor who would caution you on the
          problems of too-rapid change, give you self-editing
          capabilities, but only with:
      3. retention, preservation, and backup of former versions,
          and a suggestion that to make sure that identity is
          safeguarded, many such earlier versions be given
          ample runtime
 
But I was speaking of a transformation that takes place almost
instantly. Do you really think that you would be the same person
if your IQ instantly went to 12000 and although you knew 
about it, it would have no more structure or interest to you
than the fetus you once were does?   In other words, did
you read my conditions carefully?  They're pretty radical!

>  (i.e. I wonder what life 
> had been like for me had I married Carolyn instead of Malia...)  And 
> even if the Gods didn't restore this for us, that would be the first 
> task I would want to get started on with all that infinite knowledge and 
> power right?

Oh yes.  But again, you seem to be addressing "the usual" benevolent
upload scenario, in which preservation of ordinary identity almost
certainly can be achieved, especially if one is careful.

> <snip>
> 
> Anyway, I'm willing to bet anyone that this theory [of qualia] will be
> commonly accepted as fact in 10 or so years...

Weren't you saying that seven years ago?  :-)

> If you're out there, Gods, I tell you know.  Stop hiding from us and I 
> want all this now or as fast as is possible!  I'm sick and tired of 
> being trapped in this lonely ineffable spirit prison.

No one hopes more than I do that you Mormons were exactly
right all along.  So what's taking so long for the former Saints
(now Gods) to come to our aid?  My theory is that they're
still reeling from the shock of brother Brigham's latest ideas,
which he's been pounding into them since 1877, but will finally
come to our assistence soon.  (I happen to think that Brigham
was right about almost everything!)

Lee



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Apr  8 04:28:13 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 14:28:13 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
In-Reply-To: <01e401c77981$6213df00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704040843h7fee304dh9d599e69c18b0a58@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704042154t363f51a0jbbde358542ef4c17@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704050553t386a3e91y8544ced010e2580d@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704051817i41ea08d3ka5d83f9e1407a08b@mail.gmail.com>
	<01e401c77981$6213df00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704072128l78586b4dt5177bb84aaf2b83b@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/8/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

Stathis writes
>
> > Extreme difficulty despite purposeful effort is a different
> > situation to extreme improbability given random processes.
> > An example of the latter would be a Turing-equivalent
> > machine implementing my brain being realised by cosmic
> > dust clouds.
>
> You're often very good about giving proper lip service even
> to theories you disagree with, but I cannot help reminding
> readers that dust clouds are static arrangements of particles,
> no dust cloud being causally related to any other, and no
> information flow between them being performed in real time.


I used this as an example of a system in random motion. There is a non-zero
probability that a dust cloud (which is not be *perfectly* static) will
spontaneously implement a doggy, a ducky and an analogue of my brain.
I used to think that as long as the probability remains non-zero, given
infinite time the desired event becomes a certainty. That's not actually
true if the probability progressively decreases per unit time period. For
example, if the probability of an event occurring in the first year is 1/2,
in the second year 1/4, in the nth year 1/(2^n), the probability that the
event will never occur is given by the infinite product of (1 - 1/(2^n)),
which is not zero but converges to approximately 0.288788 (perhaps someone
could check this or work it out exactly). So depending on the cosmological
model, some things may never happen, which is a disappointment; but under
other models, such as most multiverse models, everything that can happen,
does happen.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070408/53d56747/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Apr  8 04:37:05 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:37:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] "The problem is partly a matter of evolutionary
 psychology."
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0704071048r1d73f42eg13638d03db881fd9@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070407121537.04349da8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<deaa866a0704040721y6218a296s6bf67b2982b803c5@mail.gmail.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070404191247.191d5ca8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070406120256.04417d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<026501c778c5$957e20b0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070407121537.04349da8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070408001810.044470c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:48 PM 4/7/2007 -0400, Robert wrote:

>On 4/7/07, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>>
>>Patrick McKnight is a Rutgers College senior, majoring in philosophy and
>>sociology. His column "The View from Nowhere" runs on alternate Fridays.
>
>It isn't worth my time to take apart the article on a piece by piece 
>basis.  It is nice that he is thinking in terms of "sustainability" but 
>the basis for many of the claims has significant flaws.  Most importantly 
>I would not expect a major in philosophy and sociology to have a grasp of 
>what engineering and technology could accomplish given sufficient economic 
>incentives (be they "natural" or artificial).

I didn't post it for the engineering insights, and didn't expect any.  The 
only really significant point is recognition by someone in a much younger 
generation than mine that humans are poorly equipped by our evolutionary 
history for "comprehending long-term threats" much less to take steps to 
deal with problems of such time and physical scales.

It is, in my opinion, a bigger problem than energy and global warming 
combined.  Unlike that problem I don't have the least idea of how to solve 
the problem of "comprehending long-term threats."  If I did, I would solve 
that first and it would be easy to get resources allocated to deal with 
such problems as energy--not to mention even harder problems like avoiding 
the creation of hostile AIs.

Keith










From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Apr  8 04:46:10 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:46:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<46182E06.2090000@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <020601c77999$346ca100$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Thomas writes

> Lee Corbin wrote:
> 
>>Regarding future enhancements, [and] the dangers of identity
>>loss [...]
>>
>>I issue this caution:  what gaineth a transhuman if he becometh
>>someone else?  Beware any change at all, and allow only those
>>that don't change you very much.  If you want to keep on living,
>>that is.
> 
> I have felt similar misgivings about a heavenly afterlife.  My identity 
> would need considerable purging for me to fit in.  

Well, I would say that your self image must be incredibly negative
if you cannot imagine being purged of your minor foibles without
suffering identity change.  :-)   If you actually listed your flaws, and
then imagined either through New Year's Resolutions, Divine
Intervention, or a successful upload scheme  that those foibles
were corrected, do you really believe you'd be someone else?

> Reincarnation violates basic logic's law of identity.  How could I have 
> a past (or future) life as someone other than me?

Quite right.  Replace your memories, replace you.

> Yet, surprisingly, I have a recalled a couple "memories" of past lives.  

Come now.  Surely those are just the result of your imagination working
overtime. There have been no documented instances of people actually
being able to directly draw upon the experiences of people long dead.

> Uploading with knowledge/memory enhancement would skew me Borgishly. 
> With who's knowledge/memory would I blend?  How could you still call 
> that me?  

I would guess that you would not consider total immersion in an
Icelanding language course to be identity threatening. Surely the
Thomas, after the three years it took to master Icelandic, would
still be the same person.   Few experiences really change one
into someone else.  (I would not necessarily exclude The Army
or Scientology, however  :-)

> Lee, your warning has scared me into investigating 
> identity/consciousness.  Ack!  More reading for my tired eyes.  If your 
> identity turns out to consist of a process -- then it couldn't continue 
> without change.  Keeping your identity would involve keep the changes 
> going.  You've already changed from barely-self-aware-Lee to 
> extropian-Lee.  Would the upshift to "trans-Lee" work better if it 
> included an implanted memory of years of gradual changes?  

In the scenario I'm thinking of, the answer would be "not really".
It's the end point that counts. For example, even if you somehow
implanted memories in me of what it was like in my mother's womb,
it still wouldn't cause me be (in any sense) the inane little creature
she brought forth into the world.  It took many years, if not a decade
or two, for me to really emerge

> I suspect that identity might consist a good deal in what the subject 
> considers his or her or its identity.

On the other hand, I suppose it to be an objectively verifiable fact!

That is, scientists of the future will be able to say definitely that 
person X *is* person Y, or that person X is not person Y. Moreover,
some measures of the degree of similarity will be available. Already
we have measures that tell us how similar two binary strings are.
So since we're all binary strings in some sense, eventually we'll
have measures for how much change the identity of some
creature has changed over time.

> So if you identify with your body, best not drop it if you don't
> want to feel dead.  

I would say that those who identify with their toenail clippings are
simply wrong.  And those who identify with other bodily parts
below the neck, likewise, are simply wrong. 

>  What if I identified with all humans?  --  Thomas

Then you'd be commiting an error.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Apr  8 04:51:29 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:51:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
References: <f7bfe5740703271007m71131ea1v181da98108a0a33e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070403195803.GQ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704031759w426f6e15x8a6cb4076e0aa929@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070404105334.GJ9439@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30704040558g7bc7539fq31f3cad149f1117f@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704040843h7fee304dh9d599e69c18b0a58@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704042154t363f51a0jbbde358542ef4c17@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704050553t386a3e91y8544ced010e2580d@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704051817i41ea08d3ka5d83f9e1407a08b@mail.gmail.com>
	<01e401c77981$6213df00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704072128l78586b4dt5177bb84aaf2b83b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <020f01c77999$e8376490$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> [Lee wrote]
> > You're often very good about giving proper lip service even
> > to theories you disagree with, but I cannot help reminding
> > readers that dust clouds are static arrangements of particles,
> > no dust cloud being causally related to any other, and no
> > information flow between them being performed in real time.
>
> I used this as an example of a system in random motion.

Oh, sorry.

> There is a non-zero probability that a dust cloud (which is not be
> *perfectly* static) will spontaneously implement a doggy, a ducky
> and an analogue of my brain.

And naturally I see you to mean that the (highly unlikely) gravitational
and EM forces on the particles *cause* subsequent states to flow
from prior states. Okay.

> I used to think that as long as the probability remains non-zero, given infinite time the desired event becomes a certainty. 
> That's not actually true if the probability progressively decreases per unit time period. For example, if the probability of an 
> event occurring in the first year is 1/2, in the second year 1/4, in the nth year 1/(2^n), the probability that the event will 
> never occur is given by the infinite product of (1 - 1/(2^n)), which is not zero but converges to approximately  0.288788 (perhaps 
> someone could check this or work it out exactly).
<

I once computed exactly the same constant.  And I remember the answer:  .288788...
in exact agreement with you. There happens to be a very complicated way of
computing that number very efficiently using partitions.

> So depending on the cosmological model, some things may never happen,

That is an interesting consequence;  and new to me.

Lee

> which is a disappointment; but under other models, such as most multiverse
> models, everything that can happen, does happen.



From amara at amara.com  Sun Apr  8 05:36:57 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 07:36:57 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoengineered terrestrial solar vs.nanoengineered
 space solar power
Message-ID: <p06230900c23e2eddf98e@[23.237.66.13]>

Spike:
>If you meant micrometeoroid, there are so sparse they aren't a major factor.

I wasn't following this conversation, but if you want to know geostationary
numbers:

The mean flux for interplanetary dust (impact speed dependent) is:
is 1.35x10^{-4} m^{-2}s^{-1} using a mean detetection rate of 0.54/day

The mean flux for (man-made) space debris (impact speed dependent) is:
is 6.1x10^{-4} m^{-2}s^{-1} using a mean detetection rate of 2.5/day

These numbers come from the GORID detector, which was collecting data
from a Russians telecommunications satellite in GEO during 1996-2002.

This (refereed) paper can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609341

and a high-resolution version here:
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/dips2005/GrapsetalDIPS2005.pdf

We hope to have a longer and more detailed paper, but I'm really overloaded
these days/weeks/months.

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Apr  8 07:57:54 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:57:54 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hypocrisy and Preaching (was The great
	globalwarming swindle)
In-Reply-To: <200704072053.l37KrjQ7016508@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <932576.66127.qm@web37206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<200704072053.l37KrjQ7016508@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20070408075754.GO9439@leitl.org>

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 01:55:45PM -0700, spike wrote:

> In the final analysis, everything is dollars and cents.  Algore and others

A lot of things do not have monetary value. How much is love worth,
in dollar and cents?

> make a fundamental error assuming governments should control our carbon
> footprint.  Governments do not control that, markets do.  If governments try
> too hard to influence markets (and in so doing depress the economy) they get

Governments are there to look at the long term and create new markets
by regulation. Unfortunately, governments almost uniformly fail in that,
but for a few rare exceptions.

> thrown out of office, as they should.  Give us hard numbers so that we can
> make market-based decisions.

Sometimes, markets fail. Pollution occurs on a time scale beyond which
the market optimizes. Pollution is global, which encourages tragedy of
the commons mode. 

Do you know anyone who would voluntarily buy carbon options whenever
taking a flight? It would easily add some $40 to your flight ticket. 

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Sun Apr  8 09:14:47 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 02:14:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<46182E06.2090000@thomasoliver.net>
	<020601c77999$346ca100$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <4618B287.2010408@thomasoliver.net>

Lee Corbin wrote:

>Thomas writes
>  
>
>>Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>[...] misgivings about a heavenly afterlife.  My identity 
>>would need considerable purging for me to fit in.  
>>    
>>
>
>Well, I would say that your self image must be incredibly negative
>if you cannot imagine being purged of your minor foibles without
>suffering identity change.  :-)   If [...] those foibles
>were corrected, do you really believe you'd be someone else?
>
I had my fundamental rejection of the religious beliefs commonly 
associated with admission to heaven in mind.  No, my identity has 
already survived numerous flaw corrections and I don't really identify 
with some of the flaws I've acquired with age!

>>Yet, surprisingly, I have a recalled a couple "memories" of past lives.
>>
>
>Come now.  Surely those are just the result of your imagination working
>overtime. There have been no documented instances of people actually
>being able to directly draw upon the experiences of people long dead.
>
These "recollections" didn't lend themselves to verification and I think 
you'd find me at least as skeptical as yourself as to their veracity. 
 That my brain would produce these "movies" in response to requests for 
memories of facts -- that surprised me.  I think perhaps one part of a 
mind can lie to another part.  I don't have to believe it, though.  I 
filed it under "mental curiosities."  

>>Uploading with knowledge/memory enhancement would skew me Borgishly. 
>>With who's knowledge/memory would I blend?  How could you still call 
>>that me?  
>>    
>>
>
>I would guess that you would not consider total immersion in an
>Icelanding language course to be identity threatening. Surely the
>Thomas, after the three years it took to master Icelandic, would
>still be the same person.   Few experiences really change one
>into someone else.  (I would not necessarily exclude The Army
>or Scientology, however  :-)
>
People sometimes aquire some personality traits from their teachers.  I 
thought of merging with other uploaded personalities as the mode of 
enhancement.  No, a tutorial wouldn't threaten identity.

>>[...]
>>
>It took many years, if not a decade
>or two, for me to really emerge
>  
>
Buddhist monks take years, even decades, (lifetimes?) to get free of 
self.  Your identity might be tougher than you think.  Then too, perhaps 
you haven't really emerged yet, but it's too early to know that.  

>>I suspect that identity might consist a good deal in what the subject 
>>considers his or her or its identity.
>>    
>>
>
>On the other hand, I suppose it to be an objectively verifiable fact!
>
>That is, scientists of the future will be able to say definitely that 
>person X *is* person Y, or that person X is not person Y. Moreover,
>some measures of the degree of similarity will be available. Already
>we have measures that tell us how similar two binary strings are.
>So since we're all binary strings in some sense, eventually we'll
>have measures for how much change the identity of some
>creature has changed over time.
>
That gives the scientists a "measure" of certainty, but will showing an 
advanced ID card assure *you* integrity of identity?  

>[...] those who identify with other bodily parts
>below the neck, likewise, are simply wrong. 
>
I have reservations about losing the pattern of nerve connections to my 
hands.  A dancer might wish to preserve the pattern of connections to 
the lower extremities.  I guess I don't see the error.  The embodiment 
of personal experience in these patterns seems a far cry from toenails. 
 (Sorry, I can't seem to find a reference for this.  Maybe I hold a 
mistaken view.) -- Thomas



From asa at nada.kth.se  Sun Apr  8 10:19:35 2007
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:19:35 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] uh oh, something's right
In-Reply-To: <200704072001.l37K1I0s025548@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200704072001.l37K1I0s025548@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <50449.86.153.216.201.1176027575.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>


spike wrote:
>> Definitely! Congrats to everybody who gets everything to work!
>
> Thanks Anders.  Coming from you, it means much.

Hearing that from you also means much (and now the feedback loop of
self-congratulations speeds towards singularity)!

>> ... that may be a much better measure of progress than looking at how
>> much time, energy, FLOPS or whatever are produced. Maybe we should try
>> to
>> index it?
>
> Ja, we have some indices, but I am not sure their actual value.  Example,
> the number of FLOPS produced by my own favorite idle-CPU background
> project
> GIMPS.  We were going exponential for several years, then it leveled out a
> couple years ago at about 70,000 machines and gradual linear increase now
> around 20 Teraflops.

Blogging also seems to have reached a plateau, although it is somewhat
index dependent and might be local to the anglophone world. However, both
GIMPS and blogging represent activities where we cannot measure efficiency
that well. However, the linear increase would measure the amount of extra
FLOPS machines now achieve beyond system maintenance and ordinary work
tasks?

Car fuel efficiency might be of interest, as is the amount of losses in
power systems per Watt put into them. We might want to find out how much
and how many different chemicals one kilogram of coal can be turned into.
For news we might want to find indices of how quickly a particular piece
of news reaches 50% of its asymptotic recipients. For software we might
want to measure amount of time lost due to swapping to hard drives,
processes negotiating out of deadlocks and number of lost or colliding
packages in different networks. Of course, the important thing is to
measure this as "per capita" rather than the aggregate amount - as we get
more computers we certainly have more packet collisions, but the
interesting thing is to look at the efficiency of the system on average.

> Taking into account the proportion of multi-machine contributors, we can
> now
> estimate the total number of this particular type of math geeks on the
> planet: around 50,000.  Considering the total human population, that makes
> us rarer than one in a million.  I never would have guessed we were so
> few.

Not all math geeks run GIMPS (cries of surprise and outrage), so being
rarer than one in a million is not that surprising. I wonder how many math
geeks there are worldwide? Maybe GIMPS is missing emerging crowds of geeks
in China, just itching to search for Mersennes?


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University




From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Apr  8 10:29:21 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:29:21 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
In-Reply-To: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/8/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

"The only issue," he goes on, "is that some of you may have a problem
> about identity.  You see, the moment that your IQ becomes 12,000
> and you know everything about Earth history and the pitifully
> primitive life forms that you used to be, you no longer resemble the same
> person that you used to be at all, any more than you currently resemble
> the
> fetus that you were eight months before birth.
>
> "Now then.  Who wants to go first?"
>
> Unless I had guarantees that there'd be storage enough and the
> ability to run lots of old-fashioned Lees in parallel to all the
> Lee-Pluses,
> I'd decline. The reason that I would decline is that I don't believe in
> souls, and so cannot see---on scientific grounds---why the new little
> device that I was supposedly downloaded into would resemble me
> (or be me) at all.


The main difference between your scenario and growing up from infancy to
adulthood seems to be that the latter occurs more slowly. If an infant grew
up in a second, amassing knowledge in the process just as if he had grown up
in the usual manner, the new adult might have regrets about missing out on
childhood but if he considered that the infant had died that would be no
different to all of us considering that our infant selves had died.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070408/504a5475/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  8 11:16:31 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 04:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <745663.70893.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The main difference between [Lee Corbin's] scenario
and
> growing up from infancy to
> adulthood seems to be that the latter occurs more
> slowly. If an infant grew
> up in a second, amassing knowledge in the process
> just as if he had grown up
> in the usual manner, the new adult might have
> regrets about missing out on
> childhood but if he considered that the infant had
> died that would be no
> different to all of us considering that our infant
> selves had died.

Yes. But why would anyone want to go from infancy to
adulthood in a blink of an eye? Or from from adulthood
to omniscience for that matter? For me, the journey is
the point and the destination is just the end of the
journey.


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome.


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121


From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca  Sun Apr  8 15:13:35 2007
From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Joshua Cowan)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:13:35 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hypocrisy and Preaching (was The
	greatglobalwarming swindle)
In-Reply-To: <20070408075754.GO9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <BAY122-F2478C33CE96422D2887CE79A5A0@phx.gbl>



Eugen asked:

>Do you know anyone who would voluntarily buy carbon options whenever
>taking a flight? It would easily add some $40 to your flight ticket.

$40/20K miles but you get a free luggage tag. :)

http://www.terrapass.com/flight/products.flight.all.php?flight_carbon=0&flight_miles=0

Cheers,

Josh




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Apr  8 15:39:25 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 08:39:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede><f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com><002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede><f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405122707.02267bd8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <022901c779f4$2eca4ee0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien writes

> Criminals are held responsible for their ill deeds because we know 
> that while they might have a powerful disposition to act in a malign 
> and antisocial fashion they also have the capacity to choose 
> otherwise (except where the disposition overwhelms all other motives 
> or external circumstances restrict their options too brutally).

We have seen evidence on this very list in recent posts that failure
to believe in free will can lead some people to automatically
exculpate the guilty.

These two terms "hold accountable" and "to hold responsible" are
very good and convenient ways of describing the correct attitudes
that are needed.  (I was particularly struck by Pinker's use of "we
must hold accountable....", in this same context, in a lecture he gave
at Stanford when publicizing his recent (at the time) book
"The Blank Slate".

Whatever one's views on the abstract questions concerning
philosophical free will, there should be no doubt that we need
to severely *blame* criminals and naughty children and, in
general, all miscreants.  This is for the simple and obvious
fact that all non-neurologically damaged people are affected
by censure, blame, and punishment.

I would even go so far as to require judges when handing out
sentences to do so with passion.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Apr  8 16:03:53 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:03:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> > Unless I had guarantees that there'd be storage enough and the
> > ability to run lots of old-fashioned Lees in parallel to all the Lee-Pluses,
> > I'd decline [an offer to upload when the new "me" would be vastly
> > different from me]. The reason that I would decline is that I don't believe
> > in souls, and so cannot see---on scientific grounds---why the new little
> > device that I was supposedly downloaded into would resemble me
> > (or be me) at all.
> 
> The main difference between your scenario and growing up from infancy
> to adulthood seems to be that the latter occurs more slowly.

Well, this is where I differ from most people.  (Just now, I note that
The Avantguardian has made a similar point.)

For me, it's the end state
that counts, not the amount of time it took to get there. Let X be an
entity that has utterly nothing in common with one.  Then a lot of people
don't mind evolving into X provided it's done slowly enough, because
they believe as they step-by-step turn into someone else, their "essence"
is somehow retained.  I guess.  I guess that's what they must
believe, in some form or other.

Even if I finally reveal that X is, say, Max More, they don't seem to think
of this as especially identity threatening.  But if that happened to them,
I claim, then they'd be dead and there would simply be more Max
Mores. What possible difference does it make whether the transformation
was fast or slow?

Lee



From jonkc at att.net  Sun Apr  8 16:48:12 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:48:12 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> The only issue," he goes on, "is that some of you may have a problem about
> identity.  You see, the moment that your IQ becomes 12,000 and you know
> everything about Earth history and the pitifully primitive life forms that
> you used to be, you no longer resemble the same person that you used to
> be at all, any more than you currently resemble the fetus that you were
> eight months before birth.
> "Now then.  Who wants to go first?"

And at this point John Clark can be seen jumping up and down with his hand
raised up as high as it will go screaming at the top of his lungs "ME! ME!
PICK ME!".

If you don't regard it as a great tragedy that you no longer resemble a one
month old fetus then I see no reason to fear a 12,000 IQ, but that's just my
opinion and there's no disputing matters of taste.  Regardless of who is
correct, those with an opinion (or taste) similar to mine will become far
more powerful than those with a taste similar to yours, and thus will
dominate in the transhuman gene pool.

  John K Clark




From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sun Apr  8 16:37:37 2007
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:37:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hypocrisy and Preaching (was The great
	globalwarming swindle)
In-Reply-To: <20070408075754.GO9439@leitl.org>
References: <932576.66127.qm@web37206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<200704072053.l37KrjQ7016508@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<20070408075754.GO9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <794D07B2-9102-4068-B8D8-00E52B99E5EA@ceruleansystems.com>

On Apr 8, 2007, at 12:57 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Do you know anyone who would voluntarily buy carbon options whenever
> taking a flight? It would easily add some $40 to your flight ticket.


That seems a bit high, at least currently.  The carbon offset market  
is currently priced in the ballpark of US$4.00 per ton.  I'll add  
that these markets have the strong reek of bullshit, as not just  
anyone is allowed to participate in the selling carbon offsets; it  
looks like a scam for ideological environmental organizations to make  
money.

I sequester approximately 1,000 tons of carbon per year and have for  
about a decade, but I cannot make any money from this fact.  So  
instead, I have granted use of my unused carbon offsets to a few  
friends so that they can be smug about their carbon negative  
lifestyles.  I can't make money, so I might as well get some  
amusement from it.

J. Andrew Rogers



From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sun Apr  8 16:32:44 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 10:32:44 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
In-Reply-To: <01fc01c77984$3071b230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<46180929.1050004@comcast.net>
	<01fc01c77984$3071b230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <4619192C.5080509@comcast.net>

Lee Corbin wrote:
>   
>> <snip>
>>
>> Anyway, I'm willing to bet anyone that this theory [of qualia] will be
>> commonly accepted as fact in 10 or so years...
>>     
>
> Weren't you saying that seven years ago?  :-)
>   

Yes, but back then I was saying about 20 or so years from then.  We've 
made much progress since then so I feel a little more confident reducing 
the time I think it will take.  We are now stimulating the visual cortex 
of blind people and producing spots of phenomenal light people are 
consciously aware of, and stimulating the auditory areas of the brain in 
a way that can make them consciously aware of sound qualia.  This is 
almost precisely the kind of effing I have always been talking about.  
As in they stimulate the properly configured brain in a particular way, 
saying this is what salt tastes like, and the person that has never 
known what salt tastes like will finally say something like: "Oh That is 
what salt tastes like."  With only a little more progress along these 
lines such theories will finally be proved or disproved very soon now 
don't you think?

> No one hopes more than I do that you Mormons were exactly
> right all along.

Be careful about classifying me with "you Mormons" since I believe many 
things very different than most "Mormons" such as I believe our spirits 
do not rise from our bodies when we die to be greeted by the spirits of 
our already dead ancestors and or Brigham Young.  I believe Joseph Smith 
was a liar (but still did some good).  There is no God yet, nor was some 
Sacrifice by some dude named Jesus significant the way they claim.  
People will not be split up and isolated into "3 degrees of glory" in 
heaven and I believe other worship and wallow in misery things like that 
are not true.  But other than a few things like that, they have lots of 
good beliefs and a great culture which I do share - especially the one 
where they believe man can become God.

Brent Allsop


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070408/43f309b1/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Apr  8 16:53:23 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:53:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <022901c779f4$2eca4ee0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405122707.02267bd8@satx.rr.com>
	<022901c779f4$2eca4ee0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704080953o45b2d5cfk3201ee939f99ae4e@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/8/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> I would even go so far as to require judges when handing out
> sentences to do so with passion.

Lee, I think you're heading in the right direction, but rather than
expressing passion which obscures rationality in the courtroom, our
judgments should calmly and clearly proclaim our values (rather than
pretending to be objective as is so often the case.)

It's the right direction because it helps us mature beyond the fairy
tales of "intrinsic rights" and "objective justice" and moves us
toward taking responsibility for creating a future that increasingly
promotes shared values that work.

On the other hand, people as yet generally don't appreciate rationally
promoting shared values, so -- let the passions flow and we'll use the
inadvertent consequences as opportunities to learn and grow. :-(

This goes to Anna's question about manipulation.  Raised in a mostly
calm, reasonable family and being an INTJ by disposition, I tend to
approach disputes in terms of principles.  But outside my EDA
(Environment of Developmental Adaptation), many times (depending on
the personality of the other), the reaction in response to a calm
principled appeal is along the lines of "Yeah, okay...so what?"  If I
then intentionally demonstrate a bit of personal anger or outrage,
then it's "Okay, I get you."  Is this manipulation?  Is it "wrong"?

- Jef


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Apr  8 17:40:23 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 03:40:23 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
In-Reply-To: <023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
	<023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/9/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

For me, it's the end state
> that counts, not the amount of time it took to get there. Let X be an
> entity that has utterly nothing in common with one.  Then a lot of people
> don't mind evolving into X provided it's done slowly enough, because
> they believe as they step-by-step turn into someone else, their "essence"
> is somehow retained.  I guess.  I guess that's what they must
> believe, in some form or other.
>
> Even if I finally reveal that X is, say, Max More, they don't seem to
> think
> of this as especially identity threatening.  But if that happened to them,
> I claim, then they'd be dead and there would simply be more Max
> Mores. What possible difference does it make whether the transformation
> was fast or slow?


But you probably have a lot more in common with Max More than you do with
your infant self. This example is one more reason why there is no "truth of
the matter" about continuity of personal identity from moment to moment.
Like free will, it's an illusion which is very important to maintain,
otherwise we will be unhappy. Unlike those characters in films like "The
Matrix" who complain that it's not real, I don't care as long as it feels
real.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070409/bcf9102d/attachment.html>

From asa at nada.kth.se  Sun Apr  8 18:01:33 2007
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:01:33 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
In-Reply-To: <745663.70893.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <745663.70893.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <52855.86.153.216.201.1176055293.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>


The Avantguardian wrote:
> Yes. But why would anyone want to go from infancy to
> adulthood in a blink of an eye? Or from from adulthood
> to omniscience for that matter? For me, the journey is
> the point and the destination is just the end of the
> journey.

Well, IQ 12,000 is a good start of the journey but it is hardly the end.

I wonder if we are not mixing up the identity issue with the "progress
must be earned" meme many bioconservatives sprout against enhancement.
That meme does contain a kernel of truth: if we gain abilities that are
not closely tied to the totality of our being (which normally happens when
we acquire them through training) the abilities are not really "ours" and
are not praiseworthy except instrumentally. Just being upgraded might
actually leave us pretty inefficient at using our upgrades. A cruicial
question to ask is how the upgrades actually get integrated into our
selves.


As for identity, people seem to value different things. Some are very
concerned about the continuity of their stream of consciousness, stream of
memories or even their physical body states. Others are more concerned
with some core aspect of the process producing these streams. I think I
belong to that category. "Andersness" to me represents a particular style
of generating new mindstates based on previous states and external
information. It is not even a full set of evolution equations, since
clearly my brain is changing over time while some core styles remain
pretty constant. Would they remain in Lee's scenario? I do not see any
information for or against it. I can very well imagine that just as some
individual fetal traits remain in my adult form so can my "Andersness"
remain in the IQ 12,000 version, but it seems equally possible that some
of this style might indeed be tied to properties that would tend to be
streamlined away.


In the end I usually ask myself "what makes the universe a more complex
and interesting place?" In this case it seems to be to downloadm since
there will be more intelligence and more ability to generate complexity
based on my old knowledge and the successor entity's new knowledge.

Another way to deal with the situation is of course to download, create a
(complete) mental model of one's pre-downloading self and examine whether
this model would approve of one's current mental state. In the case of
approval, there is no need to maintain the mental model and one can live a
happy posthuman life. In the case of disapproval, one can continue to
maintain the mental model as an independent subcomponent and live a happy
posthuman life and a happy human life in parallel.

[ This plan can be decided upon before downloading as a kind of contract
between one's current self and future self - there seems to be fairly
solid philosophical grounds to expect rational beings to want to honor
contracts between different timeslices of themselves, even when the future
timeslices are vastly more complex. But I would also expect that opinions
will differ on this. ]

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University




From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Sun Apr  8 17:37:15 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 10:37:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <4619284B.3040005@thomasoliver.net>

John K Clark wrote:

>[...]
>
>I see no reason to fear a 12,000 IQ, but that's just my
>opinion and there's no disputing matters of taste.  Regardless of who is
>correct, those with an opinion (or taste) similar to mine will become far
>more powerful than those with a taste similar to yours, and thus will
>dominate in the transhuman gene pool.
>
>  John K Clark
>
I would hope that, at IQ 12,000 one would view reptilian complex 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_brain>1 based issues of 
dominance and submission as of little  relevance.  I guess social status 
works better than no motive at all (for getting smarter).  I hope 
something starts working for me! -- Thomas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_brain



From asa at nada.kth.se  Sun Apr  8 19:03:01 2007
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:03:01 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <4619284B.3040005@thomasoliver.net>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<4619284B.3040005@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <1314.163.1.72.81.1176058981.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>


Thomas wrote:
> I would hope that, at IQ 12,000 one would view reptilian complex
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_brain>1 based issues of
> dominance and submission as of little  relevance.  I guess social status
> works better than no motive at all (for getting smarter).  I hope
> something starts working for me! -- Thomas.

Hmm, we evolved brains in order to find food more easily and avoid getting
eaten. That core function has never disappeared, it has just developed
into first various appetitive and aversive drives, then into even more
complex emotions and behaviors. When I write a project grant proposal I am
in a sense just doing sublimated eating-promotion. Maybe 12,000 IQ
entities are sublimating social dominance similarly into complex posthuman
behaviors that do not look very reptilian.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Apr  8 22:11:15 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:11:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mormons and >H
In-Reply-To: <4619192C.5080509@comcast.net>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<46180929.1050004@comcast.net>
	<01fc01c77984$3071b230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<4619192C.5080509@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070408171008.02374dd8@satx.rr.com>

At 10:32 AM 4/8/2007 -0600, Brent wrote:

>People will not be split up and isolated into "3 degrees of glory" 
>in heaven and I believe other worship and wallow in misery things 
>like that are not true.

I don't understand this for several values of "understand." Could you clarify?

Damien Broderick




From randall at randallsquared.com  Sun Apr  8 22:29:11 2007
From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:29:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
	<023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D3E71B3-21E3-46A9-9E0E-397D8D776432@randallsquared.com>

On Apr 8, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> But you probably have a lot more in common with Max More than you  
> do with your infant self. This example is one more reason why there  
> is no "truth of the matter" about continuity of personal identity  
> from moment to moment. Like free will, it's an illusion which is  
> very important to maintain, otherwise we will be unhappy.

Well... *someone* will be unhappy.  Whether *we* will is the
heart of the matter, isn't it?

--
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
"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 brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sun Apr  8 23:17:16 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:17:16 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mormons and >H
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070408171008.02374dd8@satx.rr.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<46180929.1050004@comcast.net>	<01fc01c77984$3071b230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<4619192C.5080509@comcast.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070408171008.02374dd8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <461977FC.4000101@comcast.net>


Damien,

I figured most people wouldn't understand this, but I didn't want to 
make the post longer.
So thanks for asking!!  And let me know if I missed anything you are asking.

The "3 degrees of glory" part has to do with the common Mormon beliefs.  
Most Christians believe in Heaven and Hell, or 2 ultimate places "souls" 
will end up.  But Mormons are different, they believe in these "3 
degrees of glory" and of course "outer darkness" which is where the 
Devil, and a few of his cohorts supposedly end up.

According to Mormons, everyone will be resurrected and end up in one of 
these places.  These 3 differ in magnitude of quality like the 
difference between the sun, the moon, and the stars.  But even the 
lowest is supposedly better than life here on earth.  There is some 
speculation that people in higher degrees might be able to occasionally 
visit souls in lower kingdoms but never the reverse.

So to me, this is all some amount of isolation, a terrible and faithless 
thing to believe in.  So when Mormons claim "Families will be together 
forever" I quickly point out that this is a lie since they believe 
everyone will be split up like this. But I do believe, or at least hope, 
that families really will be together forever, and am committed to never 
giving up on anyone until this is achieved for everyone.  In other 
words, once we reach the singularity, and become immortal, for me an 
important remaining task will be the work to resurrect all our 
ancestors.  And of course never giving up until everyone is in this 
heavenly future all together, with no more isolation forever more for 
everyone including newly created children whether spiritual or whatever.

The worshiping and wallowing in misery is only minimally about the 
misery of families not really being together in heaven.  It more has to 
do with how Mormons spend so much time worshiping and wallowing in 
misery.  Though when you claim they do this they attempt to deny this also.

The descriptions of God in the bible is some what vague, and many people 
take away differing specifications about just what the God of the bible 
is.  The Book of Mormon supposedly clarifies many things about what they 
believe God is.  But for me, this vision of God, is a very miserable God 
in Hell.  The God of the book of Mormon even more so than the God of the 
Bible.  I mean just imagine being this God and watching all the 
Nephites, your good spirit children, being tortured, killed, and 
ultimately completely wiped off the face of the earth by the Lamenites 
because of their belief, or lack of belief in God and failing to follow 
your commandments after Jesus visited them.  Not to mention going to 
"sacrament meeting" every day and worshiping the "infinite" suffering 
Jesus supposedly did.  What is any "partaking of the sacrament" if not 
worshiping in and wallowing in misery, I say.

The more miserable life is, the better it is for Mormons.  They go on 
and on about how miserable life was for their early followers of Joseph 
Smith and Brigham Young.  They have constant celebrations where they 
worship how miserable and full of suffering life was for them.

So, for me, it is all theists, that truly lack faith, they accept the 
existence of and worship some impotent God that evidently wallows in 
watching all the souls on earth going through all this, and is impotent 
against all this evil.  But I have faith that evil like, isolation, 
suffering, death, and so on isn't all that hard to overcome, and in fact 
we will soon overcome it completely, long before we are "omnipotent".

So in other words, the heaven extropians believe in is infinitely better 
than the "eternal damnation" Mormons believe in where when people 
finally become Gods, evidently it will be kind of a contest to see if 
the world you create can be even more full of such evil, so that your 
children will be similarly worship and wallow in misery as they are 
tried, developed, and proved even better than those of other less "evil" 
and full of suffering worlds...    Again, Mormons will deny much of 
this, but when they talk about their beliefs, this is what I understand 
them to be.  i.e. it is all worshiping and wallowing in misery, and the 
"glory of God" is to do yet more of it for his children, for an eternity.

Brent Allsop




Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 10:32 AM 4/8/2007 -0600, Brent wrote:
>
>   
>> People will not be split up and isolated into "3 degrees of glory" 
>> in heaven and I believe other worship and wallow in misery things 
>> like that are not true.
>>     
>
> I don't understand this for several values of "understand." Could you clarify?
>
> Damien Broderick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>   



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Apr  8 23:46:37 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 16:46:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Clark, totally in character, writes


> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
> 
>> The only issue," he goes on, "is that some of you may have a problem about
>> identity.  You see, the moment that your IQ becomes 12,000 and you know
>> everything about Earth history and the pitifully primitive life forms that
>> you used to be, you no longer resemble the same person that you used to
>> be at all, any more than you currently resemble the fetus that you were
>> eight months before birth.
>> "Now then.  Who wants to go first?"
> 
> And at this point John Clark can be seen jumping up and down with his hand
> raised up as high as it will go screaming at the top of his lungs "ME! ME!
> PICK ME!".

Yes.  Now, would you explain the difference between (A) the Alien granting your
request and (B) the alien killing you, and then creating an IQ 12,000 entity that the
alien names Isador  which just so happens to have incredibly complete biographical
information about you? That is, Isador "remembers" almost all of what happened
to you on every day of your life.

Oh, I forgot to add:  the entity Isador also "remembers" what happened to me
and what happened to everyone else who is presently living.

What, I ask, is the difference, exactly, between A and B?

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Apr  8 23:54:03 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 16:54:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede><f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com><002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede><f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070405122707.02267bd8@satx.rr.com><022901c779f4$2eca4ee0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740704080953o45b2d5cfk3201ee939f99ae4e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <026601c77a39$88b44ab0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Jef writes

> On 4/8/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> 
>> I would even go so far as to require judges when handing out
>> sentences to do so with passion.
> 
> Lee, I think you're heading in the right direction, but rather than
> expressing passion which obscures rationality in the courtroom, our
> judgments should calmly and clearly proclaim our values (rather than
> pretending to be objective as is so often the case.)

Well, they can do both. Hmm.  I guess probably that the right
thing to do would be to dispassionately hand out the sentence.
And *then* follow it with how the judge feels (or would have
felt had he been the victim or the victim's family).

> It's the right direction because it helps us mature beyond the fairy
> tales of "intrinsic rights" and "objective justice" and moves us
> toward taking responsibility for creating a future that increasingly
> promotes shared values that work.

I agree with your denigration of "intrinsic rights", but I don't see
what's wrong with clinging to a concept of objective justice. Or
is it just a terminological query?

> On the other hand, people as yet generally don't appreciate rationally
> promoting shared values, so -- let the passions flow and we'll use the
> inadvertent consequences as opportunities to learn and grow. :-(
> 
> This goes to Anna's question about manipulation.  Raised in a mostly
> calm, reasonable family and being an INTJ by disposition, I tend to
> approach disputes in terms of principles.  But outside my EDA
> (Environment of Developmental Adaptation), many times (depending on
> the personality of the other), the reaction in response to a calm
> principled appeal is along the lines of "Yeah, okay...so what?"

Really?  Even on my most principled days I never get that reaction.
Your punch lines probably need polishing.  (Or maybe they're just
failing to get your point, i.e., you've perhaps been talking over their
heads, assuming they understood more than you should have.)

> If I then intentionally demonstrate a bit of personal anger or outrage,
> then it's "Okay, I get you."  Is this manipulation?  Is it "wrong"?

If it truly aids the understanding of the other, it is commendable. But
if all that they were interested in was your feelings on the subject, 
then there is still a problem.  But it's not your problem, it's theirs.

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Apr  8 23:59:41 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 18:59:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mormons and >H
In-Reply-To: <461977FC.4000101@comcast.net>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<46180929.1050004@comcast.net>
	<01fc01c77984$3071b230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<4619192C.5080509@comcast.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070408171008.02374dd8@satx.rr.com>
	<461977FC.4000101@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070408185415.022d34b0@satx.rr.com>

At 05:17 PM 4/8/2007 -0600, Brent wrote:

>Mormons will deny much of
>this, but when they talk about their beliefs, this is what I understand
>them to be.  i.e. it is all worshiping and wallowing in misery, and the
>"glory of God" is to do yet more of it for his children, for an eternity.

There seems no limit to the amount of cruel stupidity humans will 
embrace, nor how much money and effort they will throw at 
it.  Granted, the Mormons don't seem *quite* as mired in it as the 
Aztecs, the Ik and the Muslims.

I was under the impression that each Morman adult man who made the 
grade got to have a planet of his own, where he'd take his wife/wives 
and kids to be god-king (or something). That's somewhat hinted at in 
your response. I don't quite see how the kids get included since 
presumably they grow up and go to planets of their own.

Damien Broderick




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Apr  9 00:12:27 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:12:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
	<023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> On 4/9/07, Lee Corbin wrote:

>> Let X be an entity that has utterly nothing in common with one.
>> Then a lot of people don't mind evolving into X provided it's
>> done slowly enough..., 
>>
>> Even if I finally reveal that X is, say, Max More, they don't
>> seem to think of this as especially identity threatening. But if
>> that happened to them, I claim, then they'd be dead and
>> there would simply be more Max Mores. What possible
>> difference does it make whether the transformation 
>> was fast or slow?
> 
> But you probably have a lot more in common with Max More
> than you do with your infant self.

Yes, that's true. And sorry for the poor word choices above that
seem to imply that I have nothing in common with Max More.
We are both male and above five foot three in height.
But in terms of *personal identity* I have nearly zero in common
either with my infant self or Max More.  Kill me and create either
one of those and I'm dead either way.

> This example is one more reason why there is no "truth of the
> matter" about continuity of personal identity from moment to
> moment.

I not only dispute that, I claim that you dispute it too.  I claim
that in every way that matters, your actions and beliefs reflect
a contention that Stathis Papaioannou is someone, and 
someone special in the sense that if he is purged from the
simulation, then in no real way does he "continue in other
people" or anything.

Please let us use the term "personal identity" to refer to that
continuity of staying alive that we all cherish (except the
suicidal).  Your "self" is that which the police will come after
tomorrow if you commit a crime today.  Your "self" is that
which you want to continue to exist in all our teleportation
and duplication experiments.  It is vapid to deny that there
is some sort of thing that you want to keep on living, and
I think that we should use "self", "I", and "me" in the same
way that 99.9999% of the world's people do.

>  Like free will, it's an illusion which is very important to maintain,
> otherwise we will be unhappy.

I really do doubt that illusions make much difference one way or
the other.  Your happiness level is set mainly by your genes, 
mediated by serotonin, etc. 

> Unlike those characters in films like "The Matrix" who complain
> that it's not real,

Yeah!  That's quite hilarious.  Here's what the writers must have
been thinking:  "We, the exalted and extremely intelligent writers
know full well that this is just as real insofar as experiences go
as a lower level "reality", but all the clueless brainless fools who
watch our movies have no idea."

> I don't care as long as it feels real. 

If it feels real, then it *is* real---and any other use of words should
be met with criminal prosecution.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Apr  9 00:23:22 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:23:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mormons and >H
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><46180929.1050004@comcast.net><01fc01c77984$3071b230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><4619192C.5080509@comcast.net><7.0.1.0.2.20070408171008.02374dd8@satx.rr.com><461977FC.4000101@comcast.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070408185415.022d34b0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <027c01c77a3d$bd65af20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien observes

> There seems no limit to the amount of cruel stupidity humans will 
> embrace, nor how much money and effort they will throw at 
> it.  Granted, the Mormons don't seem *quite* as mired in it as the 
> Aztecs, the Ik and the Muslims.

They just don't do as well practicing what they preach!

Brent also wrote

> They [the Mormons] go on and on about how miserable life was
> for their early followers of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
> They have constant celebrations where they worship how
> miserable and full of suffering life was for them.

Really, any sensitive person who reads enough history will be in
favor of holding celebrations for how good we have it today.
It's probably quite healthy as well as accurate to "celebrate"
the horrors of the past, and to gloat about our superiority.

But I get your point.

Lee



From velvethum at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  9 00:33:46 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:33:46 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV91E2FDA4697781426713FA7590@phx.gbl>


> John Clark, totally in character, writes
>
>
>> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
>>
>>> The only issue," he goes on, "is that some of you may have a problem about
>>> identity.  You see, the moment that your IQ becomes 12,000 and you know
>>> everything about Earth history and the pitifully primitive life forms that
>>> you used to be, you no longer resemble the same person that you used to
>>> be at all, any more than you currently resemble the fetus that you were
>>> eight months before birth.
>>> "Now then.  Who wants to go first?"
>>
>> And at this point John Clark can be seen jumping up and down with his hand
>> raised up as high as it will go screaming at the top of his lungs "ME! ME!
>> PICK ME!".
>
> Yes.  Now, would you explain the difference between (A) the Alien granting your
> request and (B) the alien killing you, and then creating an IQ 12,000 entity that 
> the
> alien names Isador  which just so happens to have incredibly complete 
> biographical
> information about you? That is, Isador "remembers" almost all of what happened
> to you on every day of your life.
>
> Oh, I forgot to add:  the entity Isador also "remembers" what happened to me
> and what happened to everyone else who is presently living.
>
> What, I ask, is the difference, exactly, between A and B?


The answer is right in your setup. A was killed and B wasn't.

H. 



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  9 00:35:42 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mormons and >H
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070408185415.022d34b0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <704348.94473.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> I was under the impression that each Morman adult
> man who made the 
> grade got to have a planet of his own, where he'd
> take his wife/wives 
> and kids to be god-king (or something). That's
> somewhat hinted at in 
> your response. I don't quite see how the kids get
> included since 
> presumably they grow up and go to planets of their
> own.

Well if that's the case, the difference between
Mormonism and Ascensionism is that in the latter you
don't have to die first and God doesn't want to be
bothered by you all any more. ;)


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome.


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  9 00:53:56 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV91E2FDA4697781426713FA7590@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <788547.15066.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com> wrote:
> The answer is right in your setup. A was killed and
> B wasn't.

Why do you assume that Isador would give its Slawomir
subroutine any runtime? Especially when it has so many
other things to think about? You may as well be ashes
in an urn over the fireplace.


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome.


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peek at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather


From velvethum at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  9 01:40:08 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:40:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com><023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>

Lee:
> Please let us use the term "personal identity" to refer to that
> continuity of staying alive that we all cherish (except the
> suicidal).

I tried that already and I can report that this path leads to contradiction. 
Preserving personal identity is one thing and staying alive is another. Despite 
popular belief these things are unrelated.

Example: A single brain houses person A's memories and beliefs. If we wanted we 
could rewire that brain so that person A's beliefs and memories would be replaced 
by person B's memories and beliefs. Result? Personal identity has definitely 
changed but not the fact that the brain has not died. If personal identity and 
staying alive were one and the same, then a change in personal identity would have 
to cause brain death. And since a child (person A) manages to avoid brain death 
while morphing into an adult (person B) (if it didn't there would be no adults in 
the world) it should be apparent that we should not use the term "personal 
identity" to refer to continuity of staying alive.

Let's yield the term "personal identity" to those who think it refers to a specific 
collection of memories and beliefs and let them torture themselves with dead end 
questions such as, "What it means to preserve PI?" Instead, let's focus on how to 
stay alive.

H. 



From velvethum at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  9 01:56:08 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:56:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <788547.15066.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV135296B23D365ADEE4BCEBA7590@phx.gbl>

> --- Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The answer is right in your setup. A was killed and
>> B wasn't.
>
> Why do you assume that Isador would give its Slawomir
> subroutine any runtime? Especially when it has so many
> other things to think about? You may as well be ashes
> in an urn over the fireplace.
>
>
> Stuart LaForge

Oh, what happens to A is never dependent on what happens to B (why should it be?). 
Instance of type A
would remain dead even if Isador was kind enough to grant a different instance of
type A some runtime. The whole Isador thing was just a red herring.

H.



From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Apr  9 02:35:32 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:35:32 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <022901c779f4$2eca4ee0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f7bfe5740704050934r2a9de10cr8cf744c6a46fe08@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070405122707.02267bd8@satx.rr.com>
	<022901c779f4$2eca4ee0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704081935w26a43d7pe6a27768f05ea79b@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/9/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

Whatever one's views on the abstract questions concerning
> philosophical free will, there should be no doubt that we need
> to severely *blame* criminals and naughty children and, in
> general, all miscreants.  This is for the simple and obvious
> fact that all non-neurologically damaged people are affected
> by censure, blame, and punishment.
>
> I would even go so far as to require judges when handing out
> sentences to do so with passion.


I would go the other way. The criminal should be given the message that his
behaviour is unacceptable, and perhaps victim impact statements are helpful
here, but that the state is incarcerating him with reluctance, after due
consideration of the alternatives. Those criminals who have a moral sense
are least likely to be brutalised by this attitude, and those who do not (a
minority) won't be any the worse for it.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070409/d1d9494e/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Mon Apr  9 02:51:29 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:51:29 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mormons and >H
In-Reply-To: <704348.94473.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <704348.94473.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4619AA31.1080603@comcast.net>


There are two types of children in LDS philosophy of life.  There are 
"spirit" children of God, and physical children of our earthly parents.  
You are confusing the two and this all fits in with what LDS believe we 
are.  There is some kind of self existent, eternal "intelligence" that 
is some how implanted into a "spirit" child of God, when God 
(pro?)creates them (with many plural godly wives that were also on this 
world with us.).  This combo has a "pre existance" life in the "spirit 
world" with these Godly parents.  Then this combo is joined with a 
physical body as earthly parents procreate and raise a human on a 
physical earth.  "Gaining a body", and going through all these trials 
and suffering is a necessary part of becoming a God.

IF you succeed at this and become God, then you get to (pro?)create your 
own spirit children, and create a world to "send them to" to "gain" 
physical bodies of their own and so on.  I claim that if you listen to 
the way Mormons preach in church, if you create a world that isn't quite 
as miserable as this one, full of crucification, races of your children 
torturing and completely wiping out others,  your children, or at least 
the ones that make it, won't be quite as good Gods as we here on this 
full of misery earth will surely become.  In other words, they all seem 
to believe that the worse things are the better, and that without many 
failing and being damned, how will you know the few good ones are really 
good?

So what Mormons call "God's plan of happiness" is, I claim, really an 
eternal damnation of eternally creating the most damnable world possible 
to subject your spirit children to, while you eternally watch all your 
spirit children, as you hide from them, disobey you, torture each other, 
wipe out entire races, crucify "your only begotten son" for some 
incomprehensible necessity and so on, just like our God has done for us, 
his spirit children on this world.

But of course, atheist extropians can hope that evil isn't necessary, 
nor all that hard to overcome.  And that it will soon be completely 
overcome, long before we are anything close to being "omnipotent".  And 
this eternal Godly life, after this singularity that is absent of 
isolation, death and other such evils, does indeed make the LDS view 
like an impotent eternal worshiping and wallowing in misery damnation in 
comparison.

So as you can see, I am proud to be a "cultural Mormoan" and have many 
similar values to them.  But on most of their core doctrine, I am 
completely in disagreement with them.

Brent Allsop



The Avantguardian wrote:
> --- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> I was under the impression that each Morman adult
>> man who made the 
>> grade got to have a planet of his own, where he'd
>> take his wife/wives 
>> and kids to be god-king (or something). That's
>> somewhat hinted at in 
>> your response. I don't quite see how the kids get
>> included since 
>> presumably they grow up and go to planets of their
>> own.
>>     
>
> Well if that's the case, the difference between
> Mormonism and Ascensionism is that in the latter you
> don't have to die first and God doesn't want to be
> bothered by you all any more. ;)
>
>
> Stuart LaForge
> alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu
>
> "Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome.
>
>
>  
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070408/fd50dbb9/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Apr  9 03:20:50 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:20:50 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
In-Reply-To: <4D3E71B3-21E3-46A9-9E0E-397D8D776432@randallsquared.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
	<023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D3E71B3-21E3-46A9-9E0E-397D8D776432@randallsquared.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704082020x11043353n354ff74f91dd6355@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/9/07, Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > But you probably have a lot more in common with Max More than you
> > do with your infant self. This example is one more reason why there
> > is no "truth of the matter" about continuity of personal identity
> > from moment to moment. Like free will, it's an illusion which is
> > very important to maintain, otherwise we will be unhappy.
>
> Well... *someone* will be unhappy.  Whether *we* will is the
> heart of the matter, isn't it?


By "we" I mean the present observer moment, who has certain beliefs about
the person he will become in future which are shown to be irrational by
various duplication thought experiments. For example, if I am to be
destructively analysed today and two copies of me made tomorrow, one of whom
will be tortured, I am worried, because I feel there is a 1/2 chance I will
be tortured. But come tomorrow, if I am not the one being tortured, I am
relieved, despite feeling sorry for my twin screaming in the next room. Now,
why should I identify equally with both copies today, but much more with one
copy rather than the other tomorrow? Why should I identify with either copy
tomorrow given that I will be killed by the destructive analyser today? Why
should I identify with my future self several hence hence in the course of
ordinary life given that he will hardly contain any of the matter in my
present body and probably even his memory and thoughts will be only
approximations of my present memories and thoughts?

That is why I say that the only absolute, unequivocal usage of the first
person (singular) pronoun is in referring to the present observer moment.
Our ordinary usage of it has evolved in the absence of duplication, time
travel, travel to meet parallel selves in other universes; considering these
theoretical possibilities shows our previously rock-solid beliefs about
personal identity to be fundamentally flawed.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070409/34c41716/attachment.html>

From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Mon Apr  9 03:37:28 2007
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 22:37:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dresden Kodak
In-Reply-To: <62550.86.153.216.201.1175685602.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
References: <62550.86.153.216.201.1175685602.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
Message-ID: <5366105b0704082037m66fd908fh60d19be56e780171@mail.gmail.com>

23:35 Sunday, 8 April 2007

On 4/4/07, Anders Sandberg <asa at nada.kth.se> wrote:
> Dresden Kodak shows the problems of transhumanist dating :-)
> http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_034.htm

That comic would be really funny--if it wasn't so true. As is, that's
just humor too black, even for a fellow with prints of Goya's
paintings on his apartment walls.


-- 
Jay Dugger
http://jaydugger.suprglu.com
Sometimes the delete key serves best.


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Apr  9 03:29:52 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:29:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
Message-ID: <002b01c77a57$56848fa0$6501a8c0@brainiac>

Revolution, flashmobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2053020,00.html




From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Apr  9 03:50:05 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:50:05 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change
In-Reply-To: <027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
	<023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704082050w95970c7p90dbf2de5f6f9552@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/9/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

Stathis writes
>
> > This example is one more reason why there is no "truth of the
> > matter" about continuity of personal identity from moment to
> > moment.
>
> I not only dispute that, I claim that you dispute it too.  I claim
> that in every way that matters, your actions and beliefs reflect
> a contention that Stathis Papaioannou is someone, and
> someone special in the sense that if he is purged from the
> simulation, then in no real way does he "continue in other
> people" or anything.
>
> Please let us use the term "personal identity" to refer to that
> continuity of staying alive that we all cherish (except the
> suicidal).  Your "self" is that which the police will come after
> tomorrow if you commit a crime today.  Your "self" is that
> which you want to continue to exist in all our teleportation
> and duplication experiments.  It is vapid to deny that there
> is some sort of thing that you want to keep on living, and
> I think that we should use "self", "I", and "me" in the same
> way that 99.9999% of the world's people do.


Of course I do use personal identity in this everyday sense, and even though
I call it an illusion, I am very keen to preserve the illusion because that
is the way my brain has evolved. If anything, you are more rigorous in your
treatment of the idea than I am when you say that we should treat copies as
selves, whereas I would insist in my illusory state of mind that I can only
be one person at a time, struggling to use the personal pronouns in the way
I always have.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070409/19564534/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Apr  9 04:01:46 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:01:46 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <4619284B.3040005@thomasoliver.net>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<4619284B.3040005@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704082101i294cd466p716b2a00123430fa@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/9/07, Thomas <Thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:

I would hope that, at IQ 12,000 one would view reptilian complex
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_brain>1 based issues of
> dominance and submission as of little  relevance.  I guess social status
> works better than no motive at all (for getting smarter).  I hope
> something starts working for me! -- Thomas.


I don't think there is any necessary correlation between intelligence and
and the more "base" drives. Even if you could show that there is a
correlation in the animal kingdom, that would just be a contingent fact of
evolution. If we built AI's we could make a dumb one really kind, a smart
one really vicious, or not give them any emotions or drives beyond what was
needed for the task at hand. It is naive to imagine that every possible
intelligent entity will somehow resemble a human or a lizard.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070409/6818394c/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Apr  9 04:04:59 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:04:59 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704082104m1d19ad26pb3c4f1adb8713212@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/9/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

Yes.  Now, would you explain the difference between (A) the Alien granting
> your
> request and (B) the alien killing you, and then creating an IQ 12,000
> entity that the
> alien names Isador  which just so happens to have incredibly complete
> biographical
> information about you? That is, Isador "remembers" almost all of what
> happened
> to you on every day of your life.
>
> Oh, I forgot to add:  the entity Isador also "remembers" what happened to
> me
> and what happened to everyone else who is presently living.
>
> What, I ask, is the difference, exactly, between A and B?


Does anyone ever worry about growing up on the grounds that this is what
will happen to them?

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070409/67efb7a5/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Mon Apr  9 09:36:55 2007
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 01:36:55 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] My first Demo Reel and Query
Message-ID: <00d301c77a8b$4f9d9a40$0200a8c0@Nano>

Hello, I just completed my demo (or sample) reel, a compilation of my best art/animations made into one film.
I have uploaded it to my webpage for your viewing here:
http://www.nanogirl.com/demoreel.htm

and don't forget I always look forward to your comments!
http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-demo-reel.html

P.S> On a separate matter:
I was wondering if any of you Extropy list superstars would be willing to 
make a statement about me (my work: nano/animations/personality etc.)
to be used in quotes for my presskit and resume and perhaps later work.
You guys know me best and I would really appreciate your help!
Thanks to Natasha for this idea, I first saw an example of it on her
website - she's always got those great ideas!

Warm regards, 

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070409/4290ebfb/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Mon Apr  9 12:41:41 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 08:41:41 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Brain chips
In-Reply-To: <002b01c77a57$56848fa0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070409084116.04493d88@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>


http://www.popsci.com/popsci/printerfriendly/science/0e54d952c97b1110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Keith



From jonkc at att.net  Mon Apr  9 15:48:15 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:48:15 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> Yes.  Now, would you explain the difference between (A) the Alien granting
> your request and (B) the alien killing you, and then creating an IQ 12,000
> entity that the alien names Isador  which just so happens to have
> incredibly complete biographical information about you?

The difference is that in case (A) there is a living being that remembers
being me, and that's all you could ask for of survival; in case (B) there is
not.

I've been having variations of this debate on this list and elsewhere for
well over a decade and I must admit that yours is the most popular
interpretation, but I confess even after all these years I still don't get
it. What is obvious to most people is clear as mud to me. I have
concluded that one of two things must be true:

1) I have a congenital mental defect, like dyslexia or those people that
can't recognize faces; in my case I am totally blind to a threat to
survival that is very obvious to most people.

2) You and most people see a threat to survival that in fact does not exist.

My point was that it doesn't really matter which of the above two statements
is true, right or wrong in the future people (or Jupiter Brains) with my
viewpoint will vastly outnumber people with yours.

  John K Clark






From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Mon Apr  9 17:48:48 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:48:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
References: <002b01c77a57$56848fa0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <461A7C80.6090007@thomasoliver.net>

Olga Bourlin wrote:

>Revolution, flashmobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future:
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2053020,00.html
>
That certainly begs for a positive alternative -- especially the part 
about British arms sales to Saudi Arabia.  
I've begun to believe that the way we state things can positively 
correlate with they way they manifest, possibly in a causal manner.  So 
to express my intention: None of this grim vision has to be. -- Thomas




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Mon Apr  9 21:40:18 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:40:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
In-Reply-To: <461A7C80.6090007@thomasoliver.net>
References: <002b01c77a57$56848fa0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070409172544.02c43458@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 10:48 AM 4/9/2007 -0700, Thomas wrote:
>Olga Bourlin wrote:
>
> >Revolution, flashmobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future:
> >
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2053020,00.html
> >
>That certainly begs for a positive alternative -- especially the part
>about British arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
>I've begun to believe that the way we state things can positively
>correlate with they way they manifest, possibly in a causal manner.  So
>to express my intention: None of this grim vision has to be. -- Thomas

"It singles out Saudi Arabia, the most lucrative market for British arms, 
with unemployment levels of 20% and a "youth bulge" in a state whose 
population has risen from 7 million to 27 million since 1980."

That's just shy of a 4 fold population increase in 26 years.

Virtually all of Saudi Arabia's food is imported, swapped for oil.  Anyone 
have an idea of how many that part of the world could support without food 
imports?

Keith




From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  9 21:56:55 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <15A71117-3028-4E99-A319-A59C93DAD5AB@mac.com>
Message-ID: <263300.61344.qm@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Samantha,

Consider that there *appears* to be nothing in the
laws of physics that would prevent me from winning the
next Powerball drawing (as several humans have
achieved this). As far as I can tell, me winning the
Powerball should not require that I "impose my will on
the Universe". And consistent with that, there appears
to be nothing in the laws of physics that would
prevent me from selecting the winning numbers.  You
appear to believe in free will, so I presume you
believe that I have free and valid choices in what
numbers I select. And there is nothing terribly
complicated about selecting from 9 numbers. Should I
buy a single ticket and expect with 100% certainty
that I will win. After all, I "willed" that I would
choose the correct numbers that would win. Should I
expect with 1% certainty that I will win? Surely free
will is worth at least 1% of my decision-making. If
so, I'll just buy 100 different, willfully chosen
tickets next time. :-) . But, according to the jackpot
probabilities, free will accounts for far, far less
than 1% of my decision-making.

If absolute free will exists, why can't I have
everything I want that is not excluded by the
fundamental laws of physics?

If you believe free will is partially limited and not
absolute, what justification can you provide to show
that the limitations extend "here, but no further" ?

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich

 

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> 
> On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:41 PM, A B wrote:
> 
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > Could you somehow rephrase your
> objection/question,
> > I'm afraid I don't really understand it.
> Exceptional
> > reading comprehension is not one of my strengths.
> >
> > The point that I'm trying to make is that if "free
> > will" (as it is commonly interpreted) really
> exists
> > (which I don't believe at all) then perhaps we
> should
> > all acknowledge that it is quite limited (severely
> in
> > my opinion). If it were not limited, I would have
> > everything I've ever wanted, no matter how
> > fantastical.
> 
> What?  Free will is about being able to choose
> between alternatives,  
> including alternative courses of action.  It is not
> remotely about  
> being able to impose your will on the universe.
> 
> - s
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peek at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Apr  9 22:55:45 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:55:45 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704091555s6ddd2797o715b9d783e9b96c8@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/10/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
>
> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
>
> > Yes.  Now, would you explain the difference between (A) the Alien
> granting
> > your request and (B) the alien killing you, and then creating an IQ
> 12,000
> > entity that the alien names Isador  which just so happens to have
> > incredibly complete biographical information about you?
>
> The difference is that in case (A) there is a living being that remembers
> being me, and that's all you could ask for of survival; in case (B) there
> is
> not.
>

I would have said A and B are equivalent, provided the biographical
information is of a first person form, which "incredibly complete" seems to
imply.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070410/5f31aaed/attachment.html>

From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  9 22:59:36 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 15:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Coherent Ethics (To: Jef)
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704071136t70ae941dw86e233a2cfd28927@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <178109.32334.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Dear Jef,

I would genuinely like to understand your
more-coherent model of ethics, especially in light of
the fact that it has met with some agreement on this
list. Would you consider describing it again as simply
and completely as you can? (This is a sincere request,
I'm not aiming to criticize your writing style). I'll
be the first to admit that I am not naturally talented
with complex ethical constructs. I simply want our
future to be a wonderful place for all the conscious
beings who can be saved, but I admit that I don't have
an unwavering definition for what "wonderful" is. I'm
definitely open to hearing and considering all
alternatives models.

As always, feel free not to respond if you don't want
to.

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich 


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front


From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Apr  9 23:39:00 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 16:39:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Coherent Ethics (To: Jef)
In-Reply-To: <178109.32334.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f7bfe5740704071136t70ae941dw86e233a2cfd28927@mail.gmail.com>
	<178109.32334.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704091639se8b2b82r8569982862ddac56@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/9/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Jef,
>
> I would genuinely like to understand your
> more-coherent model of ethics, especially in light of
> the fact that it has met with some agreement on this
> list. Would you consider describing it again as simply
> and completely as you can? (This is a sincere request,
> I'm not aiming to criticize your writing style). I'll
> be the first to admit that I am not naturally talented
> with complex ethical constructs. I simply want our
> future to be a wonderful place for all the conscious
> beings who can be saved, but I admit that I don't have
> an unwavering definition for what "wonderful" is. I'm
> definitely open to hearing and considering all
> alternatives models.
>
> As always, feel free not to respond if you don't want
> to.
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Jeffrey Herrlich

Jeffrey -

I'll reply offlist in some detail as soon as I can (today or tomorrow.
I expect.)  It might be interesting and worth a few hours to step you
through it.  Of course you can also search the archives...

- Jef


From jonkc at att.net  Tue Apr 10 06:00:39 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 02:00:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30704091555s6ddd2797o715b9d783e9b96c8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004e01c77b35$94e22440$42084e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:

> I would have said A and B are equivalent, provided the biographical
> information is of a first person form, which "incredibly complete" seems
> to imply.

You are absolutely correct, I misread Lee Corbin post. My request was that
the alien kill me (whatever Lee means by that term) and replace me with an
entity with an IQ of 12,00 that has "incredibly complete biographical
information" about me. Changing my name to Isador seems a small price to pay
for immortality.

  John K Clark




From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Apr 10 13:18:40 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:18:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070409172544.02c43458@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <002b01c77a57$56848fa0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<461A7C80.6090007@thomasoliver.net>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070409172544.02c43458@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704100618u54321749t158119b0a60fe432@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/9/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> Virtually all of Saudi Arabia's food is imported, swapped for oil.  Anyone
> have an idea of how many that part of the world could support without food
> imports?


It depends upon whether they invested in desalination plants to grow fresh
water crops or invested in solar ponds to grow fish, shrimp, etc. in salt
water.  It isn't as if they *lack* sufficient sunlight to feed themselves.
Indeed it is one of the world's richest countries in this respect.  See [1].

I suspect that the reason there is so much unemployment is that the
government simply has not adopted policies reflective of dealing with the
situation when the oil runs out.  It isn't like they couldn't afford to
build the plants or the ponds -- but I think the culture is set up such that
that work would be done by workers imported from poorer countries.

Robert

1. http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/Papers/SW.html<http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/%7Ebradbury/Papers/SW.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070410/9b324872/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Apr 10 15:56:06 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:56:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John writes

> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
> 
>> Yes.  Now, would you explain the difference between (A) the Alien granting
>> your request and (B) the alien killing you, and then creating an IQ 12,000
>> entity that the alien names Isador  which just so happens to have
>> incredibly complete biographical information about you?
> 
> The difference is that in case (A) there is a living being that remembers
> being me, and that's all you could ask for of survival; in case (B) there is
> not.

I totally agree with you about the cruciality of the requirement "a being
who remembers being you".  In fact, many years ago I called any such
being a "memory superset", and declared that I was any and all of my
memory supersets, regardless of how many copies they were, or 
whether they also included trillions of other people's memories on an
equal footing with mine.  I changed my mind a couple of decades ago.

Your simple characterization of (A) seems to me to leave out important
information.  Recall that in describing (A) in my original post I also wrote

>> The only issue," he goes on, "is that some of you may have a problem about
>> identity.  You see, the moment that your IQ becomes 12,000 and you know
>> everything about Earth history and the pitifully primitive life forms that
>> you used to be, you no longer resemble the same person that you used to
>> be at all, any more than you currently resemble the fetus that you were
>> eight months before birth.

That's important!  Take "you know everything about Earth history and the 
pitifully primitive life forms you used to be" very, very broadly. Doesn't it
bother you, before you jump up and say "TAKE ME!", that perhaps you
have been taken in by the *form* of my last sentence in which I said
"you [sic] know everything about... forms you [sic] used to be."   All
that is really being postulated is the existence of an IQ 12000 entity
who has vivid recall of what happened to me on every day of my life,
and what happened to Max More on every day of his life, and, yes,
what happened to John Clark on every day of his life.

You don't see any problem at all here?  You don't worry that this vast
entity actually isn't "you", not really?  The phrase "remembers being you"
is now, to me, full of hazard and ambiguity.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Apr 10 16:09:36 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:09:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com><023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Heartland writes

> Example: A single brain houses person A's memories and beliefs. If we wanted we 
> could rewire that brain so that person A's beliefs and memories would be replaced 
> by person B's memories and beliefs. Result? Personal identity has definitely 
> changed but not the fact that the brain has not died.
>
> If personal identity and staying alive were one and the same, then a change in
> personal identity would have to cause brain death.

Well, we did hash that out at length, and it seems to me that you and I
just cannot be reconciled on this. To me (and a number of others here)
brain death per se has nothing whatsoever to do with death or loss of
personal survival, because we are functionalists and quasi-functionalists
and you are not. To me, my brain could be anniliated, so long as there
was a stack of punched cards somewhere that retained the information
of how it was glued together, and plans were in place to write a program
that would have my same approximate intelligence and have all my 
memories:  I would not consider this ANYTHING LIKE DEATH.
The program would, for me, be me quite adequately.

(Where I went on to disagree with *most* of the people here, and always
have, is whether this new program that "remembers being me" is fully me
if --- just as in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus --- the "real"
me, i.e., the original brain, is then revealed to not have been destroyed at all,
but sequestered in a nearby hotel room.)

Lee



From jonkc at att.net  Tue Apr 10 17:06:13 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:06:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

>The phrase "remembers being you"
> is now, to me, full of hazard and ambiguity.

Well sure it is, but it's good enough to get the job done. Ambiguous it may
be but I sort of remember being a thirteen year old John Clark, and that's
good enough to make me think that boy is not dead.

> All that is really being postulated is the existence of an IQ 12000 entity
> who has vivid recall of what happened to me on every day of my life, and
> what happened to Max More on every day of his life, and, yes, what
> happened to John Clark on every day of his life.

Then I've survived, if the 12,000 IQ entity remembers being other people too
(and I'd be surprised if he didn't) then they've also survived. A 12,000 IQ
is a lot of horsepower, that's enough to be me and a lot of other people as
well.

> You don't see any problem at all here?

No I don't.

> You don't worry that this vast
> entity actually isn't "you", not really?

I can honestly say that I don't worry about that at all. Perhaps my
inability to see a problem is due to my stupidity, perhaps it is due to my
brilliance, it doesn't matter; either way my style of thinking is that of
the future, your style will become extinct in less than a century.

  John K Clark






From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Tue Apr 10 18:07:35 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:07:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/10/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
>
> either way my style of thinking is that of
> the future, your style will become extinct in less than a century.
>

Which is fine as make-believe; the problem is when people start getting it
confused with real life.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070410/d75f20c0/attachment.html>

From asa at nada.kth.se  Tue Apr 10 18:18:39 2007
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:18:39 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 12,000 IQ and nothing on?
In-Reply-To: <00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <2453.163.1.72.81.1176229119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>

The "12,000 IQ superbeing" discussed in Lee's thread brings up another
interesting issue: what does 12,000 IQ really mean?

Clearly we are not interested in its ability to solve IQ tests, where it
would do 793 standard deviations above us. Even constructing such a test
would require a long chain of ultrabright entities (make a normal IQ test,
callibrate it. Then make a test that is very hard, and callibrate its
scores so that if you get X points on a normal IQ test and Y on this, you
get the same IQ. Then continue the chain upwards). In fact, having these
ultrabrigths around would change the population mean and undermine the
point of IQ scores.

The real meaning of the statement is probably along the lines of having
lots and lots of g,  general intelligence. But it is not entirely clear
how to compare that. One could imagine putting various beings into
competition where they play randomly selected games neither has ever seen
before. Their ELO scores would to some extent general intelligence over
the domain of these games. The problem is that that domain may be rather
narrow. The no free lunch theorems show that a general intelligence that
is applicable to all domains does not exist. So we have to select a
reasonable subset, and that is iffy: what maked a "reasonable" game?
Chess? Buying and smuggling drugs in South-East Asia? Winning the war on
terrorism? Coloring maps on Calabi-Yau manifolds? In many of these domains
certain cognitive architectures would be at a total disadvantage (it is so
easy to overload human working memory).

Many domains probably have a kind of understanding limit where a
sufficiently smart mind can understand all relevant aspects of them and
achieve desired goals efficiently. There are also clearly domains where
there is no structure at all and no amount of smarts help. And there is
the usual wonderful mess of intermediate domains where it may be
impossible to tell how close you are to encompassing them (it is more or
less Godel-Chaitin land).

The effort it takes to understand a domain may still be nontrivial even
when you have enough general smarts, and this is why we often prefer to
learn from teachers, textbooks or letting an expert do the job. Sure, I
*could* learn quantum chromodynamics, but when the physicist upstairs
already knows it it makes more sense for me to ask her to solve my problem
than to spend my valuable time on it - we all benefit from division of
labour and comparative advantage. I would bet this is true among the
superbeings too. Why reinvent the wheel all the time when you can
specialize? And that suggests that all that enormous, wonderful general
intelligence tends to be crystalized among them too. One IQ 12,000 being
will know everything worth knowing about clenchirations in armiphlanges
(and a million other subjects), another will be the corresponding master
of usulism as applied to road planning.

If past history is a guide, the number of domains of human activity is
increasing tremendously. Many domains do not appear to be terribly
complex, but there are so many of them. We cannot google them all to do
them. With even greater brains (and posthuman bodies and extraterrestrial
environments) that number of domains would expand enormously. Even if
general intelligence can conquer them all given time and motivation, I
would suspect that there will never be enough time (and economics).
Compared to the range of domains most of us are acting in today,
posthumans might actually appear terribly specialised. But thanks to the
distributed nature of knowledge, if you ever asked the IQ 12,000 being
about usulism, it would probably efficiently get the answer from its
relative so quickly that we would think it knew it all along.


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University




From randall at randallsquared.com  Tue Apr 10 20:20:20 2007
From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:20:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>


On Apr 10, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 4/10/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> either way my style of thinking is that of
> the future, your style will become extinct in less than a century.
>
> Which is fine as make-believe; the problem is when people start  
> getting it confused with real life.
>

Really?  I'd love to hear your reasons for thinking
that this is unlikely or not worth considering.  While
I disagree with John about personal identity, I do
agree that selection will favor those who agree with
him that process survival is unimportant.  This puts
me in an awkward position, as I'm sure you understand.


--
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
"If we have matter duplicators, will each of us be a sovereign
  and possess a hydrogen bomb?" -- Jerry Pournelle




From velvethum at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 10 21:26:55 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:26:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com><023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com><027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>


> Heartland writes
>
>> Example: A single brain houses person A's memories and beliefs. If we wanted we
>> could rewire that brain so that person A's beliefs and memories would be 
>> replaced
>> by person B's memories and beliefs. Result? Personal identity has definitely
>> changed but not the fact that the brain has not died.
>>
>> If personal identity and staying alive were one and the same, then a change in
>> personal identity would have to cause brain death.
>
> Well, we did hash that out at length, and it seems to me that you and I
> just cannot be reconciled on this. To me (and a number of others here)
> brain death per se has nothing whatsoever to do with death or loss of
> personal survival, because we are functionalists and quasi-functionalists
> and you are not. To me, my brain could be anniliated, so long as there
> was a stack of punched cards somewhere that retained the information
> of how it was glued together, and plans were in place to write a program
> that would have my same approximate intelligence and have all my
> memories:  I would not consider this ANYTHING LIKE DEATH.
> The program would, for me, be me quite adequately.


> (Where I went on to disagree with *most* of the people here, and always
> have, is whether this new program that "remembers being me" is fully me
> if --- just as in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus --- the "real"
> me, i.e., the original brain, is then revealed to not have been destroyed at all,
> but sequestered in a nearby hotel room.)
>
> Lee

There are two extreme views regarding survival being represented on this list. 
There is my "life is an instance" view and Jef Albright's "agency" view which is 
nothing more than "life is a type" view extrapolated to its logical conclusion. 
IMO, only these two positions are logically consistent, yet mutually exclusive and 
impossible to reconcile. It's quite apparent that you fall somewhere in between, 
meaning that, to some extent, you've adopted both positions. Even though you 
acknowledge that a copy containing your memories would be you, you still see a 
problem with this if the original brain was "revealed to not have been destroyed at 
all." Either there can be at most one "the same" person or many "same" persons. 
Either life is essentially an instance or a type. Either life is a process or just 
data. One excludes the other and you can't have it both ways. Unless you commit to 
either Jef's view or mine, you are guaranteed to be puzzled by certain scenarios 
about personal identity. From what I've seen you're probably much closer to my 
position then you realize.

H. 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Apr 10 23:15:39 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:15:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] 12,000 IQ and nothing on?
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<2453.163.1.72.81.1176229119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
Message-ID: <031701c77bc6$82cf4030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Anders writes to examine the "interesting question"

>  what does 12,000 IQ really mean?
> Clearly we are not interested in its ability to solve IQ tests, where it
> would do 793 standard deviations above us. Even constructing such a test
> would require a long chain of ultrabright entities (make a normal IQ test,
> callibrate it. Then make a test that is very hard, and callibrate its
> scores so that if you get X points on a normal IQ test and Y on this, you
> get the same IQ. Then continue the chain upwards).

Right.  But I think that you have also to maintain the same amount of
gene diversity as you go along, because today's "IQ 100" is based upon
having administered tests to a *lot* of Europeans.   But the standard
deviation, as opposed to the mean, depends on diversity.  (I can't
think of what would correspond to "gene diversity" among uploaded
and vastly more intelligent entities; but perhaps it doesn't matter; we
are more interesting in the capability and behavior of an entity who is
rightfully characterized in some way as having an IQ of 12,000.)

> In fact, having these ultrabrigths around would change the population
> mean and undermine the point of IQ scores.

Yes, it would have to be an incremental process of some sort, if you
*really* wanted to be able to get to 12,000 and have a bunch of, say,
Chinese researchers end up at the same place you do.

Arthur Jensen specifically warns against trying to extend the notion of
"cognitive ability" to other species, but what the hell, this is the 
Extropians list. Even among humans and our closest relations there
are interesting results. Ashkenazi Jews have IQs on average of at
least 112, and the Kalihari San sport, according to Richard Lynn
in the 2006 book "Racial Differences in Intelligence", an average IQ
of 56.  One might say that the average Bushman is half as smart as
a Jew  :-)    Also, the genius bonobo chimpanzee Kanzi seems to
understand about as much as a European four-year old, and so we
might go on to say that he's almost half as smart as a human being,
or nearly a quarter as smart as an adult European.

> The real meaning of the statement is probably along the lines of having
> lots and lots of g,  general intelligence. But it is not entirely clear
> how to compare that.

Or what it means. I like your idea here:

> One could imagine putting various beings into competition where they
> play randomly selected games neither has ever seen before. Their
> ELO scores would to some extent general intelligence over the domain
> of these games. The problem is that that domain may be rather narrow.

Another idea I've had is to just pit them against each other in life and
death struggles.  Up to now, of course, with non-trivial intelligence
being such a recent development, such struggles are too over-
determined by inborn physical equipment (e.g. claws and teeth) and
too little dependent on cognitive ability. Stephen Hawking would have
no chance against a tiger. That is, sheer muscle or physical development
has held the key to victory in all such encounters. But with the advent
of nanotech and control of matter at all levels, survival contests between
very smart entities of the future will be a battle of wits, and that ultimately
could be the best way to measure smarts.

> If past history is a guide, the number of domains of human activity is
> increasing tremendously. Many domains do not appear to be terribly
> complex, but there are so many of them. We cannot google them all to do
> them. With even greater brains (and posthuman bodies and extraterrestrial
> environments) that number of domains would expand enormously. Even if
> general intelligence can conquer them all given time and motivation, I
> would suspect that there will never be enough time (and economics).
> Compared to the range of domains most of us are acting in today,
> posthumans might actually appear terribly specialised.

Yeah, I'm afraid you're right.  Jensen says "Cognitive ability is a lot like
money; it doesn't really matter how much you have so long as you have
a certain enough."  I take him to mean that insofar as ability to accomplish
goes (among humans today), an IQ of 130 or 150 or something is all
you need.

So in the far future, a maximal entity at a certain point in time will extend
his control over his environment (probably incorporating it into himself)
at a rate proportional to his intelligence. Standing back a ways, this
velocity will probably be the speed of light, since the entity would doubtless
resort to the Von Neumann probe approach.   On the other hand, if we
restrict its resources temporarily to, say one cubic meter, or say, to one
Jupiter of material, then we may claim that an upper limit of ability must exist.
But these levels will be maximal---as you are essentially suggesting above
---and no one of them a maximum.

Lee



From pj at pj-manney.com  Tue Apr 10 23:28:43 2007
From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:28:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] question from Ted Berger interview in Pop Sci
Message-ID: <10368746.523941176247723137.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>

In the Ted Berger interview in Popular Science,

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/0e54d952c97b1110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

the writer says the following:

"For the past four years, Granacki has been trying to develop circuitry that could translate Berger's equations into electrical pulses.  The big mechanical hurdle has been figuring out a way to reduce the amount of heat generated by the transistors so that a chip won't damage healthy brain cells.  The solution was to create a more complex version of the same kind of digital circuit that performs computations for a family desktop, except far smaller.

"Jeff LaCoss... hands me a working model of the memory chip... lighter than a feather..."

What does the writer mean?  Do computer digital circuits not produce the same kind of heat as other circuits?  Or is its size the reason it doesn't produce too much heat to be placed in the deep interior of the brain?

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
PJ


From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 00:55:05 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:55:05 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
	<023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704101755u4da92ab6m1aa7e92a8cf526e2@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

(Where I went on to disagree with *most* of the people here, and always
> have, is whether this new program that "remembers being me" is fully me
> if --- just as in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus --- the
> "real"
> me, i.e., the original brain, is then revealed to not have been destroyed
> at all,
> but sequestered in a nearby hotel room.)


So how does the program's status change if the original you is discovered?
Or how would you feel any different if it were revealed to you that, without
your knowledge, a copy of you had been made and was living in China for the
past year?

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/3b439df1/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Apr 11 01:07:49 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:07:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0704100618u54321749t158119b0a60fe432@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070409172544.02c43458@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<002b01c77a57$56848fa0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<461A7C80.6090007@thomasoliver.net>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070409172544.02c43458@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070410190615.04692cb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 09:18 AM 4/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:

>On 4/9/07, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>>Virtually all of Saudi Arabia's food is imported, swapped for oil.  Anyone
>>have an idea of how many that part of the world could support without food
>>imports?
>
>It depends upon whether they invested in desalination plants to grow fresh 
>water crops

I suspect that if it were less expensive to make fresh water out of sea 
water for crops than it is to export the oil, grow the crops in other 
locations with low cost water, and ship them back, people would be doing it 
now.  It takes a *lot* of water to grow food, and it is really expensive in 
terms of energy to make fresh water out of salt.  I am well aware that 
advancing technology could change this picture.

>or invested in solar ponds to grow fish, shrimp, etc. in salt water.  It 
>isn't as if they *lack* sufficient sunlight to feed themselves.  Indeed it 
>is one of the world's richest countries in this respect.  See [1].
>
>I suspect that the reason there is so much unemployment is that the 
>government simply has not adopted policies reflective of dealing with the 
>situation when the oil runs out.  It isn't like they couldn't afford to 
>build the plants or the ponds -- but I think the culture is set up such 
>that that work would be done by workers imported from poorer countries.

Think about it this way, when the oil runs out how are they going to power 
the desalination plants?

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dchap1.html

Which indicates that desalination plants produce water for around $1/cubic 
meter.  Given that it takes about 1000 tons of water to grow a ton of 
wheat, that would run up the cost of wheat for the water alone to $1000 a 
ton.  Wheat runs about a $100 a ton, and shipping to the mid east might run 
around $50 a ton.  It would still cost them better than 5 times the current 
cost.

http://www.ndwheat.com/buyers/default.asp?ID=287

Interesting way to look at food imports as water imports, and a certain 
area of the world would be in deep trouble if food imports were shut off.

http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_02/uk/dossier/txt32.htm

Keith




From jef at jefallbright.net  Wed Apr 11 00:09:29 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:09:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] question from Ted Berger interview in Pop Sci
In-Reply-To: <10368746.523941176247723137.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
References: <10368746.523941176247723137.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704101709u4086e7c8gc8ce0e05fc3bee58@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/10/07, pjmanney <pj at pj-manney.com> wrote:
> In the Ted Berger interview in Popular Science,
>
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/0e54d952c97b1110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
>
> the writer says the following:
>
> "For the past four years, Granacki has been trying to develop circuitry that could translate Berger's equations into electrical pulses.  The big mechanical hurdle has been figuring out a way to reduce the amount of heat generated by the transistors so that a chip won't damage healthy brain cells.  The solution was to create a more complex version of the same kind of digital circuit that performs computations for a family desktop, except far smaller.
>
> "Jeff LaCoss... hands me a working model of the memory chip... lighter than a feather..."
>
> What does the writer mean?  Do computer digital circuits not produce the same kind of heat as other circuits?  Or is its size the reason it doesn't produce too much heat to be placed in the deep interior of the brain?

Heat generation and dissipation in dense electronic circuitry is quite
a complex subject, but a specific answer to your question is that
digital circuits don't necessarily generate significant heat except
for the moments when their transistors are changing between states.
This means the more state changes per second, the more heat is
generated.  What they have in this case is digital signals between the
chip and the computer carrying signals in both directions.  And they
have some form of A-D (analog to digital) and D-A (digital to analog)
conversion between the chip and the brain tissue.  There are various
techniques for reducing heat dissipation in such circuits but there's
always a trade-off.  For example cutting the operating voltage in half
reduces the heat to one fourth, but with detriment to switching speeds
(probably not critical here) and noise immunity (probably more
important here.)  Also, semiconductors require a certain minimum
voltage in order to switch at all.  In this particular article,
they're really only talking about the normal engineering requirements
of converting from a prototype in the lab to an implantable device.

If your interest is in regard to a futuristic scenario of high
performance brain implants, then you would plausibly have only the
necessary interface electronics inside the cranium, connected by a
hair thin photonic cable to a processing module elsewhere on the body
where power and cooling is more convenient.  The cable could easily be
routed under the skin.  If you really needed high powered computing
within the cranium, then you would need to have either liquid cooling
piped through, or some highly effective heat sink (carbon nanotube
fibers could be very effective), possibly terminating in a Mohawk to
dissipate the heat.

Theoretically, reversible computing can be done with no heat loss at
all, but I think that's too far from practice to be worthy of
consideration here.

FWIW,

- Jef


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Apr 11 03:08:26 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:08:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John writes

> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
> 
>>The phrase "remembers being you"
>> is now, to me, full of hazard and ambiguity.
> 
> Well sure it is, but it's good enough to get the job done. Ambiguous it may
> be but I sort of remember being a thirteen year old John Clark, and that's
> good enough to make me think that boy is not dead.

I doubt that you think that that thirteen year old John Clark being
either alive or dead is like 0 or 1.  Don't you think that it's a matter
of degree?  Surely you do not think that the fetus you once were
is seriously "you".

>> All that is really being postulated is the existence of an IQ 12000 entity
>> who has vivid recall of what happened to me on every day of my life, and
>> what happened to Max More on every day of his life, and, yes, what
>> happened to John Clark on every day of his life.
> 
> Then I've survived, if the 12,000 IQ entity remembers being other people too
> (and I'd be surprised if he didn't) then they've also survived. A 12,000 IQ
> is a lot of horsepower, that's enough to be me and a lot of other people as
> well.

I'm glad you are so consistent; it saves many words. To recap, this being
Isador with his IQ 12,000 and his unbelievably vast erudition has concerns
that you today cannot relate to in the slightest. He spends nothing of his
time thinking at all like you have ever thought.  The very earliest things
that you can remember might as well have happened to another infant,
and the memories later added on into you.  (Note that this is not true
of your high school memories;  if we threw a lot of my high school 
memories into your head, they'd definitely clash with who you are.)

Lee

P.S.  You also have brought up---a couple of times---the evolutionary
argument:

> Perhaps my inability to see a problem is due to my stupidity, perhaps
> it is due to my brilliance,

well   :-)   it might also have more simply to do with you being either
wrong or right

> it doesn't matter; either way my style of thinking is that of
> the future, your style will become extinct in less than a century.

Humans and human thinking might very well indeed be extinct
within a century. The point is still whether them is us.



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Apr 11 03:25:29 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:25:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com><023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com><027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Heartland writes

> There are two extreme views regarding survival being represented on this list. 

Not in my coordinate system!

> There is my "life is an instance" view and Jef Albright's "agency" view which is 
> nothing more than "life is a type" view extrapolated to its logical conclusion. 
> IMO, only these two positions are logically consistent, yet mutually exclusive and 
> impossible to reconcile. It's quite apparent that you fall somewhere in between, 
> meaning that, to some extent, you've adopted both positions.

I'm not sure, but you're possibly right.  I could very well fall in-between
two other positions. I don't remember how Jef answers this key question:
I *think* that he said that you could kill him and replace him by an
exact duplicate that you made last night, and it would be no skin off
his nose because the resulting entity would be just as good for future
progress as he is.  And maybe he said that whether it was him didn't
really matter at all, even if that concept could be rescued.  If I'm right,
then maybe he'd like to answer whether it would matter to him if he
were to be killed and replaced by a brand spanking new (and
improved IQ) version of Max More who suddenly becomes enamored
of all Jef Albright's points of view, and is slated to do a fantastically
better job of promulgating those ideas into the future than Jef himself
is. Again, *if* I recall correctly, Jef is noble and selfless enough to find
the act of being so replaced to be quite desirable on the whole (save,
I suppose for the effects on his family, etc.)

> Even though you acknowledge that a copy containing your memories
> would be you, you still see a problem with this if the original brain was
> "revealed to not have been destroyed at all."

Ah, no, you misunderstand.  I think that you just misremember. To me
that is no *problem* at all.  It's all the better!  I'm much happier to see
that there are now two of me than only one of me.  Whether you unveil
to me a duplicate you made of me 5 minutes ago changes not a whit
the fact (to me) that I am 99.9999999999% the same Lee Corbin that
I was 5 minutes ago.

> Either there can be at most one "the same" person or many "same" persons. 
> Either life is essentially an instance or a type. Either life is a process or just 
> data. One excludes the other and you can't have it both ways.

I definitely agree with you that it is *process*.  Static data is useless if
it doesn't get runtime.

> Unless you commit to either Jef's view or mine, you are guaranteed to be
> puzzled by certain scenarios about personal identity.

So say you.  Bring one on! (I am indeed puzzled by one that since 1986
I have called "the anticipation paradox", but it's pretty elaborate and I
don't think I've ever reached the point on this list where anyone so totally
agreed with me that I have brought it up.  Besides, the upshot is just---
so far as I've been able to work it out---our inborn instinct to *anticipate*
what is about to happen to us from moment to moment cannot be made
into any consistent urge or activity.)

Lee



From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Wed Apr 11 03:24:50 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:24:50 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] My first Demo Reel and Query
In-Reply-To: <00d301c77a8b$4f9d9a40$0200a8c0@Nano>
References: <00d301c77a8b$4f9d9a40$0200a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <461C5502.1090505@comcast.net>


Gina,

Wow.  As usual, that was very fun to watch.

Thanks!

Brent Allsop




Gina Miller wrote:
> Hello, I just completed my demo (or sample) reel, a compilation of my 
> best art/animations made into one film.
> I have uploaded it to my webpage for your viewing here:
> http://www.nanogirl.com/demoreel.htm
>  
> and don't forget I always look forward to your comments!
> http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-demo-reel.html
>  
> P.S> On a separate matter:
> I was wondering if any of you Extropy list superstars would be willing to
> make a statement about me (my work: nano/animations/personality etc.)
> to be used in quotes for my presskit and resume and perhaps later work.
> You guys know me best and I would really appreciate your help!
> Thanks to Natasha for this idea, I first saw an example of it on her
> website - she's always got those great ideas!
>  
> Warm regards,
>  
> Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
> Nanotechnology Industries
> http://www.nanoindustries.com
> Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
> 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 <mailto: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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070410/0372f46c/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Apr 11 03:34:08 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:34:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
	<023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704101755u4da92ab6m1aa7e92a8cf526e2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <032d01c77bea$f235e310$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> > (Where I went on to disagree with *most* of the people here, and always
> > have, is whether this new program that "remembers being me" is fully me
> > if --- just as in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus --- the "real"
> > me, i.e., the original brain, is then revealed to not have been destroyed at all,
> > but sequestered in a nearby hotel room.)
> 
> So how does the program's status change if the original you is discovered?

Sorry, I just answered that in a post to Heartland. You can reply to any of
that which seems inconsistent or potentially so.

> Or how would you feel any different if it were revealed to you that, without
> your knowledge, a copy of you had been made and was living in China for
> the past year? 

It would not affect the status of the California Lee one iota!  Actually (as I
said to Heartland), it would be gratifying to know that I was getting runtime
in China as well as here.   Of course, if the life there was not worth living,
then I'd be unhappy that the 2006 China duplication had occurred.

Also, if it now turned out that China Lee has been immediately drafted
into the People's Democratic Army and subjected to such profound
change (like having to learn Chinese and having to become an Army-type
and having to completely forget my life here and having utterly no time to
do the things I used to do or think about the things I used to...) well, I
would not be *unhappy* that China Lee lives.  Better he lives (for him)
than he doesn't live, but by now he's possibly no longer like me at all.

Lee



From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 03:41:32 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:41:32 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
	<023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com> wrote:

There are two extreme views regarding survival being represented on this
> list.
> There is my "life is an instance" view and Jef Albright's "agency" view
> which is
> nothing more than "life is a type" view extrapolated to its logical
> conclusion.
> IMO, only these two positions are logically consistent, yet mutually
> exclusive and
> impossible to reconcile. It's quite apparent that you fall somewhere in
> between,
> meaning that, to some extent, you've adopted both positions. Even though
> you
> acknowledge that a copy containing your memories would be you, you still
> see a
> problem with this if the original brain was "revealed to not have been
> destroyed at
> all." Either there can be at most one "the same" person or many "same"
> persons.
> Either life is essentially an instance or a type. Either life is a process
> or just
> data. One excludes the other and you can't have it both ways. Unless you
> commit to
> either Jef's view or mine, you are guaranteed to be puzzled by certain
> scenarios
> about personal identity. From what I've seen you're probably much closer
> to my
> position then you realize.


Your "life is an instance" view comes up against serious problems when you
look at personal identity at anything other than than the most superficial,
familiar level. For example, if it were revealed to you that yesterday,
advanced aliens caused you to disintegrate and be replaced with a
functionally identical copy once every second, you would presumably be
outraged, and accuse the aliens of committing murder 86,400 times. But here
you are today, and what have you lost? Neither you nor anyone who knows you
noticed anything unusual happening yesterday, and today you feel just the
same as you have always felt. For all you know, the aliens might still be at
it, and they might have been at it for thousands of years with every living
creature on the planet. What is the point in calling it murder if it can't
make any possible difference?

Stathis Papaioannou

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/3552c3d2/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 03:44:27 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:44:27 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
	<023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704102044oe8695b9q287d6defe57df64d@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

So say you.  Bring one on! (I am indeed puzzled by one that since 1986
> I have called "the anticipation paradox", but it's pretty elaborate and I
> don't think I've ever reached the point on this list where anyone so
> totally
> agreed with me that I have brought it up.  Besides, the upshot is just---
> so far as I've been able to work it out---our inborn instinct to
> *anticipate*
> what is about to happen to us from moment to moment cannot be made
> into any consistent urge or activity.)


Please explain this, I'm interested.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/99a24207/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 03:51:59 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:51:59 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] 12,000 IQ and nothing on?
In-Reply-To: <2453.163.1.72.81.1176229119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<2453.163.1.72.81.1176229119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704102051t6f246de0s44653607a6bf1d05@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Anders Sandberg <asa at nada.kth.se> wrote:

If past history is a guide, the number of domains of human activity is
> increasing tremendously. Many domains do not appear to be terribly
> complex, but there are so many of them. We cannot google them all to do
> them. With even greater brains (and posthuman bodies and extraterrestrial
> environments) that number of domains would expand enormously. Even if
> general intelligence can conquer them all given time and motivation, I
> would suspect that there will never be enough time (and economics).
> Compared to the range of domains most of us are acting in today,
> posthumans might actually appear terribly specialised. But thanks to the
> distributed nature of knowledge, if you ever asked the IQ 12,000 being
> about usulism, it would probably efficiently get the answer from its
> relative so quickly that we would think it knew it all along.


You could consider human civilization as a whole as a black box which
considers problems and comes up with solutions. Would it make sense to talk
about a collective IQ for this black box? If so, what might this IQ be?

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/49e04cad/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Apr 11 04:17:47 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:17:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
	<023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704102044oe8695b9q287d6defe57df64d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <034701c77bf0$920dbd90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> > Bring one on! (I am indeed puzzled by one that since 1986
> > I have called "the anticipation paradox", but it's pretty elaborate and I
> > don't think I've ever reached the point on this list where anyone so totally 
> > agreed with me that I have brought it up.  Besides, the upshot is just---
> > so far as I've been able to work it out---our inborn instinct to *anticipate*
> > what is about to happen to us from moment to moment cannot be made 
> > into any consistent urge or activity.)
> 
> Please explain this, I'm interested.

Okay, I'll write it up.  Two earlier efforts many years ago were not satisfactory;
one, in the Venturist, was so terse and abbriviated that it was very hard to 
follow.  The second I tried to embed in an SF story, but never finished it.

So I'll put it in a new thread.  Thanks for your interest, and it's true that you
and I agree enough that you won't choke at the first few assumptions I make
in it.

Lee



From jonkc at att.net  Wed Apr 11 05:02:08 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:02:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> I'm glad you are so consistent; it saves many words.

Thanks, I'm either consistently right or consistently wrong but either way
my way of thinking is that of the future, your way is as dead as the Dodo.

> Surely you do not think that the fetus you once were is seriously "you".

But that was exactly my point. I am certain you don't consider it a great
tragedy that a fetus turned into an adult Lee Corbin, so why is it a great
tragedy if the adult Lee Corbin turns into something greater?

> To recap, this being Isador with his IQ 12,000 and his unbelievably vast
> erudition has concerns that you today cannot relate to in the slightest.

Correct, it's called growth.

> He spends nothing of his time thinking at all like you have ever thought.

Nothing? With an IQ of 12,000 and counting he can afford to think about all
sorts of things. Who knows,  Isador might even get a bit nostalgic from time
to time and put .001% of his brainpower thinking about the good old days.

> The very earliest things that you can remember might as well have happened
> to another infant, and the memories later added on into you.

But again you are making my point for me. You don't consider that a tragedy
so if you are consistent there is no need to worry about turning into a
Jupiter Brain.

>  Humans and human thinking might very well indeed be extinct within a
> century.

I'd say it's a virtual certainty, and probably in less than half a century.

> The point is still whether them is us.

Well they certainly won't be you given your reluctance to engage in pedal to
the metal upgrading, but if I'm astronomically lucky they might be me. At
least I have a chance, you have none.

  John K Clark









From velvethum at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 11 05:37:41 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:37:41 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com><023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com><027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl><030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV9AAF976DDC316A798C0F1A75F0@phx.gbl>

Heartland:
>> There is my "life is an instance" view and Jef Albright's "agency" view which is
>> nothing more than "life is a type" view extrapolated to its logical conclusion.
>> IMO, only these two positions are logically consistent, yet mutually exclusive 
>> and
>> impossible to reconcile. It's quite apparent that you fall somewhere in between,
>> meaning that, to some extent, you've adopted both positions.

Lee:
> I'm not sure, but you're possibly right.  I could very well fall in-between
> two other positions. I don't remember how Jef answers this key question:
> I *think* that he said that you could kill him and replace him by an
> exact duplicate that you made last night, and it would be no skin off
> his nose because the resulting entity would be just as good for future
> progress as he is.

I think that is correct. A standard "life is a type" view that majority of 
transhumanists subscribe to which he upgraded to....

> And maybe he said that whether it was him didn't
> really matter at all,

..as long as it was some "agent" promoting the same mix of values he used to 
promote.


Heartland:
>> Even though you acknowledge that a copy containing your memories
>> would be you, you still see a problem with this if the original brain was
>> "revealed to not have been destroyed at all."

Lee:
> Ah, no, you misunderstand.  I think that you just misremember. To me
> that is no *problem* at all.  It's all the better!  I'm much happier to see
> that there are now two of me than only one of me.  Whether you unveil
> to me a duplicate you made of me 5 minutes ago changes not a whit
> the fact (to me) that I am 99.9999999999% the same Lee Corbin that
> I was 5 minutes ago.

Okay, so you see no problem with assigning single identity to many people after 
all.

Heartland:
>> Either there can be at most one "the same" person or many "same" persons.
>> Either life is essentially an instance or a type. Either life is a process or 
>> just
>> data. One excludes the other and you can't have it both ways.

Lee:
> I definitely agree with you that it is *process*.  Static data is useless if
> it doesn't get runtime.

And this is why I regard process as the substance of life. The *type* of that 
process is only how we describe it, yet people treat *that* as the thing that is 
necessary and sufficient to preserve in order to survive. A classic example of an 
abstract symbol being mistaken for the thing it refers to. A collection of static 
data describing personal experiences, values and beliefs is being mistaken for the 
physical process that allows this collection to exist.

While many instances (lives) can share the same type (personal identity) and death 
of a single instance doesn't necessarily kill the type, the expired instance does 
not survive just because other instances of the same type do. Each life is an 
instance therefore "life extension" should be about extending runtime of an 
instance (perhaps through gradual uploading) instead of being about extending the 
type of instance (destructive uploading, cryonics).

So, if you agree that process itself is far more important than its label (static 
data), then why do you think that staying alive is ensured by preserving that label 
(type/personal identity) instead of preserving the process itself (instance/life)?

H. 



From jonkc at att.net  Wed Apr 11 05:53:07 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:53:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>

Ok let's think about this logically and unemotionally. Let's suppose for the
sake of argument that Lee Corbin philosophy is correct; what would be the
result? You're dead meat. You can't upgrade so soon you'll be surrounded
beings enormously more powerful than yourself, and you don't stand a
snowball's chance in hell of surviving the Singularity meat grinder.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that John Clark's philosophy is
correct, what would be the result? You instantly agree to upgrade at every
opportunity, and you still probably won't survive the Singularity meat
grinder, but at least you have a chance. So, what would be the smart
philosophy to embrace? Given the choice between no chance and slim chance 
I'll pick slim chance any day.

  John K Clark






From velvethum at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 11 06:18:54 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:18:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com><023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com><027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl><030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>

Stathis:
> Your "life is an instance" view comes up against serious problems when you
> look at personal identity at anything other than than the most superficial,
> familiar level. For example, if it were revealed to you that yesterday,
> advanced aliens caused you to disintegrate and be replaced with a
> functionally identical copy once every second, you would presumably be
> outraged, and accuse the aliens of committing murder 86,400 times. But here
> you are today, and what have you lost?

You are correct that every copy of Heartland's type would accuse aliens of mass 
murder. However, the error you're making in describing my position is that you're 
using "you" for every copy. In my view, all 86401 *instances* are separate people 
who only happen to share the same *type* of mind. The fact that they all share the 
same type of mind says nothing about whether all these instances are the same 
person. The "serious problem" or inconsistency you point to vanishes once I start 
referring to first Heartland as Heartland1 and the last as Heartland86401. So no, 
Heartland86401 is not the Heartland1 today. And what would Heartland1 lose? Well, 
he would lose his life.

You think of "you" as a type while I think of "you" as an instance, that's all.

Stathis:
> Neither you nor anyone who knows you
> noticed anything unusual happening yesterday, and today you feel just the
> same as you have always felt. For all you know, the aliens might still be at
> it, and they might have been at it for thousands of years with every living
> creature on the planet. What is the point in calling it murder if it can't
> make any possible difference?

Just because nobody could prove murder happened doesn't imply murder didn't happen. 
It happened. It's just that we can't prove it.

The difference is huge. Heartland1-Heartland86400 have all lost the ability to 
experience life. They're as dead as, say, John Lennon.

H. 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Apr 11 06:26:33 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:26:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox)
Message-ID: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

The Anticipation Dilemma

This discussion will be of little or no use to anyone who does
not subscribe to the following assumptions. If you wish to
discuss these *assumptions* (all except the last, which is
developed further below), either start a new thread with a
different title, or write me off-list. Thanks.

* the erasure of memories is not an identity-threatening
  transformation, provided that they are on the order of
  days or perhaps even a very few years, and you would
  agree to memory erasure of at least a few days in
  exchange for suitable monetary reward

* duplicates are selves; you would readily agree to die and
  be replaced by a duplicate of you frozen yesterday and lying
  in a slab of ice in the next room, if either you or he must
  be destroyed, and if $10M will be deposited to your bank
  account tomorrow if it's "you" who dies and "he" who is
  defrosted and gets to live. We agree that except for one
  day's memories, you and he are totally identical persons,
  and so the situation is *exactly* like for $10M agreeing
  to take a drug that would erase your last 24 hours' memory

* because duplicates are selves, as a close duplicate is
  undergoing an experience X, an instance of you says "even
  though memories are not being formed *here* at this
  location of experience X, I am nonetheless forming memories
  of them because my duplicate is myself; just because the
  experience is not happening here does not mean it is not
  happening to me"
  
* insofar as "anticipation"---that is, the feeling of
  imminent experience about to happen to one---an instance
  of you also anticipates what is about to happen to close 
  duplicates. As a close duplicate is about to undergo a
  dreadful experience X, you must consistently try to conjure
  up the same dread as if this instance (yourself here) itself
  were being threatened by X

* you could conceivably be living in a deterministic 
  simulation, and that from an objective point of view
  (say by the simulators in a basement level universe)
  *this* could be the 2nd, 3rd, or nth computation, all
  bestowing equal additional benefit to you as each run
  is processed
  
* in principle there could exist a God or an all-knowing
  being (say an entity simulating the universe you are
  living in) who either executes so many runs that He
  finds ones with exceptional properties, or He can conceive
  of a run that possesses these properties, and for all
  you know you could be living in such a run. Alternatively,
  such a deterministic run could arise from a very lucky
  set of initial conditions, though equivalent descriptions
  using "God" are simpler to write

* it is possible by an application of Newcomb's Paradox
  to change the past (from your point of view). In particular,
  there is still the possibility of changing what actually
  happened to you (as opposed to merely remember or having
  certain memories). This is fully explained in 
  http://www.leecorbin.com/UseOfNewcombsParadox.html

The next assumption is developed in the essay below:

* so one may continue to feel that he has "free will"
  in some scenarios over what choices he made in the
  past, effected with the help of memory erasure drugs
  
Granting the above, then, I shall attempt to show that our
common feeling of anticipation cannot be consistently
rationalized. That is, neither the *dread* you have of 
certain imminent things about to happen to you, nor the
near-Pavlovian *relish* you have of certain other imminent
experiences, can be consistently and rationally held
from one scenario to the next.

And this anticipation is crucial to most of us, and is
evidently real part of life. Because of "duplicates are
selves", however, it's important to delimit some kinds
of anticipation. Suppose for example that you and your
duplicate are in nearby beds in a hospital, and you and
all your duplicates have internalized that "duplicates
are selves". Now Nurse Ratched approaches one of you and says
"either you---that is, your particular instance---gets this
incredibly painful shot, or your duplicate next to you gets
TEN shots, which will it be?". However much we realize that
duplicates are selves, our lower level animal instincts 
forbid us from making consistently the right choice. In
other words, even though I *know* that I'll be better off
---more total universal benefit for me---if I want to say
"do it to me", I will in fact say "do it to him", at least
after enough experiences with Nurse Ratched's needle.

But this is not yet the real problem with anticipation, for
it can be claimed (and I do) that it is to be expected that
the lower, animal parts of our selves will have this almost
instinctive response to pain. I do not identify with these
lower level aspects of my self, and will edit them out
entirely if ever uploaded. The parts of me that I *do*
identify with are (a) having a good time (b) learning
interesting things (c) delighting in understanding, and
so forth. I do not identify with the part of me that is
a slave to coercion from pain or with parts of me that are
motivated from entirely prurient, crude, depraved, or
vulgar stimuli.


We come now to the most difficult antimony having to do with
identity that has ever vexed me. Suppose that we try to 
rationalize anticipation---as above---so that, for example,
in the preceding example, an instance says to himself "so
long as I am able, I will choose one experience of Nurse
Ratched's needle, as opposed to ten experiences, because
I totally identify with all my duplicates and must logically
anticipate what happens to any of them".  

But since me yesterday is a close duplicate, I must anticipate
what happens to him also; therefore, I must look forward to
the delicious dinner I had last night as much as I do the one
I'm about to have tonight. That's it in a nutshell. Yet there
is an argument concerning time that must be overcome. That is,
for the sake of completeness, the objection that experiences
in the past are somehow different from future experiences has
to be addressed. The remainder of this essay is only to
justify the foregoing conclusion of this paragraph.

That's it; that's the "Anticipation Dilemma".

_______________________________________________________________

Why Past Experiences Must be Anticipated as Much as Future Ones

It is to be shown in detail that anticipating tonight's repast
is no more justified than anticipating last night's, on any
ordinary meaning of "anticipate".

Suppose that it is the year 999 A.D. and God knows that you
will live in the 21st century, and knows all the details of
your life. God realizes that on October 1, 2007, you will
wish to time-travel back to October 1, 999 A.D., so God
decides to cause an exception in the otherwise totally
causally deterministic run of that day in 999, in that
out of nowhere a 2007 version of you suddenly appears in
a small village outside London. Now this isn't so easy for
God to calculate, because whatever effects you produce
in 999 will causally affect the 21st century. God therefore
finds a "fixed point" in which a you comes into being in
the 20th or 21st century according to the deterministic
calculations that is consistent with some manner of your
activities in 999. 

You live an ordinary day in October 1, 999, presumably
having a good time checking out the local history. That
night, however, you wish to get back in your time machine
and live an ordinary October 2, 2007 back in the twenty-
first century. But God has foreseen this (of course), 
and you do. Likewise on successive days you live
alternately in the 10th century and in the 21st century.

Suppose on October 3, 999 you schedule a most desirable
experience with the locals, either, say a fine repast with
the village elders, or perhaps a tryst with one of the fair
maidens of the town, and this is to happen on October 5, 999.
Then when you are back in the 21st century on October 4, 2007,
you reflect on the curiosity that you are actually looking
forward to something that formally happened in the past.
That's all right, because it's still in your future.
Everything proceeds/proceeded exactly in this way.

Then another opportunity arises on October 7, 999 A.D. that
will be consummated on October 9, 999. But this time there is
a twist. On the morning of October 9 back in the medieval
village you are to be given/was given an injection that will
erase (erased) your last 48 hours of memory. In other words,
on the morning of October 9 you will wake up and believe it
to be October 7 (until the locals clue you in). The highly
desirable event that you relish proceeds anyway, though
back in the future on October 8 2007, this all seems
stranger still. For you now must look forward to something
not only in the past, but which no memory superset of you
will ever experience!

Yet just because your present memories are to be tampered
with, future delights are not any the less appealing. Recall
that by agreeing to commit suicide so that your duplicate
frozen yesterday gets $10M, you are nonetheless looking
forward to all the great things you (as your duplicate)
will do with the money.

What we have reached is the uncomfortable conclusion that
what happens to you (or happened to you) in the past is
every bit as worthy of anticipation as events that are
scheduled to happen in your future. This demolishes any
rational or consistent use of *anticipation* that I have
ever been able to formulate. This is most unfortunate, 
because feelings of anticipation are hardwired at a very 
fundamental level into our selves and our motivations.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Apr 11 06:34:34 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:34:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <035401c77c03$7ee0b430$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John writes

>> Surely you do not think that the fetus you once were is seriously "you".
> 
> But that was exactly my point. I am certain you don't consider it a great
> tragedy that a fetus turned into an adult Lee Corbin, so why is it a great
> tragedy if the adult Lee Corbin turns into something greater?

Oh, no!  It's no tragedy for *me* that that thing turned into Lee Corbin.
But from the point of view of the fetus, it was death;  for it became unto
something totally unlike itself.

>> To recap, this being Isador with his IQ 12,000 and his unbelievably vast
>> erudition has concerns that you today cannot relate to in the slightest.
> 
> Correct, it's called growth.

For me, growth includes only change that doesn't turn me into someone
or something else. And what is "something else"?  It's an entity that
behaves utterly differently from me and whose values aren't mine and
who thinks about completely different things than I do.

>> He spends nothing of his time thinking at all like you have ever thought.
> 
> Nothing? With an IQ of 12,000 and counting he can afford to think about all
> sorts of things. Who knows,  Isador might even get a bit nostalgic from time
> to time and put .001% of his brainpower thinking about the good old days.

Do you really think that you'd ever spend even .001% of your time dwelling
on what it was like being a fetus, even if you could?  And if you could, why
not spend the time dwelling on what it was like for Lee Corbin to be a fetus
instead?  The experiences could not have been that different.

>>  Humans and human thinking might very well indeed be extinct within a
>> century.
> 
> I'd say it's a virtual certainty, and probably in less than half a century.

I'm still holding out that the global warming hysteria will inflict so much
damage on the world's economy that we'll revert to medieval life. But
hey, it was nice and warm back then.  Too bad my dewar will be
allowed to defrost.

Lee



From sti at pooq.com  Wed Apr 11 06:04:27 2007
From: sti at pooq.com (Stirling Westrup)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:04:27 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
In-Reply-To: <009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <461C7A6B.5030207@pooq.com>

John K Clark wrote:
> Ok let's think about this logically and unemotionally. Let's suppose for the
> sake of argument that Lee Corbin philosophy is correct; what would be the
> result? You're dead meat. You can't upgrade so soon you'll be surrounded
> beings enormously more powerful than yourself, and you don't stand a
> snowball's chance in hell of surviving the Singularity meat grinder.
> 
> Let's suppose for the sake of argument that John Clark's philosophy is
> correct, what would be the result? You instantly agree to upgrade at every
> opportunity, and you still probably won't survive the Singularity meat
> grinder, but at least you have a chance. So, what would be the smart
> philosophy to embrace? Given the choice between no chance and slim chance 
> I'll pick slim chance any day.
> 
While I generally agree with your previous arguments in favour of your
definition of identity, I cannot accept the above 'logic'.

This is just a redressing of the old argument for believing in God. Either
there is a God and worshipping Him will grant you salvation, or this is not
and you are doomed. So, worship God, because that is the only hope you have.
It didn't convince me as a kid, and it doesn't convince me now.


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Apr 11 06:47:41 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:47:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com><023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com><027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl><030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV9AAF976DDC316A798C0F1A75F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <035601c77c05$9992bd80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Heartland writes

>> I'm much happier to see that there are now two of me than only one
>> of me.  Whether or not you unveil to me a duplicate you made of
>> me five minutes ago changes not a whit the fact (to me) that I am
>> 99.9999999999% the same Lee Corbin that I was five minutes ago.
> 
> Okay, so you see no problem with assigning single identity to many people after 
> all.

Right, but I don't call them "many people".  I see no problem assigning
a single identity to many instances of the same person.

>> I definitely agree with you that it is *process* [that is essential]. 
>> Static data is useless if it doesn't get runtime.
> 
> And this is why I regard process as the substance of life. The *type* of that 
> process is only how we describe it, yet people treat *that* as the thing that is 
> necessary and sufficient to preserve in order to survive. A classic example of an 
> abstract symbol being mistaken for the thing it refers to. A collection of static 
> data describing personal experiences, values and beliefs is being mistaken for the 
> physical process that allows this collection to exist.

I may be failing to understanding, especially the 2nd sentence. Yes, I agree that
"process is the substance of life", if I'm reading you okay.  So the process is,
after all, necessary and sufficient to achieve survival, right?  As I recall, though,
your answer is "no".  An interruption of the process for you is the same as
death, right?  If I interrupt the process, swap out the atoms, wait a million
years and then resume the process, to you that's a different process and so
your soul got lost in there somewhere, right?

> While many instances (lives) can share the same type (personal identity) and death 
> of a single instance doesn't necessarily kill the type, the expired instance does 
> not survive just because other instances of the same type do.

In my concepts, the survival of a single instance is relatively unimportant.
I live in all my duplicates. The loss of a single one is a tragic loss of runtime,
but if the remaining duplicates can garner compensatory runtime some way,
it's not a tragedy after all.

> Each life is an 
> instance therefore "life extension" should be about extending runtime of an 
> instance (perhaps through gradual uploading) instead of being about extending the 
> type of instance (destructive uploading, cryonics).

What on Earth can you have against cryonics?  It's just a slowing down
of the process, not even a cessation any more than sleep is. Even at
liquid nitrogen temperatures, processes proceed (only more slowly).
Even the same atoms are used upon re-animation.

> So, if you agree that process itself is far more important than its label (static 
> data), then why do you think that staying alive is ensured by preserving that label 
> (type/personal identity) instead of preserving the process itself (instance/life)?

Yeah, we're hopelessly at odds here. I never did understand or appreciate
what distinction you're making. For me two processes can be identical (e.g.
two computer runs of the same program).  I admit that sometimes we speak
loosely---and so say things like *two* causally distinct executions are *two*
processes---but insofar as what is important, if I am one of them then I am
the other.

Lee



From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 07:24:02 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:24:02 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com>
	<023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stathis:
> > Your "life is an instance" view comes up against serious problems when
> you
> > look at personal identity at anything other than than the most
> superficial,
> > familiar level. For example, if it were revealed to you that yesterday,
> > advanced aliens caused you to disintegrate and be replaced with a
> > functionally identical copy once every second, you would presumably be
> > outraged, and accuse the aliens of committing murder 86,400 times. But
> here
> > you are today, and what have you lost?
>
> You are correct that every copy of Heartland's type would accuse aliens of
> mass
> murder. However, the error you're making in describing my position is that
> you're
> using "you" for every copy. In my view, all 86401 *instances* are separate
> people
> who only happen to share the same *type* of mind. The fact that they all
> share the
> same type of mind says nothing about whether all these instances are the
> same
> person. The "serious problem" or inconsistency you point to vanishes once
> I start
> referring to first Heartland as Heartland1 and the last as Heartland86401.
> So no,
> Heartland86401 is not the Heartland1 today. And what would Heartland1
> lose? Well,
> he would lose his life.
>
> You think of "you" as a type while I think of "you" as an instance, that's
> all.


Well, I partly agree with you. I consider that ordinary life (without the
interfering aliens) is exactly equivalent to dying not just every second,
but every moment. The Stathis-type persists while the Stathis-instance lives
only transiently: the observer moments. (Bernard Williams' "token" as
discussed in Derek Parfit's "Reasons and Persons" is roughly equivalent to
what you are calling an instance.) Each instance is defined by a particular
collection of matter in space-time, the next instance in sequence having at
least different space-time coordinates and usually different matter in a
different configuration. Two instances are related insofar as they are close
to each other in spacetime coordinates and configuration, but they cannot by
definition be the *same* instance, unless they are one and the same. The
further apart two instances are in time, the less similar they are, even
though they might still have enough in common to count as the same type;
however, there can be no strict rule for defining what is the same type,
whereas instances can be defined completely unambiguously.

I think what you are calling an instance is really a set of instances, which
would qualify as a type. You are suggesting that even though none of the
matter in my brain today is the same matter as a year ago, nor in the same
configuration, and certainly not sharing the same space-time coordinates,
nevertheless I am "the same" person, whereas if I were disintegrated and
recreated a nanosecond later out of the same atoms, in the same
configuration, I would not be "the same" person.

Stathis:
> > Neither you nor anyone who knows you
> > noticed anything unusual happening yesterday, and today you feel just
> the
> > same as you have always felt. For all you know, the aliens might still
> be at
> > it, and they might have been at it for thousands of years with every
> living
> > creature on the planet. What is the point in calling it murder if it
> can't
> > make any possible difference?
>
> Just because nobody could prove murder happened doesn't imply murder
> didn't happen.
> It happened. It's just that we can't prove it.
>
> The difference is huge. Heartland1-Heartland86400 have all lost the
> ability to
> experience life. They're as dead as, say, John Lennon.


They are also as dead and gone as your yesterday self. True, you possess
some of his matter in a configuration similar enough that you have his
memories and sense of identity, but you have already said that isn't enough
for survival.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/b2e75693/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Wed Apr 11 07:31:11 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:31:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<035401c77c03$7ee0b430$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <00ee01c77c0b$a72e91c0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> Oh, no!  It's no tragedy for *me* that that thing turned into Lee Corbin.
> But from the point of view of the fetus, it was death;  for it became unto
> something totally unlike itself

OK, let's average the point of view of an adult man with a somewhat greater
than average intelligence, a lot greater actually, with that of a fetus. I
have a hunch the adult Lee Corbin would win that election in a landslide.

>For me, growth includes only change that doesn't turn me into someone or
>something else.

But I want to turn into something else, that is the entire point in living.
Otherwise growth has no purpose and stagnation is the ultimate virtue. I
don't buy it for one second!

  John K Clark







From jonkc at att.net  Wed Apr 11 08:09:05 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:09:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer><009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<461C7A6B.5030207@pooq.com>
Message-ID: <010501c77c10$c2596d30$0e044e0c@MyComputer>

"Stirling Westrup" <sti at pooq.com>

>This is just a redressing of the old argument for believing in God.

No it is not. Every one of those arguments for God hinges on the fact that
it is the height of morality to demand that something is true when there is
absolutely positively nothing to show it is in fact true. I do not think
believing in such a thing is a virtue, I think it is a vice of pornographic
magnetite. But I could be wrong, so show me my error in my ways. I dare you
to try.

  John K Clark




From velvethum at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 11 08:16:09 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:16:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com><023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com><027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl><030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl><032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV9AAF976DDC316A798C0F1A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<035601c77c05$9992bd80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV164BDE645FF24C7897C588A75F0@phx.gbl>

Heartland:
>> Okay, so you see no problem with assigning single identity to many people after
>> all.

Lee:
> Right, but I don't call them "many people".  I see no problem assigning
> a single identity to many instances of the same person.

Yes, that's a better way of putting it.

Lee:
> Yes, I agree that
> "process is the substance of life", if I'm reading you okay.  So the process is,
> after all, necessary and sufficient to achieve survival, right? As I recall, 
> though,
> your answer is "no".  An interruption of the process for you is the same as
> death, right?

Right.

Lee:
> If I interrupt the process, swap out the atoms, wait a million
> years and then resume the process, to you that's a different process and so
> your soul got lost in there somewhere, right?

It's the life that ends, not soul. Life is a process and if the process stops, life 
does not continue unless you believe in souls. I don't which is why I don't believe 
in resurrections. When you die you stay dead.


 Heartland:
>> Each life is an
>> instance therefore "life extension" should be about extending runtime of an
>> instance (perhaps through gradual uploading) instead of being about extending 
>> the
>> type of instance (destructive uploading, cryonics).

Lee:
> What on Earth can you have against cryonics?  It's just a slowing down
> of the process, not even a cessation any more than sleep is. Even at
> liquid nitrogen temperatures, processes proceed (only more slowly).
> Even the same atoms are used upon re-animation.

Flat EEG means death. It has to. It's the only conclusion that doesn't lead to 
contradictions. Besides, it's consistent with a belief that there's no such thing 
as a resurrection.

Heartland:
>> So, if you agree that process itself is far more important than its label 
>> (static
>> data), then why do you think that staying alive is ensured by preserving that 
>> label
>> (type/personal identity) instead of preserving the process itself 
>> (instance/life)?

Lee:
> Yeah, we're hopelessly at odds here. I never did understand or appreciate
> what distinction you're making. For me two processes can be identical (e.g.
> two computer runs of the same program).  I admit that sometimes we speak
> loosely---and so say things like *two* causally distinct executions are *two*
> processes---but insofar as what is important, if I am one of them then I am
> the other.

I guess it's one of those either-you-get-it-or-don't kinds of things. Perhaps you 
might realize and appreciate the difference by focusing on the amount of benefit 
that each instance derives from existence of other instances. There's no doubt in 
my mind that this amount is always exactly zero. In other words, if I'm hungry, I 
will stay hungry regardless of how many other instances fill their stomachs with 
food. If I'm dead, I will stay dead regardless of how many other instances stay 
alive. If an instance was alive and then its brain exploded, that instance cannot 
have any type of experience (cannot derive any benefit) because the "machinery" 
that made that experience possible is gone. Am I getting anywhere here, Lee?

H. 



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Wed Apr 11 09:01:36 2007
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:01:36 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] My first Demo Reel and Query
References: <00d301c77a8b$4f9d9a40$0200a8c0@Nano>
	<461C5502.1090505@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <02f001c77c18$548fd480$0200a8c0@Nano>

Thank you so much Brent! I really appreciate the feedback! 


Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
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: Brent Allsop 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] My first Demo Reel and Query



  Gina,

  Wow.  As usual, that was very fun to watch.

  Thanks!

  Brent Allsop




  Gina Miller wrote: 
    Hello, I just completed my demo (or sample) reel, a compilation of my best art/animations made into one film.
    I have uploaded it to my webpage for your viewing here:
    http://www.nanogirl.com/demoreel.htm

    and don't forget I always look forward to your comments!
    http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-demo-reel.html

    P.S> On a separate matter:
    I was wondering if any of you Extropy list superstars would be willing to 
    make a statement about me (my work: nano/animations/personality etc.)
    to be used in quotes for my presskit and resume and perhaps later work.
    You guys know me best and I would really appreciate your help!
    Thanks to Natasha for this idea, I first saw an example of it on her
    website - she's always got those great ideas!

    Warm regards, 

    Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
    Nanotechnology Industries
    http://www.nanoindustries.com
    Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
    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
  



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/8f0d4ff2/attachment.html>

From asa at nada.kth.se  Wed Apr 11 10:01:51 2007
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:01:51 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 12,000 IQ and nothing on?
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704102051t6f246de0s44653607a6bf1d05@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<2453.163.1.72.81.1176229119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
	<f21c22e30704102051t6f246de0s44653607a6bf1d05@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51631.86.153.216.201.1176285711.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>


Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> You could consider human civilization as a whole as a black box which
> considers problems and comes up with solutions. Would it make sense to
> talk
> about a collective IQ for this black box? If so, what might this IQ be?

I think we can certainly talk about the collective intelligence of
mankind. Suppose a killer asteroid was detectedl; the resulting hunt for a
solution and implementation of it could be regarded as a kind of
collective intelligence. A space mission to emplace a mass driver on the
asteroid to deflect it would represent a fantastically complex "answer" to
the question posed by the asteroid.

But IQ is less useful. It is just a measure of how well you do relative to
your population. Ideally it should be correlated to general cognitive
ability, but we do not have any *absolute* measures of that. So unless we
have a way of measuring how well humanity solves problems compared to
other species IQ doesn't make much sense.

In principle we could make a species IQ by listing a large number of
problems, test how a population of species solves them and then rank them
in difficulty to make a rough measurement scale. But just as ordinary IQ
tests have problems with some cultural differences and assumptions (how
important is context? is time going from left to right?) we should expect
real problems in making a species independent IQ test.

Still, some people are trying to test primates for general intelligence,
so maybe it is possible: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04149196.pdf

It might also be possible to look at human societies or nations and see
how well they can solve posed problems. Is the US smarter in the sense
that it can find solutions to problems than (say) the UK? It would be
interesting to see if one could find some good quasiexperiments for this.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University




From asa at nada.kth.se  Wed Apr 11 10:25:03 2007
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:25:03 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 12,000 IQ and nothing on?
In-Reply-To: <031701c77bc6$82cf4030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<2453.163.1.72.81.1176229119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
	<031701c77bc6$82cf4030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <55367.86.153.216.201.1176287103.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>


Lee Corbin wrote:
> Arthur Jensen specifically warns against trying to extend the notion of
> "cognitive ability" to other species, but what the hell, this is the
> Extropians list. Even among humans and our closest relations there
> are interesting results. Ashkenazi Jews have IQs on average of at
> least 112, and the Kalihari San sport, according to Richard Lynn
> in the 2006 book "Racial Differences in Intelligence", an average IQ
> of 56.  One might say that the average Bushman is half as smart as
> a Jew  :-)

I would be a bit cautious about those very low IQ scores found in Lynn &
Vahanen, just as Satoshi Kanazawa found that Mississippi had 62.7 as
average IQ:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInstitute/pdf/SKanazawa/I2006.pdf
There is a tricky interaction between education, culture and intelligence
where they can both support, hinder and hide each other. My guess is that
a lot of the very low scores are simply due to lack of education and
cultural misunderstandings (see the hillarious dialogue between the great
soviet psychologist Luria and an Uzbek farmer:
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/484.html ). Still, intelligence as
measured early in life does predict educational success, income and
professional success fairly well, even if IQ measured in late life may
have become a mixture of innate capacity, learned abilities and ability to
conform to tests.

>  Also, the genius bonobo chimpanzee Kanzi seems to
> understand about as much as a European four-year old, and so we
> might go on to say that he's almost half as smart as a human being,
> or nearly a quarter as smart as an adult European.

The problem is that IQ is not a ratio scale (no natural zero), it is at
best an interval scale. So it doesn't make much sense of calling somebody
twice as smart in the IQ sense. And general intelligence is at best
ordinal: we might measure greater or lesser intelligence, but it is no way
of measuring one unit of intelligence.


>> One could imagine putting various beings into competition where they
>> play randomly selected games neither has ever seen before. Their
>> ELO scores would to some extent general intelligence over the domain
>> of these games. The problem is that that domain may be rather narrow.
>
> Another idea I've had is to just pit them against each other in life and
> death struggles.

That would be one of the possible domains. Very motivating, but
destructive on the participants.

I think there is a potential test in Heinlein's quote: "A human being
should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a
ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall,
set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialization is for insects."

Some of the entries might be more about social or emotional intelligence,
but ideally they would correlate with general intelligence.


> Yeah, I'm afraid you're right.  Jensen says "Cognitive ability is a lot
> like
> money; it doesn't really matter how much you have so long as you have
> a certain enough."  I take him to mean that insofar as ability to
> accomplish
> goes (among humans today), an IQ of 130 or 150 or something is all
> you need.

My research suggest that low ability is indeed the biggest problem. Once
you go below 100 IQ points, problems start to rise rather quickly. Whether
there is an advantage in going from 130 to 140 is less obvious. However,
at least one study demonstrated that even among the top 1% performers
there were significant differences in professional success (PhDs, tenure,
income) and number of patents between the top and bottom quartiles. The
patent part is interesting, because that is non-competitive: it just
represents crystalized creativity and signifies that these people actually
do contribute significantly to society.


>
> So in the far future, a maximal entity at a certain point in time will
> extend
> his control over his environment (probably incorporating it into himself)
> at a rate proportional to his intelligence. Standing back a ways, this
> velocity will probably be the speed of light, since the entity would
> doubtless
> resort to the Von Neumann probe approach.   On the other hand, if we
> restrict its resources temporarily to, say one cubic meter, or say, to one
> Jupiter of material, then we may claim that an upper limit of ability must
> exist.
> But these levels will be maximal---as you are essentially suggesting above
> ---and no one of them a maximum.

Communications limitations likely keep expansion limited. It is somewhat
uneconomical to have to wait for coordinating one's subsystems. My guess
is that entities will instead distribute along some power law
distribution: a few really godlike ones, many more godlings, lots of
human-level entities and hordes of smaller "animats".

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University




From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 11:28:12 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:28:12 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity
	Paradox)
In-Reply-To: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704110428j784f61e1n9e0cc294afb1ed89@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

Yet just because your present memories are to be tampered
> with, future delights are not any the less appealing. Recall
> that by agreeing to commit suicide so that your duplicate
> frozen yesterday gets $10M, you are nonetheless looking
> forward to all the great things you (as your duplicate)
> will do with the money.
>
> What we have reached is the uncomfortable conclusion that
> what happens to you (or happened to you) in the past is
> every bit as worthy of anticipation as events that are
> scheduled to happen in your future. This demolishes any
> rational or consistent use of *anticipation* that I have
> ever been able to formulate. This is most unfortunate,
> because feelings of anticipation are hardwired at a very
> fundamental level into our selves and our motivations.


We could try to patch things up by saying that both memory loss and dying
some time after you have been duplicated, which I agree are equivalent,
constitute absolute death and are to be avoided at all costs. However, this
sounds wrong, because most people wouldn't worry that much about a few
minutes or a few hours of memory loss (ignoring the fear that they might
have done something important during the forgotten interval). Alternatively,
we could say that, indeed, we should anticipate the past as much as the
future, but as you point out this runs counter to all our programming.
Either solution would allow a consistent theory of personal identity, but it
wouldn't feel right.

I think the paradox comes from trying to reconcile our psychology with
logic. There really is no *logical* reason why an entity should have one
type of concern for past versions of itself and another type of concern for
future versions of itself. That is why I think of every observer moment as a
separate entity, related to its fellows not due to any absolute rules but by
virtue of certain contingent facts about the evolution of our brains. Other
entities may have quite different views about personal identity. If worker
bees regard their queen more as self than they do themselves, are they
wrong? An intelligent bee might acknowledge that alien life might exists
which did not think this way, and even come up with a theory of personal
identity in which the building blocks were individual observer moments, but
ultimately end up declaring, "Well, I'm a bee, and this is just the way
bees' brains are wired to think". Moreover, the bee would be no more
inclined to rewire its brain for individuality given an understanding of the
concept than you would be to rewire your brain to serve the collective.

In a similar fashion, if you can think of an evolutionary scenario where it
was adaptive to anticipate the past as much as the future, then this would
be incorporated into any psychological theory of personal identity in that
population. The only objective and unambiguous constant in all this would be
that a scientist could still look at the individual instances / observer
moments and describe how they associate.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/e4361d92/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 11:48:10 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:48:10 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
In-Reply-To: <461C7A6B.5030207@pooq.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<461C7A6B.5030207@pooq.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704110448u36a6e077m7d6995c3a4b842cf@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Stirling Westrup <sti at pooq.com> wrote:

This is just a redressing of the old argument for believing in God. Either
> there is a God and worshipping Him will grant you salvation, or this is
> not
> and you are doomed. So, worship God, because that is the only hope you
> have.
> It didn't convince me as a kid, and it doesn't convince me now.


You are perhaps thinking of Pascal's Wager, which is slightly more subtle
than you have indicated: If God exists and you believe in him, you win
eternal life, whereas if he exists and you don't believe in him, you go to
hell. On the other hand, if God does not exist you don't gain or lose
anything by believing or not believing in him. Therefore, if you are
uncertain about God's existence, you have more to gain by believing in him.
The argument falls down because, even if you could just decide to believe
something on the basis of a calculation of utility, you would risk
punishment at the hands of all the rest of the universe's possible jealous
gods if you decided to believe in the Bible's Sky God.

I don't think John's argument takes this form.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/7277193b/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 11:59:23 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:59:23 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV164BDE645FF24C7897C588A75F0@phx.gbl>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV9AAF976DDC316A798C0F1A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<035601c77c05$9992bd80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV164BDE645FF24C7897C588A75F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704110459w69a60cf9wd8ff404606ba0d9@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com> wrote:

Flat EEG means death. It has to. It's the only conclusion that doesn't lead
> to
> contradictions. Besides, it's consistent with a belief that there's no
> such thing
> as a resurrection.


A flat EEG that *stays* flat permanently means death. Patients can have a
flat EEG due to eg. hypothermia and still recover fully. Would you say that
these people have died and should attend their erstwhile selves' funeral?

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/a7e5c5bb/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 11 12:19:20 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:19:20 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704110459w69a60cf9wd8ff404606ba0d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV9AAF976DDC316A798C0F1A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<035601c77c05$9992bd80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV164BDE645FF24C7897C588A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110459w69a60cf9wd8ff404606ba0d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070411121920.GP9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 09:59:23PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    A flat EEG that *stays* flat permanently means death. Patients can
>    have a flat EEG due to eg. hypothermia and still recover fully. Would
>    you say that these people have died and should attend their erstwhile
>    selves' funeral?

Yes, Slawomir is religious that way. The world is full of zombies.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From velvethum at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 11 12:36:26 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:36:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com><023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com><027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl><030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl><f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com><BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl>

Heartland:
>>> You think of "you" as a type while I think of "you" as an instance,
>>> that's all.

Stathis:
>> Well, I partly agree with you. I consider that ordinary life
>> (without the interfering aliens) is exactly equivalent to dying not
>> just every second, but every moment. The Stathis-type persists while
>> the Stathis-instance lives only transiently: the observer moments.
>> (Bernard Williams' "token" as discussed in Derek Parfit's "Reasons
>> and Persons" is roughly equivalent to what you are calling an
>> instance.) Each instance is defined by a particular collection of
>> matter in space-time, the next instance in sequence having at least
>> different space-time coordinates and usually different matter in a
>> different configuration.

I would say that each instance refers to a process; a spatiotemporal energy 
configuration.

I'm not sure what you mean by "observer moments" here or why you think instances 
could be delineated from moment to moment and that they occur in sequences. While 
each instance has a beginning and end, there's no limit on how long it should last, 
is there?


Stathis:
>> Two instances are related insofar as they
>> are close to each other in spacetime coordinates and configuration,
>> but they cannot by definition be the *same* instance, unless they
>> are one and the same.

Yes.

Stathis:
>> The further apart two instances are in time,
>> the less similar they are, even though they might still have enough
>> in common to count as the same type; however, there can be no strict
>> rule for defining what is the same type, whereas instances can be
>> defined completely unambiguously.

Which is one of the advantages of "life is an instance" vs. "life is a type" view. 
As you say, there can be no consistent rule specifying what is the same type as 
people will always disagree as to the degree of similarity between two things that 
warrants assigning the same type to these things. Any debate about such a degree is 
pointless (unless degree=100%) because different positions (<100%) are influenced 
by nothing more than people's tastes, not logic.


Stathis:
>> I think what you are calling an instance is really a set of
>> instances, which would qualify as a type. You are suggesting that
>> even though none of the matter in my brain today is the same matter
>> as a year ago, nor in the same configuration, and certainly not
>> sharing the same space-time coordinates, nevertheless I am "the
>> same" person, whereas if I were disintegrated and recreated a
>> nanosecond later out of the same atoms, in the same configuration, I
>> would not be "the same" person.

All this is correct except I argue that you yesterday and you today are probably 
the same *single* instance of the mind process. It is actually the type that 
changes from moment to moment as your mind pattern a minute ago is not exactly the 
same as the your mind pattern now.


>> Stathis:
>>>> Neither you nor anyone who knows you
>>>> noticed anything unusual happening yesterday, and today you feel
>>>> just the same as you have always felt. For all you know, the
>>>> aliens might still be at it, and they might have been at it for
>>>> thousands of years with every living creature on the planet. What
>>>> is the point in calling it murder if it can't make any possible
>>>> difference?

Heartland:
>>> Just because nobody could prove murder happened doesn't imply murder
>>> didn't happen.
>>> It happened. It's just that we can't prove it.
>>>
>>> The difference is huge. Heartland1-Heartland86400 have all lost the
>>> ability to
>>> experience life. They're as dead as, say, John Lennon.

Stathis:
>> They are also as dead and gone as your yesterday self. True, you
>> possess some of his matter in a configuration similar enough that
>> you have his memories and sense of identity, but you have already
>> said that isn't enough for survival.

It's not about matter but about a process. Different rules apply. *This* instance 
that typed these words is probably the same as the one that wrote other posts 
yesterday. Why? Because each process is necessarily defined over a time interval > 
0 and an instance of this process lasts as long as it generates output and I'm 
pretty sure (but can't be certain) I have not experienced absence of brain activity 
since yesterday.

H. 



From velvethum at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 11 13:20:27 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:20:27 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com><027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl><030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl><032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV9AAF976DDC316A798C0F1A75F0@phx.gbl><035601c77c05$9992bd80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV164BDE645FF24C7897C588A75F0@phx.gbl><f21c22e30704110459w69a60cf9wd8ff404606ba0d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070411121920.GP9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV3067C95428D1D213D9AB9A75F0@phx.gbl>

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 09:59:23PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>>    A flat EEG that *stays* flat permanently means death. Patients can
>>    have a flat EEG due to eg. hypothermia and still recover fully.

Only copies recover. Obviously a copy will always suffer from illusion that it's 
the original but the evidence collected by an objective observer would show 
otherwise. This case is logically equivalent to a situation where you download 
patient's brain structure to a file, destroy the patient and then run many 
instances of this file. The 1000th instance would suffer from the same illusion. 
Does the fact that a 2nd instance runs on the original body and 1000th on some 
artificial hardware make any difference? I really don't think so.

Stathis:
>>    Would you say that these people have died and should attend their
>>    erstwhile selves' funeral?

How they respond to facts is entirely up to them. They might as well throw a party, 
as far as I'm concerned. :)

Eugen:
> Yes, Slawomir is religious that way. The world is full of zombies.

I'm not the one believing in afterlife here, Eugen. I don't believe in existence of 
a soul that consists of a holy collection of static data specifying person's 
memories, beliefs and values. I don't believe that installing this soul into some 
hardware brings back people to life. Now, that would be an example of a faith-based 
view. :)

H. 



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Apr 11 13:39:23 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:39:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411093606.046b64d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>


I added an indication to the "notable transhumanists" list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transhumanists

My knowledge of who is signed up and who is not is rather limited, so if 
any of you want to fix the entry about yourself or others where you know 
their status, please do.

Keith





From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 11 13:35:16 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:35:16 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV3067C95428D1D213D9AB9A75F0@phx.gbl>
References: <20070411121920.GP9439@leitl.org>
	<BAY140-DAV3067C95428D1D213D9AB9A75F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20070411133516.GT9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 09:20:27AM -0400, Heartland wrote:

> > Yes, Slawomir is religious that way. The world is full of zombies.
> 
> I'm not the one believing in afterlife here, Eugen. I don't believe in existence of 

But you're the one seeing dead people.  

Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. 
They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead.
All the time. They're everywhere.

> a soul that consists of a holy collection of static data specifying person's 
> memories, beliefs and values. I don't believe that installing this soul into some 
> hardware brings back people to life. Now, that would be an example of a faith-based 
> view. :)

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 13:45:28 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:45:28 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704110645w74e75880ybc944921395a74bb@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Stathis:
> >> Well, I partly agree with you. I consider that ordinary life
> >> (without the interfering aliens) is exactly equivalent to dying not
> >> just every second, but every moment. The Stathis-type persists while
> >> the Stathis-instance lives only transiently: the observer moments.
> >> (Bernard Williams' "token" as discussed in Derek Parfit's "Reasons
> >> and Persons" is roughly equivalent to what you are calling an
> >> instance.) Each instance is defined by a particular collection of
> >> matter in space-time, the next instance in sequence having at least
> >> different space-time coordinates and usually different matter in a
> >> different configuration.
>
> I would say that each instance refers to a process; a spatiotemporal
> energy
> configuration.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "observer moments" here or why you think
> instances
> could be delineated from moment to moment and that they occur in
> sequences. While
> each instance has a beginning and end, there's no limit on how long it
> should last,
> is there?
>

An observer moment, sometimes hyphenated as observer-moment or abbreviated
as OM, is the smallest possible unit of experience. I believe the term was
originated by Nick Bostrom. You can make it more concrete by talking about
observer seconds or observer days or whatever. It eliminates ambiguity in
these discussions about personal identity because we can always point to a
specific collection of matter and say, "that's the entity with
Heartland-type memories in New York at 5:15 PM on March 5 2006" and "that's
the entity with Heartland-type memories in London at 3:02 AM on April 5
2006", and then argue about whether they are "the same person" or whether
"Heartland has survived" during the intervening month. This is not to say
that there are necessarily physiological distinctions between different
OM's; the scale is arbitrary, like any scale of time or distance. However,
just thinking about the different stages of a person's life this way raises
questions about the meaning of death and continuity of identity.

Now, I must admit I am a little confused about your notion of instance and
type. If a person undergoes destructive teleportation, would you say that
the procedure creates two separate instances of the one type? I would say
that ordinary life consists of many, many instances merging seamlessly into
one type, and introducing a discontinuity such as teleportation doesn't make
any difference.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/8007dffc/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 13:51:30 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:51:30 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV3067C95428D1D213D9AB9A75F0@phx.gbl>
References: <f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV9AAF976DDC316A798C0F1A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<035601c77c05$9992bd80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV164BDE645FF24C7897C588A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110459w69a60cf9wd8ff404606ba0d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070411121920.GP9439@leitl.org>
	<BAY140-DAV3067C95428D1D213D9AB9A75F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704110651m36e8a14bq85484302a5fa957a@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 09:59:23PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> >>    A flat EEG that *stays* flat permanently means death. Patients can
> >>    have a flat EEG due to eg. hypothermia and still recover fully.
>
> Only copies recover. Obviously a copy will always suffer from illusion
> that it's
> the original but the evidence collected by an objective observer would
> show
> otherwise. This case is logically equivalent to a situation where you
> download
> patient's brain structure to a file, destroy the patient and then run many
> instances of this file. The 1000th instance would suffer from the same
> illusion.
> Does the fact that a 2nd instance runs on the original body and 1000th on
> some
> artificial hardware make any difference? I really don't think so.


So if you were dragged out of a freezing lake and were successfully
resuscitated (or apparently so), would you consider that you were no longer
the original you, and if so how would you introduce yourself and expect
family and friends to treat you when they came to see you in hospital?

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/63eb7a5f/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Wed Apr 11 15:00:22 2007
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:00:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat]  My first Demo Reel and Query
Message-ID: <354458.87014.qm@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Gina,
I haven't been able to view any of your art before
now. (My computer is ancient but I am in the process
of purchasing a new one).  I had the opportunity to
use a different computer and thought I would check out
what you do.

Thank you, I truly enjoyed your work, I think you have
remarkable talent.  Your demo is a great
representation of some of your finest work. 

Some of my thoughts for what it's worth:

Your choice in music enhances your art making the
complete package fascinating and your character
animation is fantastic. Some of my favorites are The
Gift, Dandelion, The Mark, Moon Goddess and Seasonal. 

I truly enjoyed The Odyssey as I envisioned a mixture
of your art entwined with mine.  I imagined a huge
stage with a huge background projector playing your
movie with ballet dancers on stage.  Each playing a
part in an exceptional story.  Isn't it amazing how
Mozart can still create vision? I also envisioned
Zenith as an opening to a Walt Disney Movie, an
introduction to a far away place. I thought Particle 2
was a little short, I would have liked to see a little
more.  I had a little trouble with Countrified, Blue
and Converse as I couldn't clearly see what was going
on, it was a little dark.  (I'm assuming that has
something to do with my computer).  I enjoyed Happy
New Year and thought how nice it would be if I could
send such an e-mail to my friends and family.  

All in all, I had a great time discovering your art
and it was time well spent.  You gave me ideas and
made me think. 

Thanks again,
Anna:)

Art for art's sake, with no purpose, for any purpose
perverts art. But art achieves a purpose which is not
its own. [1804]-Benjamin Constant

The aim of every artist is to arrest motion, which is
life, by artificial means and hold it fixed so that a
hundred years later, when a stranger looks at it, it
moves again since it is life. ~William Faulkner







      


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 15:50:07 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:50:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
	<7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/10/07, Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com> wrote:
>
> Really?  I'd love to hear your reasons for thinking
> that this is unlikely or not worth considering.  While
> I disagree with John about personal identity, I do
> agree that selection will favor those who agree with
> him that process survival is unimportant.  This puts
> me in an awkward position, as I'm sure you understand.


Selection? Look at the statistics: selection favors those who eschew this
geek stuff completely. We're programmed to believe personal power confers
selective advantage, because it was true in the conditions in which we
evolved - but even though we still believe it because we're programmed to,
it's no longer true.

As for why it's not worth considering: it's a story. We make up stories for
ourselves for our own reasons. Sometimes we set them in "the future", but
when the actual future comes around, it practically never resembles our
stories; once you go beyond such predictions as "computers will be more
powerful in ten years than they are today", futurology has a lower track
record of success than you'd expect from random chance. As soon as someone
says "the future will be like X", it's a reasonably safe bet that whatever
the future actually ends up like, it won't be X.

In this case it's not even a particularly plausible story: if you get "IQ
12000" (scare quotes because the phrase doesn't actually mean anything, IQ
isn't defined much past 200 or so), are you going to go berserk and start
massacring everyone? (That, after all, is what the elimination of other
viewpoints in a timescale as short as a century implies.) Are you even going
to tolerate such behavior in others? Even if you are, nobody else is. Nobody
with any political power wants the existence of a handful of people a
zillion times smarter than anyone else. The world isn't going to tolerate
the creation or existence of superintelligent entities unless they behave
like respectable citizens.

"If we have matter duplicators, will each of us be a sovereign
>   and possess a hydrogen bomb?" -- Jerry Pournelle
>

Leaving aside the lack of evidence that matter duplicators are possible,
stop and think about this for a moment: conventional manufacturing
technology is perfectly adequate to build hydrogen bombs, has been for
decades. Why are we not each a sovereign possessing a hydrogen bomb today?
Once you look at that question, it becomes clear that the "matter
duplicators" are a smokescreen, something to aid suspension of disbelief by
distracting the mind from the real-life reasons why this scenario doesn't
happen.

For Pournelle is after all a storyteller: he has earned a living making up
stories, which are selected in the marketplace based on the same fitness
criterion: that people enjoy reading them. This is fine provided we
understand that it is not at all related to the hypothetical fitness
criterion of correspondence to what will actually happen in real life.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/614bf04e/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Apr 11 16:23:33 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:23:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia list of >Hs
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070411112214.023545b8@satx.rr.com>


>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transhumanists

Weirdly listed by given rather than surnames.

Maybe Rudy Rucker should be there? And Drexler, Moravec and Vinge? 



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 16:29:21 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:29:21 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity
	Paradox)
In-Reply-To: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704110929y6d8708cdvec20346ead1c3cbf@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> What we have reached is the uncomfortable conclusion that
> what happens to you (or happened to you) in the past is
> every bit as worthy of anticipation as events that are
> scheduled to happen in your future. This demolishes any
> rational or consistent use of *anticipation* that I have
> ever been able to formulate.


I don't see the problem. Consider the evolved function of anticipation: it's
to make us pay attention to things that are important _and that we can
influence_. In your scenario it makes sense for myself in October 8 2007 to
anticipate what will happen in October 9 999, because I can causally
influence it. For example, I can make sure my time machine's power supply is
fully charged so that I can get to October 9 999 on schedule. This causal
influence will have its due effect irrespective of the memory tampering, so
it's perfectly logical.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/be5c68e4/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Apr 11 14:52:37 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:52:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411093606.046b64d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.
	rogers.com>
References: <004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411101743.046b7878@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 09:39 AM 4/11/2007 -0400, Keith wrote:

>I added an indication to the "notable transhumanists" list.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transhumanists
>
>My knowledge of who is signed up and who is not is rather limited, so if
>any of you want to fix the entry about yourself or others where you know
>their status, please do.

On the talk page:

Cryonics membership

Considering the origins of transhumanism, cryonics membership is a 
significant factor. Is there are reason to revert the addition of this 
information about the people in the list? To be sure, the information is 
not complete, but that's a work in progress. Keith Henson 13:24, 11 April 
2007 (UTC)

     This isn't appropriate information for an encyclopedic list. 
--Loremaster 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

     Furthermore, in light of the fact that cryonics is a pseudo-science 
and pseudo-technology that undermines the credibility of anyone associated 
with it, whether it be the provider or the client, transhumanists would be 
wise to keep their cryonics membership private... --Loremaster 13:31, 11 
April 2007 (UTC)

******

*IF* people think cryonics status on the transhumanist list is a good idea, 
reverting only requires going to the last version with the changes under 
history, bringing up the editor and saving.  If you consider yourself a 
transhumanist, you might so remark in the comments on the reversion.  I 
really wonder how many are signed up?

Keith



From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 17:25:56 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:25:56 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411101743.046b7878@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070411101743.046b7878@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0704111025r3da2ef3dia209163299304dd0@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Keith Henson wrote:
> *IF* people think cryonics status on the transhumanist list is a good idea,
> reverting only requires going to the last version with the changes under
> history, bringing up the editor and saving.  If you consider yourself a
> transhumanist, you might so remark in the comments on the reversion.  I
> really wonder how many are signed up?
>


Depends on whether you think that a transhumanist list should be a
marketing vehicle for commercial companies selling cryonics.

Other companies in nano and bio industries might like their fields of
interest publicised on the list also, if promoting such things is
supported.

BillK


From jonkc at att.net  Wed Apr 11 17:34:07 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:34:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com><7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
	<8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004f01c77c5f$a0389ab0$c6064e0c@MyComputer>

Russell Wallace

> We're programmed to believe personal power confers selective advantage,
> because it was true in the conditions in which we evolved - but even
> though we still believe it because we're programmed to, it's no longer
> true.

No longer true?! It I'm more powerful than you that means I can do things
you can't, and that gives me an advantage over you. People who have a
superstition against radical upgrades are going to get hammered by those who
don't have that prejudice.  Organisms that can't adapt to a rapidly changing
environment go extinct.

> As for why it's not worth considering: it's a story.

Yes it is a story, but what is your point? Stories are a good thing, stories
are how we understand the way the world works.

>"IQ 12000" (scare quotes because the phrase doesn't actually mean anything

Yes it does, it's shorthand for a being vastly more intelligent and powerful
than any human being who ever lived. I'm surprised this has to be spelled
out.

>The world isn't going to tolerate the creation or existence of
>superintelligent entities unless they behave like respectable citizens.

So we're back to that "friendly AI" nonsense. The AI is going to do what it
wants to do and it will not care if you "tolerate" it or not. You won't be
able to command it and you won't be able to trick it because you can't
outthink something smarter than you are.

   John K Clark




From pj at pj-manney.com  Wed Apr 11 17:53:06 2007
From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:53:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
Message-ID: <18176936.40041176313986652.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>

Keith wrote:
>*IF* people think cryonics status on the transhumanist list is a good idea, 
>reverting only requires going to the last version with the changes under 
>history, bringing up the editor and saving.  If you consider yourself a 
>transhumanist, you might so remark in the comments on the reversion.  I 
>really wonder how many are signed up?

While I understand your historical argument, transhumanism isn't just about cryonics.  I agree with both Justice DeThezier's argument on WTA-talk (since I also said 'no') and Loremaster's rationale for discretion.  Cryonics status -- or any other personal status -- should not be a matter of public record, unless the individual requests it.

Otherwise, it smacks of marketing or other hidden agendas.

PJ


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Apr 11 17:57:33 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:57:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <037e01c77c63$8e51cac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John writes

> Ok let's think about this logically and unemotionally. Let's suppose for the
> sake of argument that Lee Corbin philosophy is correct; what would be the
> result? You're dead meat.

Not necessarily!  Yes, probably, but then anything that bothers to remember
you will be at a comparative disadvantage, and so "probably" you'll be dead
meat pretty soon too. But there is a way to have your cake and eat it too.
It's simply this:  as you self-improve, adopt the maxim that you will *always*
run earlier versions of yourself in the background. 

So I will try to keep pace with the rest of you if the lucky occurs, and an
AI takes over that is willing to let us live and even, say, willing to let us
approach its own capabilities by 1% or something.

>You can't upgrade so soon you'll be surrounded beings enormously
> more powerful than yourself, and you don't stand a snowball's
> chance in hell of surviving the Singularity meat grinder.

As soon as a nation starts to become wealthy, the disparity between
the rich and the poor grows apace. The same will be true with your
"upgrades". Compared to some, you yourself will always be pitifully
behind. You're already far behind some people in IQ, when IQ isn't
even yet seriously affecting survival.

So I say that if you do live, don't take a chance on my being wrong
about this, and so run earlier versions of you from time to time, or
with some small fraction of your resources.  Therefore I'll always
have a JohnClark 2007 to argue with!

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Apr 11 18:07:07 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:07:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<035401c77c03$7ee0b430$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00ee01c77c0b$a72e91c0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <038101c77c64$4a642780$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John writes


> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
> 
>> Oh, no!  It's no tragedy for *me* that that thing turned into Lee Corbin.
>> But from the point of view of the fetus, it was death;  for it became unto
>> something totally unlike itself
> 
> OK, let's average the point of view of an adult man with a somewhat greater
> than average intelligence, a lot greater actually, with that of a fetus. I
> have a hunch the adult Lee Corbin would win that election in a landslide.

Sorry, I tried reading that several times, but couldn't make heads or tails
of it.  Perhaps you are speaking of values that are objectively true? Anyway,
according to my values (as I have said) neither the fetus nor the IQ 12000
person is me, unless the latter is very, very careful to think often lots of
old-style Lee Corbin thoughts.  (Almost as if he were running an earlier
version of me in his head.)

>>For me, growth includes only change that doesn't turn me into someone or
>>something else.
> 
> But I want to turn into something else, that is the entire point in living.
> Otherwise growth has no purpose and stagnation is the ultimate virtue. I
> don't buy it for one second!

Well, you want to turn into something else, and I don't.  That does seem to
tidily encapsulate the difference here.  I take it, however, that you don't
want to turn into just anybody. It must, as you said, "remember being you".
Can you explain a little better what that means, precisely?

(After all, I need to put limits on what it means, because maybe I'm you
already, or maybe in the far future I could fall in love with you and become
you, or something along those lines.)

Lee


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 18:07:44 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:07:44 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <18176936.40041176313986652.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
References: <18176936.40041176313986652.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704111107k1c4034b7o4337008e64d3fff5@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, pjmanney <pj at pj-manney.com> wrote:
>
> Keith wrote:
> >*IF* people think cryonics status on the transhumanist list is a good
> idea,
> >reverting only requires going to the last version with the changes under
> >history, bringing up the editor and saving.  If you consider yourself a
> >transhumanist, you might so remark in the comments on the reversion.  I
> >really wonder how many are signed up?
>
> While I understand your historical argument, transhumanism isn't just
> about cryonics.  I agree with both Justice DeThezier's argument on WTA-talk
> (since I also said 'no') and Loremaster's rationale for
> discretion.  Cryonics status -- or any other personal status -- should not
> be a matter of public record, unless the individual requests it.
>
> Otherwise, it smacks of marketing or other hidden agendas.
>
> PJ
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/dd4f7a7b/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 18:13:42 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:13:42 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0704111107k1c4034b7o4337008e64d3fff5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18176936.40041176313986652.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
	<deaa866a0704111107k1c4034b7o4337008e64d3fff5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704111113t1aa52095m6e92a4fdff6242f7@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry about the last (empty) message.

My only comments would be to look at the Zyvex, Alcor or Cryonics Institute
pages in Wikipedia.  There is nothing wrong with an unbiased, presumably
historical, account of commercial entities.  It might be interesting to link
Cryonics to Cryptobiosis which includes anhydrobiosis and cryobiosis.  There
are a number of organisms which can be desiccated or frozen and recover from
those biological states.  To state that cryonics is "unscientific" if flat
out wrong.  The people involved are generally applying an extensive amount
of science.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/f53143ef/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 18:20:04 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:20:04 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <004f01c77c5f$a0389ab0$c6064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
	<7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
	<8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
	<004f01c77c5f$a0389ab0$c6064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704111120xb0d9caeo6334327e6a1788aa@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
>
> Russell Wallace
>
> > We're programmed to believe personal power confers selective advantage,
> > because it was true in the conditions in which we evolved - but even
> > though we still believe it because we're programmed to, it's no longer
> > true.
>
> No longer true?! It I'm more powerful than you that means I can do things
> you can't, and that gives me an advantage over you.


But not an evolutionary advantage. What's your evolutionary fitness?

People who have a
> superstition against radical upgrades are going to get hammered by those
> who
> don't have that prejudice.


So if you acquire the wherewithal, are you planning to go around "hammering"
people who hold the belief in question? What are you planning to do, beat
them up? Machine gun them to death? Gas them? Zap them with unobtainium?

Yes it is a story, but what is your point? Stories are a good thing, stories
> are how we understand the way the world works.


Sure. My point is merely that there are times when it's important to remind
ourselves of the difference between stories and reality.

So we're back to that "friendly AI" nonsense. The AI is going to do what it
> wants to do and it will not care if you "tolerate" it or not. You won't be
> able to command it and you won't be able to trick it because you can't
> outthink something smarter than you are.
>

Except that AI doesn't presently exist, it isn't going to exist unless
people build it, and nobody rational enough to be capable of contributing to
the field is going to build an AI that can't be controlled and whose motives
are destructive.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/cd0d7c11/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Apr 11 18:17:56 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:17:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704080329sc99427eh5b0911495bb28912@mail.gmail.com><023601c779f7$b063c500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com><027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl><030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl><032a01c77be9$8a699480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV9AAF976DDC316A798C0F1A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<035601c77c05$9992bd80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV164BDE645FF24C7897C588A75F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <038501c77c66$67e15ec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Heartland writes

> Lee:
>> Yes, I agree that "process is the substance of life", if I'm reading you okay.
>> So the process is, after all, necessary and sufficient to achieve survival, right?
>> As I recall, though, your answer is "no".  An interruption of the process for
>> you is the same as death, right?

You can be a computer program?  That is, while I guess you don't believe
that you can *become* a computer program, you agree that you might be
one right now?

> Lee:
>> What on Earth can you have against cryonics?  It's just a slowing down
>> of the process, not even a cessation any more than sleep is. Even at
>> liquid nitrogen temperatures, processes proceed (only more slowly).
>> Even the same atoms are used upon re-animation.
> 
> Flat EEG means death. It has to. It's the only conclusion that doesn't lead to 
> contradictions. Besides, it's consistent with a belief that there's no such thing 
> as a resurrection.

I know how you feel  :-)   I myself am squeezed between two unacceptable
possibilities in the discussion of GLUTs and causal processes!  I tried to 
find the only way free of contractions!  :-)

Here, however, your definition of death is very interesting, and is not all
in keeping with medical practice. Sometimes people's EEGs do go quiet
for a few seconds, but then the system gets kickstarted again.  At least
that's what I've heard.  In cryonics, a boy was once rescued who had
been underwater for 45 minutes, with heart stopped (and probably with
flat EEG). But he came to.

> I guess it's one of those either-you-get-it-or-don't kinds of things. Perhaps you 
> might realize and appreciate the difference by focusing on the amount of benefit 
> that each instance derives from existence of other instances. There's no doubt in 
> my mind that this amount is always exactly zero.

Yeah, nearly zero to me.  True, an instance of me does gain some satisfaction that
I am also getting benefit in other locations, but he also gains satisfaction from 
knowing that some people in Istanbul are being nice to other people there.

> In other words, if I'm hungry, I 
> will stay hungry regardless of how many other instances fill their stomachs with 
> food. If I'm dead, I will stay dead regardless of how many other instances stay 
> alive.

Of course, naturally, you are using *your* definition of "I' and "me", just
as previously I was using mine.

> If an instance was alive and then its brain exploded, that instance cannot 
> have any type of experience (cannot derive any benefit) because the "machinery" 
> that made that experience possible is gone. Am I getting anywhere here, Lee? 

Well, not so far with this last line of questioning. The only weakness in your
argument that I know of is addressed above, namely that processes starting
and stopping may not be so black and white as you think.

Lee



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 18:37:45 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:37:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
In-Reply-To: <009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704111137j58efd332l336ecfaa71c1ce39@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> Let's suppose for the sake of argument that John Clark's philosophy is
> correct, what would be the result? You instantly agree to upgrade at every
> opportunity, and you still probably won't survive the Singularity meat
> grinder, but at least you have a chance.


I think the assumption that there will be a Singularity "meat grinder" needs
serious reexamination.  We don't run around eliminating all of the nematodes
or bacteria on the planet just because they are consuming some small
fraction of energy and/or matter that we at some point may want.

You have to realize that while there is a vector that some may follow for
climbing the singularity slope once it goes nearly vertical, there is no
reason once it tops out that those who selected to not make that choice will
be turned into hamburger.  The difference between a sub-KT-I and a KT-II
civilization is at least 13 orders of magnitude in terms of power
consumption.  We generally don't interest ourselves in something that is
going to involve dealing with 0.00000000001% of our resources.  Hell we
rarely pay much attention to anything in the 0.1% to 0.01% range.  It could
well be the case that the solar system as a whole evolves up the slope while
Earth, Mars and Venus remain meat havens until we get so bored with
multi-thousand year lifespans that we go off on some dangerous adventure in
a world ship to a distant "dark" galaxy.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/3db97fa0/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 11 18:39:59 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:39:59 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <038501c77c66$67e15ec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <035601c77c05$9992bd80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV164BDE645FF24C7897C588A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<038501c77c66$67e15ec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20070411183959.GE9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 11:17:56AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Here, however, your definition of death is very interesting, and is not all

Calling it interesting is being charitable. Believing in dead people
walking the earth is rather strange.

> in keeping with medical practice. Sometimes people's EEGs do go quiet
> for a few seconds, but then the system gets kickstarted again.  At least

Try minutes, or half a day in a controlled setting. With cryonics,
the lacune is effectively infinite.

> that's what I've heard.  In cryonics, a boy was once rescued who had
> been underwater for 45 minutes, with heart stopped (and probably with
> flat EEG). But he came to.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 11 18:47:09 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:47:09 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0704111137j58efd332l336ecfaa71c1ce39@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<deaa866a0704111137j58efd332l336ecfaa71c1ce39@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070411184709.GF9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 02:37:45PM -0400, Robert Bradbury wrote:

>    I think the assumption that there will be a Singularity "meat grinder"
>    needs serious reexamination.  We don't run around eliminating all of

Fast changes are always challenges to adaptiveness.

>    the nematodes or bacteria on the planet just because they are

Actually, we do a pretty good attempt at it; soil biota biodiversity has plummeted
in intensive agriculture. Sealed terrain has about zero biota diversity.

>    consuming some small fraction of energy and/or matter that we at some
>    point may want.

What is left of the prebiotic ursoup, after life had dined on it?

>    You have to realize that while there is a vector that some may follow
>    for climbing the singularity slope once it goes nearly vertical, there
>    is no reason once it tops out that those who selected to not make that
>    choice will be turned into hamburger.  The difference between a

Not hamburger, but being turned to plasma or frozen in blue snow are certainly
straightforward possibilities.

>    sub-KT-I and a KT-II civilization is at least 13 orders of magnitude
>    in terms of power consumption.  We generally don't interest ourselves
>    in something that is going to involve dealing with 0.00000000001% of
>    our resources.  Hell we rarely pay much attention to anything in the
>    0.1% to 0.01% range.  It could well be the case that the solar system
>    as a whole evolves up the slope while Earth, Mars and Venus remain

When/if postbiology emerges at the bottom of this gravity well, then
you'd get very intense competition, locally. *We* can't just float off
the earth, and live in vacuum happily ever after.

>    meat havens until we get so bored with multi-thousand year lifespans
>    that we go off on some dangerous adventure in a world ship to a
>    distant "dark" galaxy.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 11 18:54:09 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:54:09 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0704111120xb0d9caeo6334327e6a1788aa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
	<7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
	<8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
	<004f01c77c5f$a0389ab0$c6064e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704111120xb0d9caeo6334327e6a1788aa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070411185409.GG9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 07:20:04PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote:

>      No longer true?! It I'm more powerful than you that means I can do
>      things
>      you can't, and that gives me an advantage over you.
> 
>    But not an evolutionary advantage. What's your evolutionary fitness?

The fitness delta of machine-phase systems to biology is so large it's
a qualitative difference. 
 
>    So if you acquire the wherewithal, are you planning to go around
>    "hammering" people who hold the belief in question? What are you
>    planning to do, beat them up? Machine gun them to death? Gas them? Zap
>    them with unobtainium?

Do you know what your successors in 3000 years will do? Will you vouch
for them?
 
>    Sure. My point is merely that there are times when it's important to
>    remind ourselves of the difference between stories and reality.

Going to the Moon was just a story once.
 
>    Except that AI doesn't presently exist, it isn't going to exist unless
>    people build it, and nobody rational enough to be capable of

Evolution is not especially rational, but rather capable.

>    contributing to the field is going to build an AI that can't be
>    controlled and whose motives are destructive.

You can't control persons. Destructive is in the eye of the observer,
would you prefer Earth would have been mothballed at the prebiotic stage?

We primate bauplan people do not play in the same league of what
will come after us. The future is strange and wild. Human it is not.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 11 19:06:27 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:06:27 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <18176936.40041176313986652.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
References: <18176936.40041176313986652.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
Message-ID: <20070411190627.GH9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:53:06PM -0400, pjmanney wrote:

> While I understand your historical argument, transhumanism isn't just about cryonics.  

Cryonics is a nice way of putting your money where your mouth is. Also, because
it doesn't look as if life extension will achieve escape velocity in our biological
life time, cryonics is the only option if you want to sample the transhuman
future in person. The only option. There is no other, currently.

> I agree with both Justice DeThezier's argument on WTA-talk (since I also said 'no') 

No one is compelled to do it (since I don't live in the area with any coverage
I'm not signed up myself).

> and Loremaster's rationale for discretion.  Cryonics status -- or any other personal 

Loremaster's comment sounded remarkably uninformed, and inflammatory.

> status -- should not be a matter of public record, unless the individual requests it.
> 
> Otherwise, it smacks of marketing or other hidden agendas.

To me, it sounds like the person is sufficiently comitted (or reasonably well-off),
and/or willing to support the current institutions, considering them reformable.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 11 19:08:33 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:08:33 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0704111025r3da2ef3dia209163299304dd0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070411101743.046b7878@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<ee50357e0704111025r3da2ef3dia209163299304dd0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070411190833.GI9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 06:25:56PM +0100, BillK wrote:

> Depends on whether you think that a transhumanist list should be a
> marketing vehicle for commercial companies selling cryonics.

There is no money in cryonics. 
There is no money in cryonics.
There is no money in cryonics.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 11 19:18:20 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:18:20 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411101743.046b7878@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070411101743.046b7878@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20070411191820.GL9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:52:37AM -0400, Keith Henson wrote:

>      This isn't appropriate information for an encyclopedic list. 
> --Loremaster 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate decides who?
 
>      Furthermore, in light of the fact that cryonics is a pseudo-science 
> and pseudo-technology that undermines the credibility of anyone associated 
> with it, whether it be the provider or the client, transhumanists would be 
> wise to keep their cryonics membership private... --Loremaster 13:31, 11 

>From the sound of it, an ignorant snot-nosed punk hiding behind a pseudonym,
who should have kept his opinion strictly private.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From randall at randallsquared.com  Wed Apr 11 19:30:24 2007
From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:30:24 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
	<7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
	<8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <202CFAAE-ACBD-4ADF-A59C-1204C1A1F978@randallsquared.com>

On Apr 11, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Russell Wallace wrote:
> On 4/10/07, Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com> wrote:
> Really?  I'd love to hear your reasons for thinking
> that this is unlikely or not worth considering.  While
> I disagree with John about personal identity, I do
> agree that selection will favor those who agree with
> him that process survival is unimportant.  This puts
> me in an awkward position, as I'm sure you understand.
>
> Selection? Look at the statistics: selection favors those who  
> eschew this geek stuff completely. We're programmed to believe  
> personal power confers selective advantage, because it was true in  
> the conditions in which we evolved - but even though we still  
> believe it because we're programmed to, it's no longer true.

Personal power?  I think you missed the point.  It isn't
about personal power, it's about whether you're willing
to cavalierly create multiple copies of yourself at the
cost of this instance.

For a person like John Clark, when faced with a choice
about whether to do A or B (where he can't do both in a
single instance), the obvious answer is to copy himself
and then each copy will go do one, with the belief that
John Clark is also doing the other thing.  When faced
with a procedure which will certainly produce some good
outcome if it works, and kill the instance if it doesn't,
John has no qualms about backing himself up and doing it
anyway.  Didn't work?  He can always try again.

For people like myself (and Slawomir, I believe), that's
not really an option.  Dangerous things do not lose their
danger merely because you can back yourself up.

I would predict, therefore, that in a situation where
people can copy themselves, there are going to be a lot
more John Clarks than Randall Randalls.


> As for why it's not worth considering: it's a story. We make up  
> stories for ourselves for our own reasons. Sometimes we set them in  
> "the future", but when the actual future comes around, it  
> practically never resembles our stories; once you go beyond such  
> predictions as "computers will be more powerful in ten years than  
> they are today", futurology has a lower track record of success  
> than you'd expect from random chance. As soon as someone says "the  
> future will be like X", it's a reasonably safe bet that whatever  
> the future actually ends up like, it won't be X.
>
> In this case it's not even a particularly plausible story: if you  
> get "IQ 12000" (scare quotes because the phrase doesn't actually  
> mean anything, IQ isn't defined much past 200 or so), are you going  
> to go berserk and start massacring everyone? (That, after all, is  
> what the elimination of other viewpoints in a timescale as short as  
> a century implies.)

I didn't say anything about elimination of other viewpoints,
and I was ignoring the bit about 12000 IQ.  It's the willingness
to believe that copies are really the same person that makes
me think that selection will favor those who believe it, because
they'll produce far more copies than others.

I also think this was what John Clark was getting at in the
email to which you were replying when I replied to you.


> Are you even going to tolerate such behavior in others? Even if you  
> are, nobody else is. Nobody with any political power wants the  
> existence of a handful of people a zillion times smarter than  
> anyone else. The world isn't going to tolerate the creation or  
> existence of superintelligent entities unless they behave like  
> respectable citizens.

Ah, just as other mammals have been unwilling to tolerate
humans unless they behave well.  Must be why humans are
endangered.


> "If we have matter duplicators, will each of us be a sovereign
>   and possess a hydrogen bomb?" -- Jerry Pournelle
>
> Leaving aside the lack of evidence that matter duplicators are  
> possible, stop and think about this for a moment: conventional  
> manufacturing technology is perfectly adequate
[...]
It's a fun quote, not part of any argument I'm making.  I
must admit, though, it is a *polarizing* quote; lots of
people I'm having discussions with like to quote it and
attack it, as though it's part of whatever debate we're
having.  I wonder what that means?

--
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
"[W]e ARE the market, this IS the market working, there's nothing
  external to be deferred to." -- Ian Bicking, on "let the market  
decide"




From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 11 19:34:38 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:34:38 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
	<7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
	<8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070411193438.GM9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 04:50:07PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote:

>    Selection? Look at the statistics: selection favors those who eschew
>    this geek stuff completely. We're programmed to believe personal power

Tools are irrelevant?! Why are we exterminating the gorilla then, and
not gorilla us?

>    confers selective advantage, because it was true in the conditions in
>    which we evolved - but even though we still believe it because we're
>    programmed to, it's no longer true.

It doesn't matter what we believe, the great fitness function evaluates
us all.

>    As for why it's not worth considering: it's a story. We make up
>    stories for ourselves for our own reasons. Sometimes we set them in
>    "the future", but when the actual future comes around, it practically
>    never resembles our stories; once you go beyond such predictions as
>    "computers will be more powerful in ten years than they are today",
>    futurology has a lower track record of success than you'd expect from
>    random chance. As soon as someone says "the future will be like X",
>    it's a reasonably safe bet that whatever the future actually ends up
>    like, it won't be X.

"Evolution will still apply in future". That's completely reasonable,
and a powerful source of constraints.

>    In this case it's not even a particularly plausible story: if you get
>    "IQ 12000" (scare quotes because the phrase doesn't actually mean
>    anything, IQ isn't defined much past 200 or so), are you going to go
>    berserk and start massacring everyone? (That, after all, is what the

A diverse population of postbiological beings could very well be terminal
to conventional ecosystems. Pretending it never can be is not good risk
evaluation, given the magnitude of the outcome. 

>    elimination of other viewpoints in a timescale as short as a century
>    implies.) Are you even going to tolerate such behavior in others? Even

Kiloyears are overnight wall clock.

>    if you are, nobody else is. Nobody with any political power wants the
>    existence of a handful of people a zillion times smarter than anyone

Not necessarily smarter, DIVERSE and FIT.

>    else. The world isn't going to tolerate the creation or existence of
>    superintelligent entities unless they behave like respectable
>    citizens.

The world isn't a homogenous entity.
 
>      "If we have matter duplicators, will each of us be a sovereign
>        and possess a hydrogen bomb?" -- Jerry Pournelle

Of course. But just having a bunch of nukes doesn't make you a souvereign
in the posthuman world.
 
>    Leaving aside the lack of evidence that matter duplicators are
>    possible, stop and think about this for a moment: conventional

Do you have a problem with machine-phase? I'm all ears. Tell me why it
wouldn't work. 

>    manufacturing technology is perfectly adequate to build hydrogen
>    bombs, has been for decades. Why are we not each a sovereign

Not in your cellar.

>    possessing a hydrogen bomb today? Once you look at that question, it
>    becomes clear that the "matter duplicators" are a smokescreen,
>    something to aid suspension of disbelief by distracting the mind from
>    the real-life reasons why this scenario doesn't happen.

You could build quite a few megatons in your cellar with machine-phase.

>    For Pournelle is after all a storyteller: he has earned a living

He is a writer. We're not writers, selling some plausible claptrap is
incompatible with my training as a scientist.

>    making up stories, which are selected in the marketplace based on the
>    same fitness criterion: that people enjoy reading them. This is fine
>    provided we understand that it is not at all related to the
>    hypothetical fitness criterion of correspondence to what will actually
>    happen in real life.

Real life defines fitness.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 19:50:50 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:50:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <202CFAAE-ACBD-4ADF-A59C-1204C1A1F978@randallsquared.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
	<7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
	<8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
	<202CFAAE-ACBD-4ADF-A59C-1204C1A1F978@randallsquared.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704111250k19614394i9e8c3cc5e1ce1b70@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com> wrote:
>
> Personal power?  I think you missed the point.  It isn't
> about personal power, it's about whether you're willing
> to cavalierly create multiple copies of yourself at the
> cost of this instance.


Well, the comment to which I replied dismissally was "your style will become
extinct in less than a century" (in a context that suggested the extinction
was going to come as a result of being massacred by entities with "IQ
12000").

If you are now advancing the argument that in the long run the descendants
of people who want to make a lot of copies of themselves will outnumber
those of people who don't, that's something I don't have a problem with,
it's a far more robust conclusion.

It's a fun quote, not part of any argument I'm making.  I
> must admit, though, it is a *polarizing* quote; lots of
> people I'm having discussions with like to quote it and
> attack it, as though it's part of whatever debate we're
> having.  I wonder what that means?


*grin* In my case it's because I thought it was relevant to this particular
context, being representative of the same style of argument.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/35664207/attachment.html>

From mmbutler at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 19:58:35 2007
From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:58:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <20070411191820.GL9439@leitl.org>
References: <004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070411101743.046b7878@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20070411191820.GL9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <7d79ed890704111258w236b8b26p4bed73fd49924a7c@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> From the sound of it, an ignorant snot-nosed punk hiding behind a pseudonym,
> who should have kept his opinion strictly private.

Welcome to Wikipedia... ;\

-- 
      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  Wed Apr 11 20:05:15 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:05:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <20070411193438.GM9439@leitl.org>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
	<7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
	<8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070411193438.GM9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704111305j4c1ec2f8t9a05ea6025f8b301@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> Do you have a problem with machine-phase? I'm all ears. Tell me why it
> wouldn't work.
>

I think some form of machine-phase is a fine idea. That doesn't imply a
science fiction style matter duplicator. Remember the arguments between
Drexler et al and Smalley et al, where Smalley's side pointed out that
there's no such thing as a machine that can arbitrarily manipulate atoms
(because the manipulator would have to be itself made of atoms), and
Drexler's side replied that this doesn't mean we won't be able to do cool
things with nanotechnology. Which is true, but it does mean that the early
ideas about extremely general disassembler and assemblers are a thing of the
past; today's designs are looking a lot more realistic - and a lot less like
matter duplicators.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/54e3c3ed/attachment.html>

From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Apr 11 18:48:01 2007
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:48:01 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia list of >Hs
Message-ID: <380-2200743111848133@M2W029.mail2web.com>


From: Damien Broderick 

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transhumanists

>Maybe Rudy Rucker should be there? And Drexler, Moravec and Vinge? 

I appreciate the work these authors have done over the past many months,
but they are not looking into the Extro Conferences and who the speakers
were and "Extropy:The Journal of Transhumanist Thought" for those whoe
ideas and writings are integral to transhumanism.  Among these individuals
are Drexler, Moravec and Vinge. 

Best wishes,
Natasha






--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft? Windows? and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting





From randall at randallsquared.com  Wed Apr 11 20:40:06 2007
From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:40:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0704111250k19614394i9e8c3cc5e1ce1b70@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
	<7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
	<8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
	<202CFAAE-ACBD-4ADF-A59C-1204C1A1F978@randallsquared.com>
	<8d71341e0704111250k19614394i9e8c3cc5e1ce1b70@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9FA16305-F1CD-44B7-8E8B-C3F230767986@randallsquared.com>

On Apr 11, 2007, at 3:50 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:
> On 4/11/07, Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com> wrote:
> Personal power?  I think you missed the point.  It isn't
> about personal power, it's about whether you're willing
> to cavalierly create multiple copies of yourself at the
> cost of this instance.
>
> Well, the comment to which I replied dismissally was "your style  
> will become extinct in less than a century" (in a context that  
> suggested the extinction was going to come as a result of being  
> massacred by entities with "IQ 12000").
>
> If you are now advancing the argument that in the long run the  
> descendants of people who want to make a lot of copies of  
> themselves will outnumber those of people who don't, that's  
> something I don't have a problem with, it's a far more robust  
> conclusion.

That *is* what I'm saying, and by "outnumber" I mean vastly
so.  I actually thought this was the argument that John Clark
was making as well in what you quoted, but perhaps not.

> It's a fun quote, not part of any argument I'm making.  I
> must admit, though, it is a *polarizing* quote; lots of
> people I'm having discussions with like to quote it and
> attack it, as though it's part of whatever debate we're
> having.  I wonder what that means?
>
> *grin* In my case it's because I thought it was relevant to this  
> particular context, being representative of the same style of  
> argument.

Heh.  I think it's an interesting quote, because for
values of "matter duplicator" that merely include the
ability for anyone to make devices as powerful as
hydrogen bombs, it seems obvious that we'll have that
within a few decades, and maybe within 15 years.
Given that Jerry Pournelle *is* an SF author, you'd
think that he'd have given this some more thought than
his quote seems to indicate.

It's a quote which points out that even those who've
made their living writing about the (or a) future
will be blindsided by the changes we expect soon.


--
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
'Somebody wake up the National Rifle Association. Does the 2nd  
Amendment say
  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be  
infringed except on
   commercial airliners"?' -- Garrison Keillor




From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 20:51:36 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:51:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Top 10 Emerging Environmental Technologies
Message-ID: <ee50357e0704111351v33ef67f6v63d47fa370327768@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.livescience.com/environment/top10_emergingenvironment_technologies.html>

Live Science has an interesting list of emerging 'Save the planet' technologies.
Some are still somewhat speculative, but still.....

01. Make Oil from Just about Anything.
02. Desalination, removing the salt and minerals out of seawater.
03. Hydrogen fuel cells.
04. Solar power developments.
05. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion.
06. Harness Waves and Tides.
07. Plant Your Roof. Roof gardens are a good thing.
08. Let Plants and Microbes Clean Up After Us.
09. Bury The Bad Stuff. Put CO2 in the ground.
10. Make Paper Obsolete. Re-usable electronic paper.


BillK


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Apr 11 21:21:30 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:21:30 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <18176936.40041176313986652.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:53 PM 4/11/2007 -0400, PJ wrote:

snip

>While I understand your historical argument, transhumanism isn't just 
>about cryonics.  I agree with both Justice DeThezier's argument on 
>WTA-talk (since I also said 'no') and Loremaster's rationale for 
>discretion.  Cryonics status -- or any other personal status -- should not 
>be a matter of public record, unless the individual requests it.

I agree.  Eric Drexler kept his status (signed up) out of the public eye 
for a number of years.  He made it public at an Extropian Conference in San 
Jose at the same time Marvin Minsky did.

>Otherwise, it smacks of marketing or other hidden agendas.

There is an agenda, but it is hardly hidden.  If it isn't obvious, ask and 
I will state it.

Keith




From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Wed Apr 11 21:15:02 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:15:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Top 10 Emerging Environmental Technologies
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0704111351v33ef67f6v63d47fa370327768@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0704111351v33ef67f6v63d47fa370327768@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704111415j7b6ddbf4k468928f8663e8cfe@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> 03. Hydrogen fuel cells.


This is a *bad* idea.  It has been shown that running on hydrogen is much
less efficient than running on "electricity".  You lose too much energy in
the production, transport and/or storage of the hydrogen.  Methanol or
ethanol fuel cells would be far better so long as the methanol or ethanol
are being produced from carbon extracted from the atmosphere.  All hydrogen
now used comes from methane and the only way you can produce it relatively
cheaply is to oxidize the carbon in the methane and release the CO2 into the
atmosphere.  The only other common source of hydrogen is water and until
someone comes up with a catalyst that uses solar energy to cheaply split
water that is too expensive as well.

If you *really* want this it should be:
03. Hydrogen fuel cells + Catalyst to produce H2 from H2O+sunlight +
Lightweight H2 storage system.

If you want to store CO2 produced by power plants underground and use the
electricity to charge batteries for transport you have a much more efficient
system.  Better still if you can take the plants (or bacteria) on your roof
to convert your solar energy directly into either ethanol or electrons to
feed to your means of transport.

So alternatively you might want:
03. Lightweight nanotechnology high capacity based batteries or capacitors
that can rapidly and efficiently charged.

We are *much* closer to that than we are to having a hydrogen solution.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/ee708575/attachment.html>

From velvethum at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 11 21:25:48 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:25:48 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <20070411121920.GP9439@leitl.org><BAY140-DAV3067C95428D1D213D9AB9A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<20070411133516.GT9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>

Eugen:
>> > Yes, Slawomir is religious that way. The world is full of zombies.

Heartland:
>> I'm not the one believing in afterlife here, Eugen.

Eugen:
> But you're the one seeing dead people.
> Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other.
> They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead.
> All the time. They're everywhere.

Hmm, I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I never said anything about 
zombies. In fact, I don't believe a copy would be a zombie unless your definition 
of "zombie" is different from mine. Whether something is a zombie or not is 
entirely different debate.

H. 



From sti at pooq.com  Wed Apr 11 21:34:42 2007
From: sti at pooq.com (Stirling Westrup)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:34:42 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
In-Reply-To: <010501c77c10$c2596d30$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer><009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>	<461C7A6B.5030207@pooq.com>
	<010501c77c10$c2596d30$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <461D5472.8070804@pooq.com>

John K Clark wrote:
> "Stirling Westrup" <sti at pooq.com>
> 
>> This is just a redressing of the old argument for believing in God.
> 
> No it is not. Every one of those arguments for God hinges on the fact that
> it is the height of morality to demand that something is true when there is
> absolutely positively nothing to show it is in fact true. I do not think
> believing in such a thing is a virtue, I think it is a vice of pornographic
> magnetite. But I could be wrong, so show me my error in my ways. I dare you
> to try.

This seems trivial. The argument you gave was there were two choices:

a) If this is correct we may survive.
b) If this is correct we won't survive.

And you then chose A) for no better reason than you liked the outcome more.
All proof was lacking. Now, it just so happens that I believe in your A) and
have (what I believe are) valid reasons for doing so. The pleasantness of that
option is not one of them though.


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Apr 11 21:13:55 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:13:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0704111025r3da2ef3dia209163299304dd0@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411101743.046b7878@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070411101743.046b7878@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171305.04702e00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 06:25 PM 4/11/2007 +0100, you wrote:
>On 4/11/07, Keith Henson wrote:
> > *IF* people think cryonics status on the transhumanist list is a good idea,
> > reverting only requires going to the last version with the changes under
> > history, bringing up the editor and saving.  If you consider yourself a
> > transhumanist, you might so remark in the comments on the reversion.  I
> > really wonder how many are signed up?
> >
>Depends on whether you think that a transhumanist list should be a
>marketing vehicle for commercial companies selling cryonics.

As far as I know, there are none.  All are non profit.

Keith



From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 11 23:17:31 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing
In-Reply-To: <394815.57022.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <959714.71626.qm@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I wrote earlier:

..."Also, I wonder if it is even possible that a
Universe
such as ours (one that includes observers who can
detect a greater-than-zero but finite history) can
even become *anything but* infinitely old.

For example, if a hypothetical Universe was destined
to only become finitely old (eg. 6 Billion years
old)then dividing that finite history by +Infinity
would lead to any
"time-unit"/"observer-moment"/"apparent history" being
infinitely small. So the only length of history that
could possibly be observed would be an infinitely
short one. Or to put it more directly, it seems that
no observer could possibly exist at all in this
hypothetical Universe. And I don't yet see any reason
why the starting denominator could not be +Infinity
(which would represent the "very beginning" of this
hypothetical Universe) given that the value of the
quotient would still be greater-than-zero (and
positive) although very, very, very tiny."



I've thought a little more about this, and I have
another micro-argument in support of this preliminary
conclusion. Problem is, it's only half-baked because
it's hard for me to wrap my brain around, and what's
worse is that it's even harder for me to meaningfully
present through e-mail. But, what the hell I'll give
it a try, I hope it may generate some useful input or
refutations.

First imagine a hypothetical Universe that is
predetermined to become only finitely old because it's
destined to end in a Big Crunch. Now convert its
final, total age into a finite number of individual
"time-units" (the most fundamental possible units for
this hypothetical Universe). For simplicity sake,
assume that it's final total age is only 3
"time-units" long (this is a very short-lived
Universe). So I'll use 3 for the numerator (Think of
the 3 as equaling: three more than zero). The problem
arises when I try to use 3 as the starting
denominator. In order for the Universe to successfully
achieve the age of 3 "time-units", the denominator
must count-down to the value of 1. But, if the
denominator counts-down to only 1, then the numerator
can only achieve the age of 2 "time-units" and
therefore it could never "reach" its final age.
(Because there are only units of change between 3 and
1. ie. 3 becomes 2, and then 2 becomes 1). This
Universe could apparently reach it's final age of 3
"time-units" if and only if it's denominator became 0.
This quotient is always called "undefined", but that's
really just a euphemism for equaling positive
infinity. You might say that a work-around would be to
start with a denominator of 4, allow that to
count-down to 1 and allow the numerator to count-up to
a full 3. The problem with that is, the "time-units"
we are using are already fundamental, and there can
only be 3 of them (not 4) in this hypothetical
Universe. So, apparently in this case, I can't use any
starting denominator greater than 3, and I certainly
can't use any starting denominator smaller than 3 that
would still allow the Universe to reach its final age.
Yet another problem is that if this Universe were to
"start" with the fraction 3/3, that would mean
counting-up from 1, and not from 0 the way it should
be. The only way this would "work" would be to allow
that the individual "time-units" for this Universe to
have no lower bound. In other words, to allow that the
"time-units" for this hypothetical Universe would be
infinitely small (but still existent). And if the
"time-units" have to be infinitely small, then it
would require an infinite number of them (ie.
Infinity/Infinity) in order to allow the existence of
an observer within this hypothetical Universe. The
passage of 3 infinitely small "time-units" is not
going to allow the existence of an internal observer.
So in a terribly, terribly convoluted way, I think
this supports my contention that: only a Universe that
will reach an infinite age can include internal
observers. Therefore, my preliminary conclusion is
that our Universe will never end in a Big Crunch and
will continue to exist into the infinite future. Of
course, I'm willing to change that conclusion
depending on any convincing evidence or argument.

I realize that this is probably clear as mud. I know I
wouldn't want to try and interpret it.  :-)

In any case, I welcome any comments, even the
dissenting variety. 

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich        

  




       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091


From velvethum at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 12 00:03:04 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:03:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30704081040wdf34a05r79a701496b445e72@mail.gmail.com><027001c77a3c$5650f0c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl><030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl><f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com><BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl><f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com><BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110645w74e75880ybc944921395a74bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>

Heartland:
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "observer moments" here or why you think
>> instances
>> could be delineated from moment to moment and that they occur in
>> sequences. While
>> each instance has a beginning and end, there's no limit on how long it
>> should last,
>> is there?

Stathis:
> An observer moment, sometimes hyphenated as observer-moment or abbreviated
> as OM, is the smallest possible unit of experience. I believe the term was
> originated by Nick Bostrom. You can make it more concrete by talking about
> observer seconds or observer days or whatever. It eliminates ambiguity in
> these discussions about personal identity because we can always point to a
> specific collection of matter and say, "that's the entity with
> Heartland-type memories in New York at 5:15 PM on March 5 2006" and "that's
> the entity with Heartland-type memories in London at 3:02 AM on April 5
> 2006", and then argue about whether they are "the same person" or whether
> "Heartland has survived" during the intervening month.

That might work for static data such as memories but not for a physical dynamic 
process which is necessarily defined over time interval>0. The OM concept simply 
does not apply to a process. Behind the idea of OM is a false conviction that life 
is reducible to static data but it's quite obvious, at least to me, that life is a 
physical process that reduces only to itself or else it stops being life at all.


Stathis:
> Now, I must admit I am a little confused about your notion of instance and
> type. If a person undergoes destructive teleportation, would you say that
> the procedure creates two separate instances of the one type?

Not exactly. Instance of life #1 of type A goes into teleportation booth at t1. 
Instance #1 of type A is permanently destroyed at t2. Instance #2 of type A is 
created somewhere else at t3.

Instance obviously has to refer to a spatiotemporal process itself, not matter.


Stathis:
>> >>    A flat EEG that *stays* flat permanently means death. Patients can
>> >>    have a flat EEG due to eg. hypothermia and still recover fully.

Heartland:
>> Only copies recover. Obviously a copy will always suffer from illusion
>> that it's
>> the original but the evidence collected by an objective observer would
>> show
>> otherwise. This case is logically equivalent to a situation where you
>> download
>> patient's brain structure to a file, destroy the patient and then run many
>> instances of this file. The 1000th instance would suffer from the same
>> illusion.
>> Does the fact that a 2nd instance runs on the original body and 1000th on
>> some
>> artificial hardware make any difference? I really don't think so.

Stathis:
> So if you were dragged out of a freezing lake and were successfully
> resuscitated (or apparently so), would you consider that you were no longer
> the original you,

I would be lying to myself if I didn't. I-copy would enjoy life and feel sorry for 
what happened to my predecessor.

Stathis:
> and if so how would you introduce yourself and expect
> family and friends to treat you when they came to see you in hospital?

If I introduced myself as the original or a copy wouldn't change the fact the 
reinstantiated process would be a copy of the past process. If someone told me now 
that a person of my type suffered flat EEG, I would continue to introduce myself as 
the original for the sake of avoiding confusion unless I was sure the people around 
me would have the ability to comprehend my views about survival.


Lee:
>>> What on Earth can you have against cryonics?  It's just a slowing down
>>> of the process, not even a cessation any more than sleep is. Even at
>>> liquid nitrogen temperatures, processes proceed (only more slowly).
>>> Even the same atoms are used upon re-animation.

Heartland:
>> Flat EEG means death. It has to. It's the only conclusion that doesn't lead to
>> contradictions. Besides, it's consistent with a belief that there's no such 
>> thing
>> as a resurrection.

Lee:
> Here, however, your definition of death is very interesting, and is not all
> in keeping with medical practice.

Death has been a moving target, hasn't it? Its definition changes whenever we take 
into account new knowledge/understanding. I'm quite confident that many years from 
now, it will be common to pronounce living things as permanently dead whenever 
their minds stop.

Lee:
> Sometimes people's EEGs do go quiet
> for a few seconds, but then the system gets kickstarted again.  At least
> that's what I've heard.  In cryonics, a boy was once rescued who had
> been underwater for 45 minutes, with heart stopped (and probably with
> flat EEG). But he came to.

New lives are not created exclusively at inception/birth.

Heartland:
>> I guess it's one of those either-you-get-it-or-don't kinds of things. Perhaps 
>> you
>> might realize and appreciate the difference by focusing on the amount of benefit
>> that each instance derives from existence of other instances. There's no doubt 
>> in
>> my mind that this amount is always exactly zero.

Lee:
> Yeah, nearly zero to me.  True, an instance of me does gain some satisfaction 
> that
> I am also getting benefit in other locations, but he also gains satisfaction from
> knowing that some people in Istanbul are being nice to other people there.

Good. Now try to imagine that *this* instance of the brain that makes sense of 
these words right now will not exist tomorrow. This means that the brain that 
allowed you today to derive benefit from knowing people in Istanbul are nice will 
not exist tomorrow which necessarily implies that you will not be able to derive 
benefit tomorrow. In other words, the amount of benefit will you be able to derive 
tomorrow from knowing that some people in Istanbul are being nice to other people 
there will be exactly zero.

And if the amount of benefit *this* instance of Lee Corbin derives from other 
instances of anything is always exactly zero *when this instance of Lee Corbin 
doesn't exist,* what's the point of having other instances of Lee Corbin created 
sometime in the future after you die?

Heartland:
>> In other words, if I'm hungry, I
>> will stay hungry regardless of how many other instances fill their stomachs with
>> food. If I'm dead, I will stay dead regardless of how many other instances stay
>> alive.

Lee:
> Of course, naturally, you are using *your* definition of "I' and "me", just
> as previously I was using mine.

You are an instance first, then a type. Benefit accrues only to an instance, not to 
a type which makes all the difference. After all, if you're stranded in the desert 
and praying for a glass of water, your thirst doesn't get quenched simply by 
*knowing* other people are drinking gallons of water somewhere else right now, 
doesn't it? Some definitions are not created equal or are, at least, less useful 
than others.

H. 



From mfj.eav at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 00:45:34 2007
From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:45:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
Message-ID: <61c8738e0704111745v33e71343l621fe895eecf87a6@mail.gmail.com>

One error in  judgement is that one should not assume countries like saudi
need these high water use crops.

If one has high cost water one can for example grow large containerized
ponds of algae.

Some of this material can make food which can be processed to look and taste
like
those imported crops and some of the material can be used to fuel energy
production.

The only question is how fast can fundamental changes like this occur
and will the decision makers be able to manage the sociopolitics with their
own people
in such a crisis.

We need not look farther than the massive trial of bio-energy this year in
North American agriculture.

Fertilizer takes petroleum. Crops can go to food or fuel subject only to
market drivers.
crop Inputs are being diverted to energy over food.
Some food sectors will have to adjust economics, marketing, or simply reduce
available  food supply.
North americans will not starve in 2007, but will consumers revolt, will
changes to diet occur , will consumption patterns and
personal budget decisions adjust and if so how fast?
The other question is .. how stable a long term pattern is this.
Is it a  paradigm shifted or a fad?
Is the shift just starting with more evolution on the way  or is it more
fixed in stone?

This is a complex evolving scenario and I do not think one can discuss any
part without
referring to many ongoing feedback loops.

Lets get more comment before I elaborate further on this.

Morris Johnson





-- 
LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc.
Extropian Agroforestry Ventures  Inc.
306-447-4944
701-240-9411

Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan
Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals
http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan
http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com
megao at sasktel.net,  arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com
extropian.pharmer at gmail.com

Extreme Life-Extension ..."The most dangerous idea on earth"
-Leon Kass , Bioethics Advisor to George Herbert Walker Bush,
June 2005

Extropian Smoke Signals Waft Softly but Carry a big Schtick
... Morris Johnson - June 2005*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/c6d7649f/attachment.html>

From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Wed Apr 11 23:34:10 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:34:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>	<7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>	<8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>	<004f01c77c5f$a0389ab0$c6064e0c@MyComputer>	<8d71341e0704111120xb0d9caeo6334327e6a1788aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070411185409.GG9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <461D7072.2070505@thomasoliver.net>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>[...] 
>  
>
>>   Except that AI doesn't presently exist, it isn't going to exist unless
>>   people build it, and nobody rational enough to be capable of
>>    
>>
>
>Evolution is not especially rational, but rather capable.
>
The reasoning mind stands as the ultimate survival tool evolution has 
produced to date.  I doubt evolution's subrational products can surpass 
it.  

>>   contributing to the field is going to build an AI that can't be
>>   controlled and whose motives are destructive.
>>    
>>
>
>The future is strange and wild. Human it is not.
>
Wrong tense for such absolute assertions.  And to what end?   We have 
ample chaos to content with right now.  Besides, even were human 
extinction inevitable, we might welcome it with open transhuman arms.  
Meat grinding seems a more unlikely threat than mind cannibalism.  But 
the upside of getting eaten will be continued survival as a sub entity. 
 As long as it optonal, it won't be so terrifying.  Perhaps we could 
work out mind donor agreements to keep things orderly.  -- Thomas



From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 03:26:05 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:26:05 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing
In-Reply-To: <959714.71626.qm@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <394815.57022.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<959714.71626.qm@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704112026jc080ea6w40a1ba40498c6558@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I wrote earlier:
>
> ..."Also, I wonder if it is even possible that a
> Universe
> such as ours (one that includes observers who can
> detect a greater-than-zero but finite history) can
> even become *anything but* infinitely old.
>
> For example, if a hypothetical Universe was destined
> to only become finitely old (eg. 6 Billion years
> old)then dividing that finite history by +Infinity
> would lead to any
> "time-unit"/"observer-moment"/"apparent history" being
> infinitely small. So the only length of history that
> could possibly be observed would be an infinitely
> short one. Or to put it more directly, it seems that
> no observer could possibly exist at all in this
> hypothetical Universe. And I don't yet see any reason
> why the starting denominator could not be +Infinity
> (which would represent the "very beginning" of this
> hypothetical Universe) given that the value of the
> quotient would still be greater-than-zero (and
> positive) although very, very, very tiny."
>
>
>
> I've thought a little more about this, and I have
> another micro-argument in support of this preliminary
> conclusion. Problem is, it's only half-baked because
> it's hard for me to wrap my brain around, and what's
> worse is that it's even harder for me to meaningfully
> present through e-mail. But, what the hell I'll give
> it a try, I hope it may generate some useful input or
> refutations.
>
> First imagine a hypothetical Universe that is
> predetermined to become only finitely old because it's
> destined to end in a Big Crunch. Now convert its
> final, total age into a finite number of individual
> "time-units" (the most fundamental possible units for
> this hypothetical Universe). For simplicity sake,
> assume that it's final total age is only 3
> "time-units" long (this is a very short-lived
> Universe). So I'll use 3 for the numerator (Think of
> the 3 as equaling: three more than zero). The problem
> arises when I try to use 3 as the starting
> denominator. In order for the Universe to successfully
> achieve the age of 3 "time-units", the denominator
> must count-down to the value of 1. But, if the
> denominator counts-down to only 1, then the numerator
> can only achieve the age of 2 "time-units" and
> therefore it could never "reach" its final age.
> (Because there are only units of change between 3 and
> 1. ie. 3 becomes 2, and then 2 becomes 1). This
> Universe could apparently reach it's final age of 3
> "time-units" if and only if it's denominator became 0.
> This quotient is always called "undefined", but that's
> really just a euphemism for equaling positive
> infinity. You might say that a work-around would be to
> start with a denominator of 4, allow that to
> count-down to 1 and allow the numerator to count-up to
> a full 3. The problem with that is, the "time-units"
> we are using are already fundamental, and there can
> only be 3 of them (not 4) in this hypothetical
> Universe. So, apparently in this case, I can't use any
> starting denominator greater than 3, and I certainly
> can't use any starting denominator smaller than 3 that
> would still allow the Universe to reach its final age.
> Yet another problem is that if this Universe were to
> "start" with the fraction 3/3, that would mean
> counting-up from 1, and not from 0 the way it should
> be. The only way this would "work" would be to allow
> that the individual "time-units" for this Universe to
> have no lower bound. In other words, to allow that the
> "time-units" for this hypothetical Universe would be
> infinitely small (but still existent). And if the
> "time-units" have to be infinitely small, then it
> would require an infinite number of them (ie.
> Infinity/Infinity) in order to allow the existence of
> an observer within this hypothetical Universe. The
> passage of 3 infinitely small "time-units" is not
> going to allow the existence of an internal observer.
> So in a terribly, terribly convoluted way, I think
> this supports my contention that: only a Universe that
> will reach an infinite age can include internal
> observers. Therefore, my preliminary conclusion is
> that our Universe will never end in a Big Crunch and
> will continue to exist into the infinite future. Of
> course, I'm willing to change that conclusion
> depending on any convincing evidence or argument.
>
> I realize that this is probably clear as mud. I know I
> wouldn't want to try and interpret it.  :-)
>
> In any case, I welcome any comments, even the
> dissenting variety.
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Jeffrey Herrlich


Could you clarify your usage of numerator and denominator? The denominator
is the number on the bottom, stays fixed and cannot be zero, while the
numerator is the number on top and can take any value, although in this
context it will vary between 0 and the denominator, 3.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070412/4803bda2/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 03:56:28 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:56:28 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0704111137j58efd332l336ecfaa71c1ce39@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<deaa866a0704111137j58efd332l336ecfaa71c1ce39@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704112056m3cdeec22r8f4dbd0d22df1a6a@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

I think the assumption that there will be a Singularity "meat grinder" needs
> serious reexamination.  We don't run around eliminating all of the nematodes
> or bacteria on the planet just because they are consuming some small
> fraction of energy and/or matter that we at some point may want.
>
> You have to realize that while there is a vector that some may follow for
> climbing the singularity slope once it goes nearly vertical, there is no
> reason once it tops out that those who selected to not make that choice will
> be turned into hamburger.  The difference between a sub-KT-I and a KT-II
> civilization is at least 13 orders of magnitude in terms of power
> consumption.  We generally don't interest ourselves in something that is
> going to involve dealing with 0.00000000001% of our resources.  Hell we
> rarely pay much attention to anything in the 0.1% to 0.01% range.  It
> could well be the case that the solar system as a whole evolves up the slope
> while Earth, Mars and Venus remain meat havens until we get so bored with
> multi-thousand year lifespans that we go off on some dangerous adventure in
> a world ship to a distant "dark" galaxy.
>

On a literal understanding of the goals of the AI at the start of the
singularity, "make yourself more intelligent at any cost" might involve
converting all of the matter and energy in the universe into computronium,
without regard for the consequences to other life forms or the environment.
However, it is fallacious to assume that a super-intelligent AI will have
this (or indeed any other) goal simply by virtue of the fact that it is
intelligent. There is no necessary connection between intelligence and
motivation even among naturally evolved animals, let alone when you include
*every possible* motivation that could be programmed into an AI.

Stathis Papaioannou

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070412/6118cce5/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Apr 12 03:59:42 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:59:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal
	IdentityParadox)
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8d71341e0704110929y6d8708cdvec20346ead1c3cbf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <03f001c77cb7$2a412400$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Russell writes

> On 4/11/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> > What we have reached is the uncomfortable conclusion that
> > what happens to you (or happened to you) in the past is
> > every bit as worthy of anticipation as events that are
> > scheduled to happen in your future. This demolishes any 
> > rational or consistent use of *anticipation* that I have
> > ever been able to formulate.
> 
> I don't see the problem. Consider the evolved function of anticipation:
> it's to make us pay attention to things that are important _and that we
> can influence_.

Yes, anticipation is indeed one of the things that evolved to help us
make choices that benefit us or our genes.  But it constitutes a dilemma
because it prompts me to relish good things in my future, but not to
equally relish (positively anticipate) them in my past.  I conclude that as
such, anticipation is not a reliable guide or indicator, since it doesn't
allow me to anticipate (with pleasure) something good that happened
to me last night. That is, I don't "feel" the same way about it as I do
about something good that will happen tomorrow night.

> In your scenario it makes sense for myself in October 8 2007 to
> anticipate what will happen in October 9 999, because I can
> causally influence it.

That's a bold and interesting idea, in my opinion. But it seems that
we can separate causality from anticipation by considering the
passive beneficiary of something good or bad (that is slated for him
or her) but who has no influence on its occuring or not.

Lee



From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 04:00:47 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:00:47 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity
	Paradox)
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0704110929y6d8708cdvec20346ead1c3cbf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8d71341e0704110929y6d8708cdvec20346ead1c3cbf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704112100l7e17820aq7452b8c5b5d09ad@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/11/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> >
> > What we have reached is the uncomfortable conclusion that
> > what happens to you (or happened to you) in the past is
> > every bit as worthy of anticipation as events that are
> > scheduled to happen in your future. This demolishes any
> > rational or consistent use of *anticipation* that I have
> > ever been able to formulate.
>
>
> I don't see the problem. Consider the evolved function of anticipation:
> it's to make us pay attention to things that are important _and that we can
> influence_. In your scenario it makes sense for myself in October 8 2007 to
> anticipate what will happen in October 9 999, because I can causally
> influence it. For example, I can make sure my time machine's power supply is
> fully charged so that I can get to October 9 999 on schedule. This causal
> influence will have its due effect irrespective of the memory tampering, so
> it's perfectly logical.
>

You can causally influence events, but they won't appear in your subjective
future. It's like being able to causally influence the feelings of a
stranger.

Stathis Papaioannou

_______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070412/63c84dcf/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Apr 12 04:13:57 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:13:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704112026jc080ea6w40a1ba40498c6558@mail.gmail.com>
References: <394815.57022.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<959714.71626.qm@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30704112026jc080ea6w40a1ba40498c6558@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704112113s4e0aee98g2d8922f38b1a6807@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/12/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ..."Also, I wonder if it is even possible that a
> > Universe
> > such as ours (one that includes observers who can
> > detect a greater-than-zero but finite history) can
> > even become *anything but* infinitely old.
> >
> > For example, if a hypothetical Universe was destined
> > to only become finitely old (eg. 6 Billion years
> > old)then dividing that finite history by +Infinity
> > would lead to any
> > "time-unit"/"observer-moment"/"apparent history" being
> > infinitely small. So the only length of history that
> > could possibly be observed would be an infinitely
> > short one. Or to put it more directly, it seems that
> > no observer could possibly exist at all in this
> > hypothetical Universe. And I don't yet see any reason
> > why the starting denominator could not be +Infinity
> > (which would represent the "very beginning" of this
> > hypothetical Universe) given that the value of the
> > quotient would still be greater-than-zero (and
> > positive) although very, very, very tiny."
> >
> >
> > Could you clarify your usage of numerator and denominator? The
> denominator is the number on the bottom, stays fixed and cannot be zero,
> while the numerator is the number on top and can take any value, although in
> this context it will vary between 0 and the denominator, 3.
>

The first part seems like a peculiar adaptation of Zeno's paradox proving
that motion is impossible because any object would have to travel through
infinite intervals to reach the target.  The second part is more
disorienting than the worst imaginable acid trip, and it's clear that a
little math can be a truly dangerous thing.

We're having an offline discussion that's going to lead to some open-ended
trends, but I think we'll stick with graphical models.

- Jef
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070411/e3871666/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Apr 12 04:14:23 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:14:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <20070411121920.GP9439@leitl.org><BAY140-DAV3067C95428D1D213D9AB9A75F0@phx.gbl><20070411133516.GT9439@leitl.org>
	<BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Excuse moi for butting in, but I may be misunderstanding something in
the arguments here.  It sounds as though several people are criticizing 
Heartland for claiming that "dead people are walking around".  I 
thought that his claim was merely that when you bring someone back
from a flat EEG, or you teleport them, or you restore them from
back up, hardly being zombies they're merely *different* people
that those who died.

This is similar to the refusal of several people on this list---who otherwise
would not agree with Heartland in the least---to teleport. They are
materialists in every other respect: cryonics is fine, for example. But
the destructive property of teleportation, to them, kills someone and
replaces him with an entity who only *believes* that he was the 
original. (Of course I heartily dispute this myself.)

I know how these people (who I disagree) with feel.  They feel about
teleporters and revived patients the way that I feel about insane
asylum patients who've studied every detail of Napoleon's life,
and through some separate mechanism have become persuaded 
that they are the very same person as Napoleon.  I claim that with
present technology, it is simpy false that any such preparation can
truly bring the big N back to life. 

(Later, of course, nearer the Omega point, it may indeed be possible
to bring him and everyone else back to life, for the reasons that Tipler
and many others of us give, notwithstanding the objections of many
other people.)

Lee


From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Apr 12 04:42:36 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:42:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0704111745v33e71343l621fe895eecf87a6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <61c8738e0704111745v33e71343l621fe895eecf87a6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C846F93D-53FC-4BF0-8C91-22044454BD43@mac.com>


On Apr 11, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Morris Johnson wrote:

>
> We need not look farther than the massive trial of bio-energy this  
> year in North American agriculture.

Basing bio-energy largely on corn will be a colossal failure with the  
side-effect of driving various food costs higher.  A later side- 
effect will be a lot of farming business problem, calls for subsidies  
and bail outs and so on.  It is very predictable.

>
> Fertilizer takes petroleum. Crops can go to food or fuel subject  
> only to market drivers.
> crop Inputs are being diverted to energy over food.

Do your bio-energy as much as possible using fast growing weeds that  
take little in the way of such inputs.

> Some food sectors will have to adjust economics, marketing, or  
> simply reduce available  food supply.

Yep, as long as we are stupid enough to turn a primary, relatively  
high input, food into ethanol.

> North americans will not starve in 2007, but will consumers revolt,  
> will changes to diet occur , will consumption patterns and
> personal budget decisions adjust and if so how fast?
> The other question is .. how stable a long term pattern is this.
> Is it a  paradigm shifted or a fad?

It is a meaningless sop that will enrich many "in the know" and  
various opportunists while in the long run making a valid timely  
energy solution less likely in the US.  DOA

> Is the shift just starting with more evolution on the way  or is it  
> more fixed in stone?
>

Fixed in stone?  Only until the next Directive comrade.

- samantha




From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 04:45:00 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 05:45:00 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal
	IdentityParadox)
In-Reply-To: <03f001c77cb7$2a412400$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8d71341e0704110929y6d8708cdvec20346ead1c3cbf@mail.gmail.com>
	<03f001c77cb7$2a412400$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704112145w6cbadef9ie3cb0222b2f95703@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> That's a bold and interesting idea, in my opinion. But it seems that
> we can separate causality from anticipation by considering the
> passive beneficiary of something good or bad (that is slated for him
> or her) but who has no influence on its occuring or not.
>

But in that case we can agree that anticipation is irrational, so it doesn't
contradict the criterion that anticipation is rational if and only if you
have causal influence.

It's rare that something good will happen to you whether you like it or not,
but sadly not so rare for something bad, so it's easier to analyze this if
we take negative anticipation i.e. fear.

Consider the case of a man who has tooth problems, such that there will be
pain if he goes to the dentist, and more pain, albeit somewhat deferred, if
he does not. Yet he postpones going to the dentist because he fears the
pain. Yet this is irrational because he cannot actually prevent pain - he
has no causal influence over that aspect of things, there will be pain no
matter what he does.

In that case everyone - not just us, everyone, including likely the poor man
himself! - will agree he is being irrational, and he would be better off if
he could just switch off his fear instincts and deal as dispassionately with
the matter as he would if it were happening to a stranger. So we see that
the logical criterion does actually match our intuition.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070412/51975be3/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 04:57:31 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:57:31 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110645w74e75880ybc944921395a74bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704112157o7b6df309ge3268c9c33ffe1ec@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com> wrote:

Stathis:
> > So if you were dragged out of a freezing lake and were successfully
> > resuscitated (or apparently so), would you consider that you were no
> longer
> > the original you,
>
> I would be lying to myself if I didn't. I-copy would enjoy life and feel
> sorry for
> what happened to my predecessor.
>
> Stathis:
> > and if so how would you introduce yourself and expect
> > family and friends to treat you when they came to see you in hospital?
>
> If I introduced myself as the original or a copy wouldn't change the fact
> the
> reinstantiated process would be a copy of the past process. If someone
> told me now
> that a person of my type suffered flat EEG, I would continue to introduce
> myself as
> the original for the sake of avoiding confusion unless I was sure the
> people around
> me would have the ability to comprehend my views about survival.
>

If you define death in this non-conventional way, what does it matter if you
die and are replaced by a copy? If it were discovered tomorrow that some
people during their sleep have brief periods of flat EEG activity, and
monitoring shows that you are one of these people (and have been for your
whole life), would it worry you? Would it change the way you live your life?
Do you have any evidence today that you are *not* one of these people?

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070412/8beaebc9/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Apr 12 05:21:30 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:21:30 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704112157o7b6df309ge3268c9c33ffe1ec@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
	<017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110645w74e75880ybc944921395a74bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070412012049.04754a70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>


I must say that several threads have become more noise than signal.

Keith



From velvethum at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 12 05:41:53 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:41:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV22FD3E8C6C4BDA56EA430A75E0@phx.gbl>

> At 01:53 PM 4/11/2007 -0400, PJ wrote:
>>While I understand your historical argument, transhumanism isn't just 
>>about cryonics.  I agree with both Justice DeThezier's argument on 
>>WTA-talk (since I also said 'no') and Loremaster's rationale for 
>>discretion.  Cryonics status -- or any other personal status -- should not 
>>be a matter of public record, unless the individual requests it.
> 
>>Otherwise, it smacks of marketing or other hidden agendas.
 
> There is an agenda, but it is hardly hidden.  If it isn't obvious, ask and 
> I will state it.
> 
> Keith

Okay, let's hear it.

H.


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Apr 12 03:34:28 2007
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:34:28 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hierarchies of principle
Message-ID: <003201c77cb3$79fa3760$e7e18f9b@homepc>

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2007/04/even_without_the_polls_gonzale.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Reason demands and Jeffersons successors should know there are hierarchies of principle. No law between countries and men can outrank the law (the US-ratified UN charter) against launching aggressive wars against other countries. Without such laws there can be no international laws at all. No promise between Americans (or indeed between the citizens of any democracy) can be more solemn than the Presidential Oath to those citizens to uphold the Constitution and the law to those citizens. Allow that promise to be broken or uttered parrot fashion by an imbecile and all promises are void. 

 

As a non-American, as a former pro-American, I must tell you that the US law includes the treaties that you have made in order to receive from the rest of us that are not a part of your 300 millions a quid for your pro.

 

If you, the current generation of voting American can't get that, if you can't see that you have a duty not just to yourselves but to the rest of us in a would-be civilized world to remove the blight on your country and the blight on your honor then one wonders if you will ever have the wit and perception to see that behind the brown avenging eyes fixed upon you lies a resolve that could have been planted by the ghost of Patrick Henry. 

 

You must impeach George W Bush, you must be as good as your promises when the promises are so serious, because without the rule of law, logically there can only be war. If you don't then in 2007 it will be lazy, complacent, compromising, selfish and parochial Americans that are the real enemies of the rest of humanity and ultimately of themselves. 

 

On September 11, 2001 a Frenchman said "we are all Americans now". And we other non-Americans knew what he meant. 

 

But so far has George W Bush reduced America, so far have you the citizens and the Congresses of the US let your honor be reduced and your promises broken, that inside and outside America, we are all terrorists now.





Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070412/5daff4a3/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr 12 06:04:39 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:04:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
	<017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110645w74e75880ybc944921395a74bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070412010416.02259330@satx.rr.com>

At 01:21 AM 4/12/2007 -0400, Keith wrote:

>I must say that several threads have become more noise than signal.

You've just noticed? :) 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Apr 12 06:59:23 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:59:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re:  Personal Identity Bis
References: <BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl><017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl><030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl><f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com><BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl><f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com><BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl><f21c22e30704110645w74e75880ybc944921395a74bb@mail.gmail.com><BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070412010416.02259330@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <041901c77cd0$67c53e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

I must say that I have suggestion that works quite well for me.

I simply ignore threads that don't interest me---instead of insisting 
they be replace by silence. You might give it a try.

Lee


>>I must say that several threads have become more noise than signal.
> 
> You've just noticed? :) 



From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Thu Apr 12 07:23:21 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:23:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hierarchies of principle
References: <003201c77cb3$79fa3760$e7e18f9b@homepc>
Message-ID: <461DDE69.2060007@thomasoliver.net>

Brett Paatsch wrote:

> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2007/04/even_without_the_polls_gonzale.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
>  [...]
>
> You must impeach George W Bush, you must be as good as your promises 
> when the promises are so serious, because without the rule of law, 
> logically there can only be war. If you don't then in 2007 it will be 
> lazy, complacent, compromising, selfish and parochial Americans that 
> are the real enemies of the rest of humanity and ultimately of 
> themselves.
>
>  
>
> On September 11, 2001 a Frenchman said "we are all Americans now". And 
> we other non-Americans knew what he meant.
>
>  
>
> But so far has George W Bush reduced America, so far have you the 
> citizens and the Congresses of the US let your honor be reduced and 
> your promises broken, that inside and outside America, we are all 
> terrorists now.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Brett Paatsch
>
Not I!  But where can I find a representative?  And I agree -- Skip 
Gonzales.  In the interest of the past, present and future, let us 
impeach Bush and Cheney.  -- Thomas





From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Thu Apr 12 08:12:16 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:12:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen a "bad Idea"
References: <BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>	<017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>	<f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com>	<BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>	<f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com>	<BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl>	<f21c22e30704110645w74e75880ybc944921395a74bb@mail.gmail.com>	<BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412012049.04754a70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <461DE9E0.1040702@thomasoliver.net>

Keith Henson wrote:

>I must say that several threads have become more noise than signal.
>
>Keith
>  
>
I hope this help, Keith:
------------------------
BillK:

[...] 'Save the planet' technologies.

01. Make Oil from Just about Anything.
02. Desalination, removing the salt and minerals out of seawater.
03. Hydrogen fuel cells.
04. Solar power developments.
05. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion.
06. Harness Waves and Tides.
07. Plant Your Roof. Roof gardens are a good thing.
08. Let Plants and Microbes Clean Up After Us.
09. Bury The Bad Stuff. Put CO2 in the ground.
10. Make Paper Obsolete. Re-usable electronic paper.
-------------------------------

Robert Bradbury:


     03. Hydrogen fuel cells.


This is a *bad* idea.  It has been shown that 
running on hydrogen is much less efficient than running on "electricity". 
  You lose too much energy in the production, transport and/or storage 
of the hydrogen.  Methanol or ethanol fuel cells would be far better 
so long as the methanol or ethanol are being produced from carbon 
extracted from the atmosphere.  All hydrogen now used comes from 
methane and the only way you can produce it relatively cheaply is to 
oxidize the carbon in the methane and release the CO2 into the atmosphere. 
The only other common source of hydrogen is water and until someone 
comes up with a catalyst that uses solar energy to cheaply split water that is too expensive as well.

If you *really* want this it should be:
03. Hydrogen fuel cells + Catalyst to produce H2 
from H2O+sunlight + Lightweight H2 storage system.

If you want to store CO2 produced by power plants 
underground and use the electricity to charge batteries for transport 
you have a much more efficient system.  Better still if you can take 
the plants (or bacteria) on your roof to convert your solar energy directly into either ethanol or electrons to feed to your means of transport.

So alternatively you might want:
03. Lightweight nanotechnology high capacity based 
batteries or
capacitors that can rapidly and efficiently charged.

We are *much* closer to that than we are to having 
a hydrogen solution.
------------------

Thomas:

I ran this by Paul Torgerson of Worldwide Energy, an emerging hydrogen fuel cell/electrolyzer company.  He had this to say:

Tom,

These are all very noble claims being made by people with litlle 
concept of the challenges faced today.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimates that there are 
234 million light duty vehicles, cars, and motorcycles registered 
in the United States in 2004. These vehicles consumed 138.8 billion 
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Do we honestly think 
we can replace that with solar panels?

Solar panels are by far the most expensive means of energy 
production around. To power just US housing would take an 
estimated area the size of Arizona, and we build about 15 
million new homes a year.   The sun only shines part time.  
Puttting a solar panel on your roof is not enough to solve 
the energy crisis.

The hydrogen economy has already been implemented.  
Very high temperature nuclear electrolysis looks like the 
cheapest means of hydrogen production.  This will use 
electricity and heat to crack water molecules.  The new 
GEN IV light water reactors being developed by DOE won't 
be ready until 2030.  

[Paul clarified with the following:)

Current US annual hydrogen production is the equivalent of 71.8 Gigawatts
Thermal ("GWth") of nuclear or fossil power. This equates to 118 nuclear (or
fossil) plants to supply the hydrogen using the projected system
configuration of 600 Megawatts Thermal ("MWth") nuclear to 50 MWth for
Hydrogen Production.  More than 500 nuclear reactors (or fossil plants, with
carbon sequestration, will be needed by 2050 to achieve the DOE's goal of
substituting 25% of liquid transportation fuel with hydrogen.      
If the Company captures five to ten percent market share of this potential
market, Worldwide's metal-tubular solid oxide electrolyzer cell ("MTSOEC")
stack production would grow to thousands of WET multi-megawatt MTSOEC stacks
containing from 468,750 to 937,000 linear feet of WET produced electrodes,
from commissioning of the first commercial reactor (in 2025) through 2050.  
Worldwide estimates that each nuclear hydrogen plant using its MTSOEC stacks
will require four to five complete stack change outs over the 60 year life
of the reactor.  
This estimate is based on typical 94.5 % reactor availability, typical
baseload operation and maintenance practices, and industry standard run
times between shutdowns. 
A 600 MW Gen IV nuclear plant, utilizing high temperature electrolysis, has
the potential to produce 200,000 gallons of gasoline hydrogen equivalent
("gge H2") for less than $2.00/kg . This potential daily production level is
based on 50 MW of thermal energy producing the required amount of hydrogen.
The cost estimate is based on 50% electrolysis efficiency. The estimated
active electrode area is approximately 200 square meters per site.  

[end of clarification message]

They estimate that it will take 
thermal nuclear hydrogen plants  putting out 600 MW to 
produce 25% of the energy used in the US in 2050.  That's 25%.  
Try getting that much energy from bacteria or plants.

Currently, 9 million tons of hydrogen is produced annually 
in the United States for non-transportation uses including 
petrochemical applications,fertilizer, metals treating, 
electronics, and glass manufacturing. Nine million tons of 
hydrogen is projected to be able to fuel 20 - 30 million cars 
& light duty vehicles (8.5% - 13% of the current vehicle population) 
or 5 - 8 million homes.  

Five percent of the natural gas in the United States is used to 
produce hydrogen. More than 95% of the hydrogen currently 
produced is by a process known as steam reforming from natural 
gas. This process is well established, near its theoretical limits, 
and is currently several times more expensive than gasoline. In 
addition, the future commodity prices for hydrogen produced by 
this process will be closely linked to the commodity cost of
natural gas. Making the process cleaner would add to the cost.  

Nuclear hydrogen has an estimated cost of $2/gal of gas 
equivalent (GGE).  Plus nuclear electrolysis doesn't produce 
CO2.  Burning methane produces CO2, so does burning ethanol.  
People riding the bio fuels wagon think a bunch of ethanol plants 
can suddenly solve the world's energy needs. In fact, ethanol costs 
more to make than its worth. It creates the next big problem of 
having to use our food supply to make it in volume.

The DOE is spending big bucks working on carbon sequestration.  One of
the most novel uses I've seen is pumping it down dry oil wells.  It actually
fills the voids and makes the wells produce more oil.

There are no easy answers to the worlds energy crisis.  We'll never have
the magic power to crack enough water into hydrogen with solar energy
to produce 138 billion GGEs a year.  DOE is investing billions in the future,
but the ideas below don't merit the energy spent to send the message.

Who can provide a solution with verifiable facts and figures, that supplies 
138 billion GGEs a year for 330 million US vehicles, using solar, bio-fuels or 
plants on their roofs?  Then try fueling 700 million vehicles worldwide, Then 
work on heating the couple of billion homes.  Once you solve these issues, 
work on energy to drive the world's industries which increases at about 5%
a year.  

And once you solve the US energy needs try taking on China where we expect 
the majority of the world's oil production this century to be consumed.  
Small scale ideas look foolish when we confront the big picture and become
better informed people.

Paul
-----------------

Paul suggested checking out the Energy Information Agency site <http://www.eia.doe.gov/>. 
I bet he'd like your space elevator.  --Thomas














From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr 12 08:21:06 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:21:06 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <461D7072.2070505@thomasoliver.net>
References: <002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
	<7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
	<8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
	<004f01c77c5f$a0389ab0$c6064e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704111120xb0d9caeo6334327e6a1788aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070411185409.GG9439@leitl.org>
	<461D7072.2070505@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <20070412082106.GP9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 04:34:10PM -0700, Thomas wrote:

> >Evolution is not especially rational, but rather capable.
> >
> The reasoning mind stands as the ultimate survival tool evolution has 

Actually, by the metric ton human biomass doesn't even appear on the graph.
By the hardiness, nothing can touch lithobacteria. They live in an universe
of their own.

> produced to date.  I doubt evolution's subrational products can surpass 
> it.  

My point was that evolutionary design is quite capable for
producing an advanced infoprocessing agent (such as you), whereas
the rational product of it so far can't. So if there's a race between
a particular kind of AI, or a generic kind, evolutionary designs
seem to have a distinct edge. Which means less control.
Less control is a feature in this case, though some people
here will disagree.
 
> >>   contributing to the field is going to build an AI that can't be
> >>   controlled and whose motives are destructive.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >The future is strange and wild. Human it is not.
> >
> Wrong tense for such absolute assertions.  

What is the probability of us being the crown of evolutionary
achievement, given data from several GYrs? Especially, given
estimates of what solid-state systems are capable of.

> And to what end?   We have 

Evolution has no purpose, apart from the intrinsic drive towards
more and better informational processing capability.

> ample chaos to content with right now.  Besides, even were human 
> extinction inevitable, we might welcome it with open transhuman arms.  

It doesn't have to be an extinction. It rather should be a transformation.

> Meat grinding seems a more unlikely threat than mind cannibalism.  But 

Last time I looked we're made from CHNOPS, which is crunchy, and good
with ketchup.

> the upside of getting eaten will be continued survival as a sub entity. 
>  As long as it optonal, it won't be so terrifying.  Perhaps we could 
> work out mind donor agreements to keep things orderly.  -- Thomas

We should look towards human-derived systems.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 08:40:30 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:40:30 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal
	IdentityParadox)
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0704112145w6cbadef9ie3cb0222b2f95703@mail.gmail.com>
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8d71341e0704110929y6d8708cdvec20346ead1c3cbf@mail.gmail.com>
	<03f001c77cb7$2a412400$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8d71341e0704112145w6cbadef9ie3cb0222b2f95703@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704120140o17c99f43ye3e11790da1505ab@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:

But in that case we can agree that anticipation is irrational...


Why should I care what happens to some guy in the future who thinks he's me?
We may not share any of the matter comprising our bodies, and our brain
configurations and memories may only be approximately similar. It is neither
rational nor irrational that I anticipate the experiences of a future
version of me; rather, it is a description of the way human brains have
evolved to think.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070412/f836f2b9/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 09:07:50 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:07:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen a "bad Idea"
In-Reply-To: <461DE9E0.1040702@thomasoliver.net>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110645w74e75880ybc944921395a74bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412012049.04754a70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<461DE9E0.1040702@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0704120207j21ae5ec4x39d3fba04acce033@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Thomas wrote:
<snip>
> There are no easy answers to the worlds energy crisis.  We'll never have
> the magic power to crack enough water into hydrogen with solar energy
> to produce 138 billion GGEs a year.  DOE is investing billions in the future,
> but the ideas below don't merit the energy spent to send the message.
>
> Who can provide a solution with verifiable facts and figures, that supplies
> 138 billion GGEs a year for 330 million US vehicles, using solar, bio-fuels or
> plants on their roofs?  Then try fueling 700 million vehicles worldwide, Then
> work on heating the couple of billion homes.  Once you solve these issues,
> work on energy to drive the world's industries which increases at about 5%
> a year.
>
> And once you solve the US energy needs try taking on China where we expect
> the majority of the world's oil production this century to be consumed.
> Small scale ideas look foolish when we confront the big picture and become
> better informed people.
>


Yes, but.....

The world is still very early in the transition phase.
We still have plenty of cheapish (getting more expensive) oil, and the
whole old infrastructure to rebuild. So naturally we are reluctant to
leave our comfort zone and start the hard work bit.

Of course it is a big job. But you have to start somewhere.

When people find that the cost of filling their tank with gas makes
them wonder where they are going to get enough money from, then big
changes will be set in motion. (The recent small increases in gas
prices are nowhere near big enough - yet....).

When increasing home power bills also start to hit hard, another big
rethink will begin.

People won't show much interest in change without an incentive.
Why buy a fuel cell car that costs much more than a gas-guzzler?
Why insulate your home when electricity is so cheap?


The problem is deciding when to start making the change. Starting
gradually, like now, is probably correct. Leaving everything to the
last minute will probably be a big mistake.

All the government money that is being thrown at fuel cell technology
and other alternative power systems will have spinoff benefits as
well, in fields like nanotech.

Fuel cells will improve, hydrogen generation and storage will improve,
solar panels will get better, devices will become more economical. We
are just at the beginning.


BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr 12 12:49:10 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:49:10 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 09:14:23PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Excuse moi for butting in, but I may be misunderstanding something in
> the arguments here.  It sounds as though several people are criticizing 
> Heartland for claiming that "dead people are walking around".  I 

Slawomir thinks that a few seconds of flat EEG will kill the
original person. This means there are lots of zombies walking
around (or at least brand new people, here's a great idea to
to create ones which doesn't take a few decades), which are 
completely indistinguishable (no measuring procedure will help, 
assuming the lacune was short enough to not cause observable deficits).
Strangely enough these zombies claim to be the original people,
prepostorously claim access to dear loved ones of the freshly
departed, his bank account, his job, his entire life. Surely,
there must be a law against these uppity zombies?

Why just a few seconds of flat EEG? Why not anesthesia?
Why not a boink on the head? Why not a really strong cup of coffee?

Calling this "death" does sound a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?

> thought that his claim was merely that when you bring someone back
> from a flat EEG, or you teleport them, or you restore them from
> back up, hardly being zombies they're merely *different* people
> that those who died.

How can you tell they're different? What's the measurement
principle (not access to an external record) -- just the system
itself? This implies that histories cling to physical systems,
forever, amen, and can be queried.

I would call this superstition. It's certainly not science.
 
> This is similar to the refusal of several people on this list---who otherwise
> would not agree with Heartland in the least---to teleport. They are
> materialists in every other respect: cryonics is fine, for example. But
> the destructive property of teleportation, to them, kills someone and
> replaces him with an entity who only *believes* that he was the 
> original. (Of course I heartily dispute this myself.)

I don't. Location doesn't matter.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Apr 12 13:12:26 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:12:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] 12,000 IQ and nothing on?
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<2453.163.1.72.81.1176229119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
	<031701c77bc6$82cf4030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<55367.86.153.216.201.1176287103.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
Message-ID: <000d01c77d04$5fce8660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Anders writes

>> Jensen says "Cognitive ability is a lot like money; it doesn't
>> really matter how much you have so long as you have a
>> certain enough."  I take him to mean that insofar as ability to
>> accomplish goes (among humans today), an IQ of 130 or
>> 150 or something is all you need.
> 
> My research suggest that low ability is indeed the biggest
> problem.

Oh, I recall reading that now.  Thanks for the reminder;
this is important.

> Once you go below 100 IQ points, problems start to
> rise rather quickly. Whether there is an advantage in
> going from 130 to 140 is less obvious. However,
> at least one study demonstrated that even among
> the top 1% performers there were significant
> differences in professional success (PhDs, tenure,
> income) and number of patents between the top
> and bottom quartiles. The patent part is interesting,
> because that is non-competitive: it just represents
> crystalized creativity and signifies that these people
> actually do contribute significantly to society.

You put the existence of societal "problems" 
relating to low IQ in one category, and overall
differences (i.e. distributions) in what I was 
calling "general accomplishment" or the potential
to accomplish, in a separate category, which is
also very interesting, and seems probably right
to me.

Of course, in this thread we are more concerned
with the latter (as a possible reflection on the nature
of superhuman intelligence) than on the former,
despite the greater sociological and economic
importance of those "problems" traceable to less
than 100 IQ.

To me the fundamental problem is how closely
the nature of extreme capability (as opposed to
the notion of cognitive ability---in order to avoid
begging the question) follows any kind of 
approximately linear scale. By now (I go along
with the psychometricians) we have for humans
that there is an approximately linear scale for
human cognitive ability.  But this may break
down---as you mentioned in your previous
email---for very advanced entities. 

It seems to me that so far we are speculating
that advanced intelligence may be measured
by some combination of

       games  (extremely complicated ones)
       domination contests
       mathematical abilities

You had suggested "games", and I had earlier
suggested domination contests, in the sense
that two extremely advanced entities may
contest resources, even up to the point of
extinguishing each other. (This is how life on
Earth has developed thus far, from microscopic
creatures all the way up to states.)

I now add a third possibility---namely that
some component may be measurable by 
mathematical achievement. (This goes in hand
with a contention I've had for a long time that
perhaps extreme intelligence rather trivially
solves all non-mathematical problems
comparitively early in its development.)

More later on your interesting analyses of 
present day estimates of IQ differences 
among human populations.

Lee


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Apr 12 13:35:59 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:35:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity
	Paradox)
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704110428j784f61e1n9e0cc294afb1ed89@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c77d07$e0345e80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis wrote

> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:28 AM
> On 4/11/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> > This is most unfortunate, because feelings of anticipation
> > are hardwired at a very  fundamental level into our selves
> > and our motivations.
> 
> We could try to patch things up by saying that both memory loss
> and dying some time after you have been duplicated, which I
> agree are equivalent, constitute absolute death and are to be
> avoided at all costs.

Yes, it being understood that by "dying some time after being
duplicated",  you mean a quite a large number of years or decades.

> However, this sounds wrong, because most people wouldn't
> worry that much about a few minutes or a few hours of memory
> loss

But that's a different matter, entirely, though perhaps I'm 
misreading you.  We have to view as mentally aberrant
anyone who so little identifies with who he'll be in a few
minutes that (except in extreme cases of torture or 
pleasure), he benefit horizon (or a discount factor of
future benefit), that he can't make very small sacrifices
of the moment to save himself vast loss of benefit over
succeeding hours or days.  In other words, anyone who
won't spend a penny today to avoid loss of thousands
of dollars tomorrow is simply crazy (i.e. has something
broken).

> Alternatively, we could say that, indeed, we should anticipate
> the past as much as the future, but as you point out this runs
> counter to all our programming.

No, I'm not saying that we ought to try to change ourselves to
anticipate the past as well as the future---as we agree, that
would be peculiarly at odds with the evolutionary purpose
of anticipation.  I'm only lamenting that anticipation cannot
be rationalized (at least I've not seen any way so far).  But
big deal---we've learned that any number of concepts that
we took for granted, e.g. "simultaneity", cannot be so
consistently rationalized.

> Either solution would allow a consistent theory of personal
> identity, but it wouldn't feel right. 

Well, I didn't think that theories about personal identity were
really at stake over the anticipation dilemma.  Now it *is*
true, I contend, that most people get their views on personal
identity by consulting their "anticipation" module. For example,
they just don't "feel" that they'll themselves will have the future
experiences of that frozen slab in the next room who is a recent
duplicate.  All along, I've been attacking the veracity of this
particular feeling, just as, for example, Columbus could be 
said to be attacking the "feeling" that the Earth must be flat.

(Boy, am I begging for a lot of new threads to be started!
I hope that nobody cavalierly responds to all this unless
they either start a new thread, or it's really germane to
an analysis of "anticipation" and its uses. Thanks.)

> I think the paradox comes from trying to reconcile our psychology
> with logic. There really is no *logical* reason why an entity should
> have one type of concern for past versions of itself and another type
> of concern for future versions of itself.

There is an evolutionary reason.  Despite the peculiar thought
experiments that can be generated in which past experiences
can be shown (in these weird cases) to be on a par with future
ones, for an entity to worry about past events is like throwing
good money after bad.

> That is why I think of every observer moment as a separate
> entity, related to its fellows not due to any absolute rules but
> by virtue of certain contingent facts about the evolution of
> our brains.

For what its worth, my view on the concept of OMs is that
they're pretty worthless. But this could be a matter of taste.

> Other entities may have quite different views about personal
> identity. If worker bees regard their queen more as self than
> they do themselves, are they wrong?

Oh, absolutely not!  As we discussed in various threads over
the last six months, values cannot be said to be rational or 
irrational. Suicide bombers, for example, cannot be shown
to be irrational per se; they have simply placed certain 
benefits for their entire society or for the human race above
their own survival.  Worker bees don't even need to be as
abstract as that  :-)   given their "allegiance" to the perpetuation
of their genes.

Lee



From velvethum at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 12 13:55:58 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:55:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl><040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV119B598D2579D2D4AC7887A75E0@phx.gbl>

Eugen:
> Why just a few seconds of flat EEG? Why not anesthesia?
> Why not a boink on the head? Why not a really strong cup of coffee?
>
> Calling this "death" does sound a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?

Ah yes, it's yet another example of the strange=wrong objection I keep 
encountering. I guess there's still noise on this channel. :)

*click*

H. 



From jonkc at att.net  Thu Apr 12 15:15:39 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:15:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com><7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com><8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com><004f01c77c5f$a0389ab0$c6064e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704111120xb0d9caeo6334327e6a1788aa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <032701c77d15$735e8cf0$fd044e0c@MyComputer>

Me:

>>It I'm more powerful than you that means I can do things you can't,

Russell Wallace:

> But not an evolutionary advantage.

I can kill you. You can't kill me. That is an evolutionary advantage.

> What's your evolutionary fitness?

42.

> So if you acquire the wherewithal, are you planning to go around
> "hammering" people who hold the belief in question? What are you planning
> to do, beat them up? Machine gun them to death? Gas them?

It could be, but I don't really know. As Lee Corbin pointed out "this being
Isador with his IQ 12,000 and his unbelievably vast erudition has concerns
that you today cannot relate to in the slightest". And even if I don't feel
like eliminating those pesky meat bags you can bet somebody else will, and
it only takes one.

> My point is merely that there are times when it's important to remind
> ourselves of the difference between stories and reality.

Reality is unobtainable; all you can do is make up stories about it.

> AI doesn't presently exist, it isn't going to exist unless people build
> it, and nobody rational enough to be capable of contributing to the field
> is going to build an AI that can't be controlled and whose motives are
> destructive.

If I don't build an AI then people in country X will and then I'd be in deep
shit, so best to make one first and hope for the best. And besides, there is
something irresistible in working on such a Godlike project.

And I might add that there are people on this very list who think they can
outsmart and control an intelligence a billion times greater than their own,
by the time they learn they are wrong it will be too late.

  John K Clark




From jonkc at att.net  Thu Apr 12 15:44:22 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:44:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer><009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<037e01c77c63$8e51cac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <034701c77d19$769be0d0$fd044e0c@MyComputer>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> But there is a way to have your cake and eat it too. It's simply this:  as
> you self-improve, adopt the maxim that you will *always* run earlier
> versions of yourself in the background.

That seems like a bit much, I may think about the John Clark of ten years
ago a little from time to time but I certainly don't run a full simulation
of him, and yet I still don't feel he's dead.

But for the sake of argument let's assume I take your advice. Question: Do
you think a computer running Windows Vista that was simulating a computer
running Windows XT that was simulating a computer running Windows 2000 that
was simulating a computer running Windows 98 that was simulating a computer
running Windows 95 that was simulating a computer running Windows 3.1 that
was simulating a computer running DOS would outperform a new clean Linux
box?

  John K Clark





From randall at randallsquared.com  Thu Apr 12 15:48:23 2007
From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:48:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>

On Apr 12, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 09:14:23PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>> thought that his claim was merely that when you bring someone back
>> from a flat EEG, or you teleport them, or you restore them from
>> back up, hardly being zombies they're merely *different* people
>> that those who died.
>
> How can you tell they're different? What's the measurement
> principle (not access to an external record) -- just the system
> itself? This implies that histories cling to physical systems,
> forever, amen, and can be queried.
>
> I would call this superstition. It's certainly not science.

It's true that being absolutely sure of an object's history
is impossible.  However, that just means that identity is
impossible to be completely sure about.  Like everything else,
when you get down to it.

But that's no surprise, because the question of "is this
the same as that" is, by its nature, a question about the
history of the object or process.  I don't care if this
DVD is exactly like mine -- I can see that it most likely
is.  What I care about is whether this is *my* DVD, and
that's a question only answerable by reference to the
history of the object in question!

--
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
"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 eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr 12 16:05:04 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:05:04 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
Message-ID: <20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:48:23AM -0400, Randall Randall wrote:

> It's true that being absolutely sure of an object's history
> is impossible.  However, that just means that identity is

You can't know anything about the object without making
measurement about the object. If the information is not
encoded in the object, it must be encoded in the observer.
Since space is (usually) not labeled, information about
the object trajectory are present in the observer.

If you remove that information from the observer (by
inserting an observation block, or by terminating the
observer) that information is no longer present.

> impossible to be completely sure about.  Like everything else,
> when you get down to it.
> 
> But that's no surprise, because the question of "is this
> the same as that" is, by its nature, a question about the
> history of the object or process.  I don't care if this
> DVD is exactly like mine -- I can see that it most likely
> is.  What I care about is whether this is *my* DVD, and
> that's a question only answerable by reference to the
> history of the object in question!

Here's two DVDs from the same batch. Can you tell me which
belongs whom, by just looking at the DVD? Assume that
all identifying labels, scratches, etc. are not there.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 16:53:12 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:53:12 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Avoid Too Much Change.
In-Reply-To: <032701c77d15$735e8cf0$fd044e0c@MyComputer>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704101107i7f04eb4g41ea2cd2ccdfa357@mail.gmail.com>
	<7B9E06EA-3C1F-4285-8257-A33B65C11D9D@randallsquared.com>
	<8d71341e0704110850v2420cbccve0ab1262c80f6b49@mail.gmail.com>
	<004f01c77c5f$a0389ab0$c6064e0c@MyComputer>
	<8d71341e0704111120xb0d9caeo6334327e6a1788aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<032701c77d15$735e8cf0$fd044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704120953l12c6a326kfe2476cecf0bd45f@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
>
> I can kill you. You can't kill me. That is an evolutionary advantage.


Only if you use it. Except that the days when people killed their neighbors
with impunity (i.e. without a large expected loss) belong to the past. One
could postulate they will come again - but then, a new Dark Age would not
retain the technology to build desktop PCs, let alone "IQ 12000" beings. For
your scenario to come true, the world would have to retain the rule of law
while it focused all its efforts on the task of granting mighty technobabble
to John Clark alone, then all of society would have to relinquish said
technobabble - leaving you with a monopoly on it - and shut itself down for
no other purpose than to give you free rein to go on an unopposed killing
spree. There's nothing wrong with indulging in power fantasies - when I was
a small child I used to daydream about being Superman - but it is important
to retain the ability to distinguish between reality, stories that have some
shred of plausibility, and stories that are not remotely plausible.

> What's your evolutionary fitness?
>
> 42.


You have 84 children? Color me skeptical.

If I don't build an AI then people in country X will and then I'd be in deep
> shit, so best to make one first and hope for the best. And besides, there
> is
> something irresistible in working on such a Godlike project.


Let me know when you have a prototype up and running ;)

And I might add that there are people on this very list who think they can
> outsmart and control an intelligence a billion times greater than their
> own,
> by the time they learn they are wrong it will be too late.
>

For the record, nobody seriously working in the field is counting on being
able to outsmart or control (without its consent and active cooperation) an
intelligence greater than their own.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070412/6861086b/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Apr 12 17:11:28 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:11:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen a "bad Idea"
In-Reply-To: <461DE9E0.1040702@thomasoliver.net>
References: <BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
	<017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV3DBC119ADAAC87FB05C2DA7590@phx.gbl>
	<030d01c77b8a$d334baa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110645w74e75880ybc944921395a74bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412012049.04754a70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070412130547.039704a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:12 AM 4/12/2007 -0700, Thomas wrote:
>Keith Henson wrote:
>
> >I must say that several threads have become more noise than signal.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >
>I hope this help, Keith:
>------------------------
>BillK:

snip

>There are no easy answers to the worlds energy crisis.  We'll never have
>the magic power to crack enough water into hydrogen with solar energy
>to produce 138 billion GGEs a year.  DOE is investing billions in the future,
>but the ideas below don't merit the energy spent to send the message.
>
>Who can provide a solution with verifiable facts and figures, that supplies
>138 billion GGEs a year for 330 million US vehicles, using solar, 
>bio-fuels or
>plants on their roofs?  Then try fueling 700 million vehicles worldwide, Then
>work on heating the couple of billion homes.  Once you solve these issues,
>work on energy to drive the world's industries which increases at about 5%
>a year.
>
>And once you solve the US energy needs try taking on China where we expect
>the majority of the world's oil production this century to be consumed.
>Small scale ideas look foolish when we confront the big picture and become
>better informed people.
>
>Paul
>-----------------
>
>Paul suggested checking out the Energy Information Agency site 
><http://www.eia.doe.gov/>.
>I bet he'd like your space elevator.  --Thomas

This is one of the more sensible items I have read here in some time.

Could you send me an email contact for Paul?

Thanks

Keith



From scerir at libero.it  Thu Apr 12 17:16:34 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:16:34 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat]  MWI at 50
References: <61c8738e0704111745v33e71343l621fe895eecf87a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<C846F93D-53FC-4BF0-8C91-22044454BD43@mac.com>
Message-ID: <001301c77d26$632448a0$7a971f97@archimede>

The Perimeter Institute will host a conference
to mark the 50th Anniversary of Everett's
paper proposing his (self-)interpretation
of the universal quantum wave function ...
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Events/Many_Worlds_at_50/Many_Worlds_at_
50/

... and Matt Leifer thinks it is a bit anti-Quinian.
http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/why-is-many-worlds-winning-the-fo
undations-debate/

There is some progress in defining what an
'interpretation' - esp. regarding QM - should be
http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2006/06/28/professional-jealousy/

but I still see problems, at least when people
define QM as an "operating system", or as
a "syntax", and then try to interpret it.

That is, perhaps, the reason why Peter Shor writes that
"Interpretations of quantum mechanics, unlike Gods,
are not jealous, and thus it is safe to believe in more
than one at the same time. So if the many-worlds
interpretation makes it easier to think about the research
you're doing in April, and the Copenhagen interpretation makes
it easier to think about the research you're doing in June,
the Copenhagen interpretation is not going to smite you
for praying to the many-worlds interpretation. At least
I hope it won't, because otherwise I'm in big trouble."







From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Apr 12 18:42:04 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:42:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV22FD3E8C6C4BDA56EA430A75E0@phx.gbl>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:41 AM 4/12/2007 -0400, Heartland wrote:
>(Keith Wrote)
>
> > There is an agenda, but it is hardly hidden.  If it isn't obvious, ask and
> > I will state it.
> >
> > Keith
>
>Okay, let's hear it.

It's to embarrass the procrastinators into getting their paperwork done 
before they get run over by a truck.

Keith 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Apr 12 19:17:51 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:17:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma
	(PersonalIdentityParadox)
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0704110929y6d8708cdvec20346ead1c3cbf@mail.gmail.com><03f001c77cb7$2a412400$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8d71341e0704112145w6cbadef9ie3cb0222b2f95703@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003601c77d37$c91490f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Russell writes

> > It seems that we can separate causality from anticipation by considering the
> > passive beneficiary of something good or bad (that is slated for him
> > or her) but who has no influence on its occuring or not. 
> 
> But in that case we can agree that anticipation is irrational, so it doesn't
> contradict the criterion that anticipation is rational if and only if you have
> causal influence.

Let me recap.  My original lament is that the feeling of anticipation (of 
this or that)---that is, the feeling of imminent experience---cannot be
made rational in the sense that there exist A and B such that one naturally
has anticipation in case A and fails to have anticipation in case B, yet both
A and B can be shown to be equivalent.  For example, you cannot help
but anticipate (we call it "dread") imminent pain, but we will not anticipate
pain that occurred in the past, even though with the complicated thought
experiments the two were shown not to differ in any important way.

I hope that I was understood in my essay as noting this, and being
disappointed that our naturally evolved anticipation isn't consistent
(I did say rational).

> It's rare that something good will happen to you whether you like
> it or not, but sadly not so rare for something bad, so it's easier to
> analyze this if we take negative anticipation i.e. fear.

Oh, I don't know, awakening each morning isn't rare, and many
people love life enough to almost always look forward to it. Especially,
I suppose, those in precarious situations who wonder whether or not
it really will occur.  But anyway...

> Consider the case of a man who has tooth problems, such that there
> will be pain if he goes to the dentist, and more pain, albeit somewhat
> deferred, if he does not. Yet he postpones going to the dentist
> because he fears the pain. Yet this is irrational

Now *that* I will agree is exactly irrational.  And it is irrational because
he really is the same person from day to day, and suffering relatively
little early benefits his life in an obvious way. As an aside, we ought to
define "person" in such a way to make this true, hence my impatience
with the claim that we are not the same person from second to second.

> Yet this is irrational [you write] because he cannot actually prevent
> pain - he has no causal influence over that aspect of things, there
> will be pain no matter what he does. 

Well, to me that's an odd usage.  Two points:  first, he *can* prevent
a certain difference in the pain he is to receive. Based on his actions,
it will be lesser or greater.  But then, I am saying that his *action*
of not going to the dentist is irrational, not his anticipation of pain
which to me is an entirely different thing (and which, for me, it is
still strange and new to classify such a feeling as either rational or
irrational).

> In that case everyone - not just us, everyone, including likely the
> poor man himself! - will agree he is being irrational, and he would
> be better off if he could just switch off his fear instincts and deal
> as dispassionately with the matter as he would if it were happening
> to a stranger.

Right.

> So we see that the logical criterion does actually match our intuition. 

Your logical criterion is, again, that some anticipations are rational and
some are not. Somehow actions got mixed up with feelings here, it
seems to me.

In any case, suppose that either (A) I shall get a large check from the
government that will finally allow me to take a long-needed vacation,
or (B) I shall be arrested by the IRS and taken to prison.  Either way,
at this time I can do nothing about either, say, and so why is the 
feeling of exhileration in the first case, and dread in the second case,
not as you would say "rational"?    I doubt that you can mean that it
was incorrect for nature to have equipped us with such feelings about
our near future (even in these cases, here, where we can do nothing
about upcoming experiences).  But is that what you meant?

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr 12 19:45:34 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:45:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070412143823.023b2680@satx.rr.com>

At 02:42 PM 4/12/2007 -0400, Keith wrote:

>It's to embarrass the procrastinators into getting their paperwork done
>before they get run over by a truck.

What are the chances that cryonics will be of benefit to someone 
who's run over by a truck? (I'm not being sarcastic.) Assume the 
truck impact doesn't mush the person's brain--which must happen 
fairly frequently, I imagine--and the driver doesn't hit&run, how 
long would it take for a corpse to reach the morgue, would the cops 
give a shit, would an autopsy be mandatory in such a situation, etc 
etc? (I've come close to being hit by careless moron-driven motor 
vehicles three times in the last year, just trying to cross an 
intersection with a green light; luckily I'm hypervigilant.)

Damien Broderick 



From benboc at lineone.net  Thu Apr 12 19:50:25 2007
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:50:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <mailman.384.1176396810.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.384.1176396810.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <461E8D81.8050804@lineone.net>

Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

 > I must say that several threads have become more noise than signal.


And I must say that curiously, everyone seems to be scrupulously 
avoiding use of the words 'patternist' and 'threadist', and admit that 
this is the same tired old argument that we all got sick of (except 
perhaps for one or two crypto-dualists) months ago.

ben zaiboc


From velvethum at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 12 20:34:39 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:34:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl><040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV133ED4EDD991E43E43E883A75E0@phx.gbl>

Eugen:
>> How can you tell they're different? What's the measurement
>> principle (not access to an external record) -- just the system
>> itself? This implies that histories cling to physical systems,
>> forever, amen, and can be queried.
>>
>> I would call this superstition. It's certainly not science.

Randall:
> It's true that being absolutely sure of an object's history
> is impossible.  However, that just means that identity is
> impossible to be completely sure about.  Like everything else,
> when you get down to it.

> But that's no surprise, because the question of "is this
> the same as that" is, by its nature, a question about the
> history of the object or process.  I don't care if this
> DVD is exactly like mine -- I can see that it most likely
> is.  What I care about is whether this is *my* DVD, and
> that's a question only answerable by reference to the
> history of the object in question!

You don't have to know anything about history of something to realize you don't 
have it. As you point out, it's not important that there are two DVDs that are 
physically identical. The real problem here is NOT that it is hard or even 
impossible to tell these DVDs apart. Whether things are similar is irrelevant! The 
problem here is that you can't enjoy that DVD because you simply don't have it. A 
solution to this problem is not printing more copies of this DVD, but simply 
getting you at least one copy of it so you can watch it.

H. 



From randall at randallsquared.com  Thu Apr 12 20:56:39 2007
From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:56:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
	<20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com>

On Apr 12, 2007, at 12:05 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:48:23AM -0400, Randall Randall wrote:
>> But that's no surprise, because the question of "is this
>> the same as that" is, by its nature, a question about the
>> history of the object or process.  I don't care if this
>> DVD is exactly like mine -- I can see that it most likely
>> is.  What I care about is whether this is *my* DVD, and
>> that's a question only answerable by reference to the
>> history of the object in question!
>
> Here's two DVDs from the same batch. Can you tell me which
> belongs whom, by just looking at the DVD? Assume that
> all identifying labels, scratches, etc. are not there.

Precisely.  The only difference is the history, but I'm
sure everyone would agree there is a distinct DVD I own
(in this situation), and the fact that we can't tell
which it is is a problem with our knowledge, not the fact
of the matter.

Similarly, it might well be impossible to tell from
existing information which of two Randalls is the original
(if either), but that doesn't mean that it is the case
that they're all equally the original -- it just means
we don't know.


--
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
'Somebody wake up the National Rifle Association. Does the 2nd  
Amendment say
  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be  
infringed except on
   commercial airliners"?' -- Garrison Keillor




From asa at nada.kth.se  Thu Apr 12 21:06:59 2007
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:06:59 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 12,000 IQ and nothing on?
Message-ID: <2590.163.1.72.81.1176412019.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>

Lee Corbin wrote:
> You put the existence of societal "problems"
> relating to low IQ in one category, and overall
> differences (i.e. distributions) in what I was
> calling "general accomplishment" or the potential
> to accomplish, in a separate category, which is
> also very interesting, and seems probably right
> to me.

Accomplishment often means the creation of positive wealth while problems
signals wealth destruction or lowered chances of a flourishing life.

> Of course, in this thread we are more concerned
> with the latter (as a possible reflection on the nature
> of superhuman intelligence) than on the former,
> despite the greater sociological and economic
> importance of those "problems" traceable to less
> than 100 IQ.

I think there is also a big opportunity in enhancing the normally bright.
Moving many millions from 95 to a 100 means a lot of reduction in problems
and a lot more accomplishments. Just the little thing of being able to do
jobs with written instruction (limit around 95 or so) opens a whole range
of opportunities.

> To me the fundamental problem is how closely
> the nature of extreme capability (as opposed to
> the notion of cognitive ability---in order to avoid
> begging the question) follows any kind of
> approximately linear scale. By now (I go along
> with the psychometricians) we have for humans
> that there is an approximately linear scale for
> human cognitive ability.  But this may break
> down---as you mentioned in your previous
> email---for very advanced entities.

I'm not certain there is any way of callibrating it other than enormous
competitions. But making a competition that works for ants, mice, chimps,
humans, transhumans, AIs, posthumans and fnorgnitzbs would be nearly
impossible. There seems to be at least a kind of understanding horizon
beneath humans that means that simpler creatures cannot understand general
concepts, but more complex creatures probably can emulate each other a la
the Church-Turing thesis.

> I now add a third possibility---namely that
> some component may be measurable by
> mathematical achievement. (This goes in hand
> with a contention I've had for a long time that
> perhaps extreme intelligence rather trivially
> solves all non-mathematical problems
> comparitively early in its development.)

Math might be a good choice since it includes many different levels of
complexity and one can find a wide variety of domains. Some quite similar
to the everyday world, some utterly different. Of course, some of us would
say the everyday world is just embedded in math.


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University




From velvethum at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 12 21:19:47 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:19:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>


> At 01:41 AM 4/12/2007 -0400, Heartland wrote:
>>(Keith Wrote)
>>
>> > There is an agenda, but it is hardly hidden.  If it isn't obvious, ask and
>> > I will state it.
>> >
>> > Keith
>>
>>Okay, let's hear it.
>
> It's to embarrass the procrastinators into getting their paperwork done
> before they get run over by a truck.
>
> Keith

How do you know they are procrastinators? Maybe they haven't signed up yet because 
they don't believe this would change anything.

H. 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Apr 12 21:24:56 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:24:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl><040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <007701c77d49$7097ce30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Eugen writes

> Slawomir thinks that a few seconds of flat EEG will kill the
> original person.

Right, that is his claim.

> This means there are lots of zombies walking
> around (or at least brand new people,

There is a *big* difference between zombies and brand new
people!  I can hardly believe that you are (deliberately) confusing
the terms.  Even if (unlike me, alas) you think the concept of 
"zombie" to be utterly without referent, surely what Slawomir
is talking about is not that at all.

> Why just a few seconds of flat EEG? Why not anesthesia?
> Why not a boink on the head? Why not a really strong cup of coffee?
> 
> Calling this "death" does sound a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?

Of course, I agree with you about the essential questions here.
I'm just amazed you use the term zombie the way you do.  It's
amazing enough that I'm writing to inquire as to the possibility
that there is something going on here that I do not understand.

>> This is similar to the refusal of several people on this list---who otherwise
>> would not agree with Heartland in the least---to teleport. They are
>> materialists in every other respect: cryonics is fine, for example. But
>> the destructive property of teleportation, to them, kills someone and
>> replaces him with an entity who only *believes* that he was the 
>> original. (Of course I heartily dispute this myself.)
> 
> I don't. Location doesn't matter.

Er?  You mean that you *do* dispute this---along with me.  And, for
the record, I totally agree that location does not matter. (And I commend
you on the nice argument that you just put out about all the information
about an object (that's of any importance) resides *in* the object.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Apr 12 21:30:16 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:30:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer><009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer><deaa866a0704111137j58efd332l336ecfaa71c1ce39@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704112056m3cdeec22r8f4dbd0d22df1a6a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007b01c77d4a$2475a490$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Robert wrote

> On 4/12/07, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> It could well be the case that the solar system as a whole evolves
> up the slope while Earth, Mars and Venus remain meat havens
> until we get so bored with multi-thousand year lifespans that we
> go off on some dangerous adventure in a world ship to a distant
> "dark" galaxy. 

In the first place, by then "boredom" will be an entirely voluntary
state of mind.  It seems to me that I have said this before.  Is 
there a problem with it?

Secondly, going off to a so-called "dangerous adventure" in a
distant dark galaxy will naturally take place by evolution.  That
is, the forms that spread out in the galaxy and beyond will be
the forms that spread out into the galaxy and beyond  :-)
The near-tautology of evolution that creates the phenomenon
(as we see on Earth) of life sort of automatically seeking out
every environment in which it can live. 

Even if some super-intelligences are "afraid" to send copies of
themselves to dark galaxies, others will.

Lee



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Apr 12 21:42:59 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:42:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070412143823.023b2680@satx.rr.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070412173036.03acabf0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 02:45 PM 4/12/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>At 02:42 PM 4/12/2007 -0400, Keith wrote:
>
> >It's to embarrass the procrastinators into getting their paperwork done
> >before they get run over by a truck.
>
>What are the chances that cryonics will be of benefit to someone
>who's run over by a truck?

This was a place holder for dying unexpectedly before people quit dying.

>(I'm not being sarcastic.) Assume the
>truck impact doesn't mush the person's brain--which must happen
>fairly frequently, I imagine--and the driver doesn't hit&run, how
>long would it take for a corpse to reach the morgue, would the cops
>give a shit, would an autopsy be mandatory in such a situation, etc
>etc?

Bad luck applies to even getting suspended when you need it.  I don't know 
the actual numbers, but as a first pass guess, 5-10 of those who are signed 
up don't get suspended at all.  I can think of one guy who was not found 
for weeks (liguid brain), another one who was lost in the WTC disaster and 
one who was killed by bandits out in the middle of the Sahara desert.  Try 
not to be lost at sea (Eve Cooper).

Dying suddenly, such as an aircraft or traffic crash decreases your chances 
of a good suspension, though Alcor usually manages to put something into 
LN2.  We are fairly good at getting patients from the coroner.

>(I've come close to being hit by careless moron-driven motor
>vehicles three times in the last year, just trying to cross an
>intersection with a green light; luckily I'm hypervigilant.)

Good.  If you are signed up, the best way is to die from cancer with a team 
at your bedside.  But no matter what, if you are not signed up, you are not 
going to get frozen.  That's the point.

Keith



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 21:36:47 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:36:47 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma
	(PersonalIdentityParadox)
In-Reply-To: <003601c77d37$c91490f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8d71341e0704110929y6d8708cdvec20346ead1c3cbf@mail.gmail.com>
	<03f001c77cb7$2a412400$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8d71341e0704112145w6cbadef9ie3cb0222b2f95703@mail.gmail.com>
	<003601c77d37$c91490f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704121436u17188d03k98301b3b78f43e36@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> I hope that I was understood in my essay as noting this, and being
> disappointed that our naturally evolved anticipation isn't consistent
> (I did say rational).


Oh yes, and I'm agreeing with you 100% except in this: I think you're
looking further afield than you need to. There's no need to invoke time
travel; there are plenty of real situations where our anticipations are
irrational, and it's common knowledge that they are irrational. It's not
really news, everyone knows people aren't always perfectly rational and this
is one of the ways in which we aren't.

Now *that* I will agree is exactly irrational.  And it is irrational because
> he really is the same person from day to day, and suffering relatively
> little early benefits his life in an obvious way. As an aside, we ought to
> define "person" in such a way to make this true, hence my impatience
> with the claim that we are not the same person from second to second.


Agreed.

But then, I am saying that his *action*
> of not going to the dentist is irrational, not his anticipation of pain
> which to me is an entirely different thing (and which, for me, it is
> still strange and new to classify such a feeling as either rational or
> irrational).


*blink* Well leaving actions aside, haven't you ever heard someone say to
someone else who's dreading a bad event that may happen but if so cannot be
prevented, "no point worrying over things you can't do anything about"? It's
just the common way of expressing that which us philosophers put in fancier
language as "it is irrational to waste attention on anticipating events over
which we have no causal influence".

In any case, suppose that either (A) I shall get a large check from the
> government that will finally allow me to take a long-needed vacation,
> or (B) I shall be arrested by the IRS and taken to prison.  Either way,
> at this time I can do nothing about either, say, and so why is the
> feeling of exhileration in the first case, and dread in the second case,
> not as you would say "rational"?    I doubt that you can mean that it
> was incorrect for nature to have equipped us with such feelings about
> our near future (even in these cases, here, where we can do nothing
> about upcoming experiences).  But is that what you meant?
>

Well yes, it's exactly what I meant, and not only that, it's not a
scientific or philosophical discovery, it's common knowledge, always has
been. With this caveat: human evolution was operating under constraints of
time, information, computing power, such that there was no way to create a
perfectly rational system - indeed, there's no evidence that a perfectly
rational system is even possible; so I wouldn't use the word "incorrect",
for the system we have is the best evolution could find. I would use the
word "imperfect".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070412/4babf38a/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Apr 12 21:42:48 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:42:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001e01c779fd$c0e776f0$cf084e0c@MyComputer><025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer><030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer><032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer><009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<037e01c77c63$8e51cac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<034701c77d19$769be0d0$fd044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <007e01c77d4b$8c0b04a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John writes


> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
> 
>> But there is a way to have your cake and eat it too. It's simply this:  as
>> you self-improve, adopt the maxim that you will *always* run earlier
>> versions of yourself in the background.
> 
> That seems like a bit much, I may think about the John Clark of ten years
> ago a little from time to time but I certainly don't run a full simulation
> of him,

Right.  Far from it

> and yet I still don't feel he's dead.

And I agree: he's not dead.  Probably.  Almost surely you retain enough in
common with the you of ten years ago that by the meanings I propose,
that John Clark still lives.  Yet we must get beyond supposing that the
reality corresponds to the binary alive/dead.  You could gradually change
into someone else.  Do you deny that in certain contrived thought 
experiments you could gradually turn into me?  (We very slowly and
surreptiously start replacing certain of your earliest memories by certain
ones of mine---there may be a point of total confusion in the middle of
the process, etc.)

> But for the sake of argument let's assume I take your advice. Question: Do
> you think a computer running Windows Vista that was simulating a computer
> running Windows XT that was simulating a computer running Windows 2000 that
> was simulating a computer running Windows 98 that was simulating a computer
> running Windows 95 that was simulating a computer running Windows 3.1 that
> was simulating a computer running DOS would outperform a new clean Linux
> box?

By no means.  Emulation always carries a cost.  The cost may be great or 
it may be relatively little.  In a pinch, I would hope that Lee+  will grant 
the 2005-2010 version or versions perhaps a second of runtime every
ten-thousand years, or whatever.  Certainly Lee+ will easily see that he
does me no good whatever if he can't hold his own existence in the 
universe.

So I agree that there is a small window in which you are right:  perhaps
the future will be so competitive that anything that recalls being me at
all and who bothers to expend any energy running me now and then
simply dies off.

But by the same token (the window is small), it could be so very ruthless
that no entity which remembers being you in any manner whatsoever
survives. 

But anyway, I think that there is a truth to the question "at time t does
the solar system or does it not contain a running version of an entity
similar in structure enough to the Lee Corbin of  ~1965 - ~ 2015
that it can be accurately said that he still lives to some non-trivial extent?"

And so even if nothing which simulates "something similar to me now"
can be competitive, well, then I'm dead anyway by my lights.

Lee



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 22:10:13 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:10:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
In-Reply-To: <034701c77d19$769be0d0$fd044e0c@MyComputer>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<025d01c77a38$d4d8e550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002201c77abe$b9d6de70$4a074e0c@MyComputer>
	<030c01c77b89$6bd14000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<00a601c77b92$982a7730$b90d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<032201c77be6$bc070660$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004801c77bf6$9c77d9e0$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<009d01c77bfd$d22e9900$0e044e0c@MyComputer>
	<037e01c77c63$8e51cac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<034701c77d19$769be0d0$fd044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0704121510y3ec5ca9dt54731c5544f76784@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
>
> But for the sake of argument let's assume I take your advice. Question: Do
> you think a computer running Windows Vista that was simulating a computer
> running Windows XT that was simulating a computer running Windows 2000
> that
> was simulating a computer running Windows 98 that was simulating a
> computer
> running Windows 95 that was simulating a computer running Windows 3.1 that
> was simulating a computer running DOS would outperform a new clean Linux
> box?
>

Ah, but "new clean Linux box" is an oxymoron - Linux is based on Unix, and
much of its design predates MS-DOS 1.0. Speaking of which, my Windows XP box
can still happily run early DOS programs. And both operating systems
typically run on x86 chips that retain outright binary compatibility back to
the 8088 in the late 70s, and can trace their direct ancestry further back
still, back to the Intel 4004, the very first microprocessor. And systems
with such deep lineage in fact outperform their "newer, cleaner"
competitors, perhaps not in flops/gigatransistor, but in the measure of
performance that counts: ability to solve real-world problems at affordable
cost.

Nor is this phenomenon at all peculiar to computers. The language we speak
right now traces its ancestry back through a thousand years and more of
polyglot accumulation of words from yet older languages. The alphabet we
write it in is older still, a direct derivative of the first true alphabet
whose letters were named after words in ancient Sumerian: aleph, beth,
gimel, daleth... nor has this survival been as a result of sheltering from
competition, on the contrary, the Sumerian-derived alphabet effortlessly
held its position against "newer, cleaner" phonetic alphabets. English _won_
in direct competition in the open market against all comers including the
"newer, cleaner" Esperanto and Lojban. And the minds we use to comprehend
all this are of course the product of four billion years of unbroken, step
by step evolution.

Being a "clean sheet of paper" guy myself, I can certainly sympathize with
the desire to imagine everything being swept away and replaced with ab
initio designs that are "cleaner" and "more efficient" in the geek senses of
the words. I too have dreamed up from-scratch CPUs, operating systems,
programming languages, network protocols... but all the evidence thus far
suggests that isn't how the world works.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070412/3d6e1061/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Apr 12 23:59:05 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:59:05 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity
	Paradox)
In-Reply-To: <001c01c77d07$e0345e80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704110428j784f61e1n9e0cc294afb1ed89@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c77d07$e0345e80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704121659w6110eae0re37afcb5e2f0aec9@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

No, I'm not saying that we ought to try to change ourselves to
> anticipate the past as well as the future---as we agree, that
> would be peculiarly at odds with the evolutionary purpose
> of anticipation.  I'm only lamenting that anticipation cannot
> be rationalized (at least I've not seen any way so far).  But
> big deal---we've learned that any number of concepts that
> we took for granted, e.g. "simultaneity", cannot be so
> consistently rationalized.
>
> > Either solution would allow a consistent theory of personal
> > identity, but it wouldn't feel right.
>
> Well, I didn't think that theories about personal identity were
> really at stake over the anticipation dilemma.  Now it *is*
> true, I contend, that most people get their views on personal
> identity by consulting their "anticipation" module. For example,
> they just don't "feel" that they'll themselves will have the future
> experiences of that frozen slab in the next room who is a recent
> duplicate.  All along, I've been attacking the veracity of this
> particular feeling, just as, for example, Columbus could be
> said to be attacking the "feeling" that the Earth must be flat.


Let's summarise. You feel that the sort of  anticipation which tells the
average human that he won't have the experiences of his copy in the next
room cannot be rationally justified and should be expunged. On the other
hand, you feel that the sort of anticipation which makes the average human
worry more about the future than the past cannot be rationally justified but
should be left alone. Is there an inconsistency here?

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070413/87322a56/attachment.html>

From mfj.eav at gmail.com  Fri Apr 13 00:42:54 2007
From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:42:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
Message-ID: <61c8738e0704121742x1c52e56ayc5277c951ae230f0@mail.gmail.com>

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:42:36 -0400
From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <C846F93D-53FC-4BF0-8C91-22044454BD43 at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed


On Apr 11, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Morris Johnson wrote:

>
> We need not look farther than the massive trial of bio-energy this
> year in North American agriculture.

Basing bio-energy largely on corn will be a colossal failure with the
side-effect of driving various food costs higher.  A later side-
effect will be a lot of farming business problem, calls for subsidies
and bail outs and so on.  It is very predictable

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.lter.umn.edu/

has links to the original papers on this page.

Research on prairie biofuels recently published in the journal Science!
Abstract  Full Text Supplement
Research on biofuels published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences. Text Supplement

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Science 8 December 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5805, pp. 1598 - 1600
DOI: 10.1126/science.1133306

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
Carbon-Negative Biofuels from Low-Input High-Diversity Grassland Biomass
David Tilman,1* Jason Hill,1,2 Clarence Lehman1

Biofuels derived from low-input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native
grassland perennials can provide more usable energy, greater greenhouse gas
reductions, and less agrichemical pollution per hectare than can corn grain
ethanol or soybean biodiesel. High-diversity grasslands had increasingly
higher bioenergy yields that were 238% greater than monoculture yields after
a decade. LIHD biofuels are carbon negative because net ecosystem carbon
dioxide sequestration (4.4 megagram hectare?1 year?1 of carbon dioxide in
soil and roots) exceeds fossil carbon dioxide release during biofuel
production (0.32 megagram hectare?1 year?1). Moreover, LIHD biofuels can be
produced on agriculturally degraded lands and thus need to neither displace
food production nor cause loss of biodiversity via habitat destruction.

1 Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota,
St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.
2 Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
55108, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: tilman at umn.edu

Globally escalating demands for both food (1) and energy (2) have raised
concerns about the potential for food-based biofuels to be sustainable,
abundant, and environmentally beneficial energy sources. Current biofuel
production competes for fertile land with food production, increases
pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, and threatens biodiversity when
natural lands are converted to biofuel production. The two major classes of
biomass for biofuel production recognized to date are monoculture crops
grown on fertile soils (such as corn, soybeans, oilseed rape, switchgrass,
sugarcane, willow, and hybrid poplar) (3?6) and waste biomass (such as
straw, corn stover, and waste wood) (7?9). Here, we show the potential for a
third major source of biofuel biomass, high-diversity mixtures of plants
grown with low inputs on agriculturally degraded land, to address such
concerns.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


>
> Fertilizer takes petroleum. Crops can go to food or fuel subject
> only to market drivers.
> crop Inputs are being diverted to energy over food.

Do your bio-energy as much as possible using fast growing weeds that
take little in the way of such inputs.

&&&&&
In effect synthetic prairie is just that a complete ecosystem,
a swiss army knife of crops , so to speaK...MFJ
&&&&&&

> Some food sectors will have to adjust economics, marketing, or
> simply reduce available  food supply.

Yep, as long as we are stupid enough to turn a primary, relatively
high input, food into ethanol.

&&&&&&&&
On this front the scams have had great success and 200 ethanol plants are
built or will be by year end.   However most of them can be rebuilt
for cellulosic ethanol.  The ethanol waste products can be
feedstocks for  other bioproduct streams.
I am as frustrated as you, in that people bought into the right thing
but for all the wrong reasons.
But in this case the right reasons were not saleable to investors and
politicians.

Perhaps longevity and H+  industry ramp up can learn from this.
People seem to like death and are  uncomfortable with the responsibilities
that go with living long enough to have to live with the consequences of
your  human footprint.

Proper commercialization strategy for  H+  is  really neat because it ought
to be a way for
extropians to profit from a new tech wave.

However even deep pockets kurzweil has a teeny tiny $ at risk foootprint.
Something is not quite right with this picture......?

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&





> North americans will not starve in 2007, but will consumers revolt,
> will changes to diet occur , will consumption patterns and
> personal budget decisions adjust and if so how fast?
> The other question is .. how stable a long term pattern is this.
> Is it a  paradigm shifted or a fad?

It is a meaningless sop that will enrich many "in the know" and
various opportunists while in the long run making a valid timely
energy solution less likely in the US.  DOA

> Is the shift just starting with more evolution on the way  or is it
> more fixed in stone?
>

Fixed in stone?  Only until the next Directive comrade.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070412/6decd684/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Apr 13 01:45:15 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:45:15 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Controlled by a cat parasite
In-Reply-To: <p06230900c21ac3df16ae@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06230900c21ac3df16ae@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <9E8FA7AC-3E9E-4171-BBBA-74E862B7EA1D@mac.com>

I read somewhere that approximately half the human population is  
already infected.  Hmm.

On Mar 12, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Amara Graps wrote:

> Whoa!
>
> Instead of finding drugs to alter our moods, let's infect ourselves  
> with
> toxoplasmosis instead! OK, maybe not.
>
> I wonder if those cultures that value boys beyond the normal sex ratio
> would take to this? Or maybe they already are? Or maybe the parasite
> is the result of practices already in place, now in a feedback loop?
>
> Amara
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/11/cat_parasite_rules_o.html
>
>  From Boing Boing
>
> <begin quote>
>
> Cat parasite rules our lives
>
> Vann sez, "As a follow-up to Cory's entry in January of last year  
> on how
> toxoplasmosis may alter people's moods (women become more friendly;  
> men
> become more paranoid), recent studies suggest that infection by the
> parasite may also cause people to become more prone to feeling guilty,
> develop schizophrenia, have auto accidents, or be born male."
>
> U.S. Geological Survey biologist Kevin Lafferty has linked high  
> rates of
> toxoplasmosis infection in 39 countries with elevated incidences of
> neuroticism, suggesting the mind-altering organism may be affecting  
> the
> cultures of nations.
>
> Stranger still, parasitologist Jaroslav Flegr of Charles University in
> Prague thinks T. gondii could also be skewing our sex ratios. When he
> looked at the clinical records of more than 1,800 babies born from  
> 1996
> to 2004, he noted a distinct trend: The normal sex ratio is 104 boys
> born for every 100 girls, but in women with high levels of antibodies
> against the parasite, the ratio was 260 boys for every 100 girls.
> Exactly how the parasite might be tipping the odds in favor of males
> isn't understood, but Flegr points out that it is known to suppress  
> the
> immune system of its hosts, and because the maternal immune system
> sometimes attacks male fetuses in very early pregnancy, the parasite's
> ability to inhibit the immune response might protect future boys as  
> well
> as itself.
>
> <end quote>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
> INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma,  
> ITALIA
> Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI),  
> Tucson
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Apr 13 03:37:08 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:37:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070412233228.0397d008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 05:19 PM 4/12/2007 -0400, you wrote:

> > At 01:41 AM 4/12/2007 -0400, Heartland wrote:
> >>(Keith Wrote)
> >>
> >> > There is an agenda, but it is hardly hidden.  If it isn't obvious, 
> ask and
> >> > I will state it.
> >> >
> >> > Keith
> >>
> >>Okay, let's hear it.
> >
> > It's to embarrass the procrastinators into getting their paperwork done
> > before they get run over by a truck.
> >
> > Keith
>
>How do you know they are procrastinators? Maybe they haven't signed up yet 
>because
>they don't believe this would change anything.

In a group this large, you can be sure that *some* of them are 
procrastinators.  I agree that there are people who call themselves 
"transhumanists" who will not sign up for cryonics for one reason or 
another.  I don't take them very seriously and suspect they will be less 
represented in the post human future than those who do sign up, especially 
if they are older than say 50.

Keith



From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Apr 13 07:14:29 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:14:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com>
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
	<20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>
	<BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com>
Message-ID: <20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org>

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 04:56:39PM -0400, Randall Randall wrote:

> Precisely.  The only difference is the history, but I'm
> sure everyone would agree there is a distinct DVD I own

I guess I'm not everyone. If two DVDs fell down and rolled
into a corner, without me looking, I couldn't tell the
difference. So couldn't anybody, but an omniscient
observer. I'm an atheist, so this means nobody can tell
in principle.

Again, the DVD has no label, you carry the label by
observing the system trajectory.

> (in this situation), and the fact that we can't tell
> which it is is a problem with our knowledge, not the fact
> of the matter.

Since knowledge is encoded in the matter, and certainly not
in the DVD (since it doesn't care) knowledge is precisely
a fact of the matter. There are no seraphim, gently flapping
their wings while carrying bits in tiny little buckets.
 
> Similarly, it might well be impossible to tell from
> existing information which of two Randalls is the original
> (if either), but that doesn't mean that it is the case
> that they're all equally the original -- it just means
> we don't know.

Knowledge is information, and information is very important
in this unverse, from QM (two systems in the same quantum
state are not distinguishable in principle) to singularities. 

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Fri Apr 13 06:51:17 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:51:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heinlein Gets the Last Word
Message-ID: <004401c77d98$23408380$6501a8c0@brainiac>

... from the New York Times:


 http://tinyurl.com/2cve2n 

Cheers,
Olga


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Apr 13 07:22:06 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:22:06 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20070413072206.GA9439@leitl.org>

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:19:47PM -0400, Heartland wrote:

> How do you know they are procrastinators? Maybe they haven't signed up yet because 

Because it's a chronical malaise of the fringe crowd.

> they don't believe this would change anything.

I'm not signed up because there's no coverage in my patch
of the geoid. You can be damn sure I would if I knew I'd
get a crack at a halfway decent suspension.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Fri Apr 13 08:19:18 2007
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:19:18 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] My first Demo Reel and Query
References: <354458.87014.qm@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <026801c77da5$0a836e90$0200a8c0@Nano>

Hi there Anna - so glad you had the opportunity to take a closer look at my work, and thank you for your kind words. Most of your favorites are mine as well. Some of the others, might not seem like they have a beginning/end or are short because they were experimental, a project to develop a particular skill. You certainly can send your family links to my pages that contain holiday greetings. I am glad you enjoyed my animations, that's what it's all about. Kind regards, 


Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
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: Anna Taylor 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 7:00 AM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] My first Demo Reel and Query


  Hi Gina,
  I haven't been able to view any of your art before
  now. (My computer is ancient but I am in the process
  of purchasing a new one).  I had the opportunity to
  use a different computer and thought I would check out
  what you do.

  Thank you, I truly enjoyed your work, I think you have
  remarkable talent.  Your demo is a great
  representation of some of your finest work. 

  Some of my thoughts for what it's worth:

  Your choice in music enhances your art making the
  complete package fascinating and your character
  animation is fantastic. Some of my favorites are The
  Gift, Dandelion, The Mark, Moon Goddess and Seasonal. 

  I truly enjoyed The Odyssey as I envisioned a mixture
  of your art entwined with mine.  I imagined a huge
  stage with a huge background projector playing your
  movie with ballet dancers on stage.  Each playing a
  part in an exceptional story.  Isn't it amazing how
  Mozart can still create vision? I also envisioned
  Zenith as an opening to a Walt Disney Movie, an
  introduction to a far away place. I thought Particle 2
  was a little short, I would have liked to see a little
  more.  I had a little trouble with Countrified, Blue
  and Converse as I couldn't clearly see what was going
  on, it was a little dark.  (I'm assuming that has
  something to do with my computer).  I enjoyed Happy
  New Year and thought how nice it would be if I could
  send such an e-mail to my friends and family.  

  All in all, I had a great time discovering your art
  and it was time well spent.  You gave me ideas and
  made me think. 

  Thanks again,
  Anna:)

  Art for art's sake, with no purpose, for any purpose
  perverts art. But art achieves a purpose which is not
  its own. [1804]-Benjamin Constant

  The aim of every artist is to arrest motion, which is
  life, by artificial means and hold it fixed so that a
  hundred years later, when a stranger looks at it, it
  moves again since it is life. ~William Faulkner







        
  _______________________________________________
  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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070413/6e3d7c74/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 13 08:06:59 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
In-Reply-To: <20070411184709.GF9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <304768.82604.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 02:37:45PM -0400, Robert
> Bradbury wrote:
> 
> >    I think the assumption that there will be a
> Singularity "meat grinder"
> >    needs serious reexamination.  We don't run
> around eliminating all of
> 
> Fast changes are always challenges to adaptiveness.

Yes. And brains are how biology has risen to the
challenge of fast change. And becoming zen ubermensch
with some neat technological toys are how biological
transhumans shall rise to the challenge of machine
phase Singularity. 

> 
> >    the nematodes or bacteria on the planet just
> because they are
> 
> Actually, we do a pretty good attempt at it; soil
> biota biodiversity has plummeted
> in intensive agriculture. Sealed terrain has about
> zero biota diversity.

Yes. But traditional monoculture is rather devastating
to the soil in general. Thereby the need to rotate
crops or better yet have multiple crops growing
simultaneously. I don't see why people seem to think
that destruction of the biosphere is some sort of
"goal" for the Singularity. To me that seems to be a
poor choice of tasks to set our 12,000 IQ children to.
Especially since they will revere us as parents and
their literal creators unless we somehow betray their
trust or their sense of fairness.

> >    consuming some small fraction of energy and/or
> matter that we at some
> >    point may want.
> 
> What is left of the prebiotic ursoup, after life had
> dined on it?

An entire diverse biosphere of living cells whose
cytoplasm, for the most part, IS the prebiotic ursoup.
Same soup, just in lots of smaller bowls instead of
one big one. I seriously doubt that all that soup will
get turned into computronium. Not unless somebody is
stupid enough to purposely create a Saberhagen-style
"Berserker" AI.
 
> Not hamburger, but being turned to plasma or frozen
> in blue snow are certainly
> straightforward possibilities.

But what would be its motive? A 12,000 IQ being should
be more rational than us and not less so. Perhaps even
super-rational in the iterated prisoners' dilemma
sense. So what would it possibly gain by turning it's
parents/creators into plasma or goo?

What is this morbid fascination with a "Singularity
meat-grinder" anyway? Is is some sort of sublimated
subconscious Christian/Muslim belief in the
inevitability of Armageddon? We don't have to hook up
machine guns or nukes to an AI's USB port if we don't
want to. And if we go extinct over the Singularity, it
will be more about our own stupid choices than about
what Isador decides. Karma will still apply to 12,000
IQ intellects. They will just be better equiped to
understand it.   


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Apr 13 09:36:43 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:36:43 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
In-Reply-To: <304768.82604.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20070411184709.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<304768.82604.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704130236qa725626rf52adc9f9c4e6890@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/13/07, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

But what would be its motive? A 12,000 IQ being should
> be more rational than us and not less so. Perhaps even
> super-rational in the iterated prisoners' dilemma
> sense. So what would it possibly gain by turning it's
> parents/creators into plasma or goo?


I agree that the super-intelligent being will not automatically be motivated
to destroy us, but I dispute that this has anything to do with being
rational. Reason is a means used to achieve goals, but in the final analysis
the goals themselves are neither rational nor irrational; they just are. All
else being equal, a more intelligent person might be better able to enforce
kindness or cruelty than a less intelligent one, but intelligence is no
indicator as to whether the person will be kind or cruel. Moreover, the
likelihood that reason will be used in making decisions does not necessarily
have anything to do with level of intelligence. People sometimes do
reckless, irresponsible or (to use the word in its popular, but strictly
incorrect sense) irrational things while being fully cognisant of the
consequences.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070413/cff4bb17/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Apr 13 09:58:05 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:58:05 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704130236qa725626rf52adc9f9c4e6890@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070411184709.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<304768.82604.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30704130236qa725626rf52adc9f9c4e6890@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070413095805.GN9439@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 07:36:43PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    I agree that the super-intelligent being will not automatically be

Diversification guarantees you some of the postbiota will be not 
intelligent. By the bulk of the postbiomass most of it might be
arguably only slightly smarter than rocks, with a few gods sprinkled
in-between.

>    motivated to destroy us, but I dispute that this has anything to do
>    with being rational. Reason is a means used to achieve goals, but in

Logging in Brazil is very rational, and kills habitats just fine.
In fact, if you'd confront these loggers (who have children at home
to feed) they'll shoot you dead.

Palm plantations in Indonesia are also rational. Building airstrips
and shopping malls is also perfectly rational.

>    the final analysis the goals themselves are neither rational nor
>    irrational; they just are. All else being equal, a more intelligent
>    person might be better able to enforce kindness or cruelty than a less

Interactions between very asymmetrical players have no payoff for the 
greater player, and hence produce no cooperation. 

>    intelligent one, but intelligence is no indicator as to whether the
>    person will be kind or cruel. Moreover, the likelihood that reason

Expecting reason to always prevail is unreasonable. Human-Ebola interaction
is not governed by reason.

>    will be used in making decisions does not necessarily have anything to
>    do with level of intelligence. People sometimes do reckless,
>    irresponsible or (to use the word in its popular, but strictly
>    incorrect sense) irrational things while being fully cognisant of the
>    consequences.

If you thought humans are good at SNAFUs, you should see some of what
gods do.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Apr 13 10:16:54 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:16:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Procrastination
Message-ID: <ee50357e0704130316u4c110215wc02a3386e34f682@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/13/07, Keith Henson wrote:
> In a group this large, you can be sure that *some* of them are
> procrastinators.  I agree that there are people who call themselves
> "transhumanists" who will not sign up for cryonics for one reason or
> another.  I don't take them very seriously and suspect they will be less
> represented in the post human future than those who do sign up, especially
> if they are older than say 50.
>


I've been meaning to write this for a while, but never quite got round to it.

You would think that if procrastination was such a universal human
evil, denounced by many people in authority, that there would be a lot
of research on this subject. But there isn't much. A few studies have
been completed, usually many years behind schedule.

Some links for further study: (you can check these out tomorrow).
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrastination>
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070110090851.htm>
<http://www.sas.calpoly.edu/asc/ssl/procrastination.html>
Procrastination Central:
<http://webapps2.ucalgary.ca/~steel//Procrastinus/>

The people giving orders consider procrastination to be very bad
behaviour. In effect Keith is telling you that you have issues of
anxiety, low sense of self-worth and a self-defeating mentality. And
now he is piling a guilt trip on you as well.

But the thing to remember is that procrastination is not always a bad thing.
It may be bad from the POV of the governor, but from *your* POV there
are a million other things you could be doing. It depends on what you
value that decides what you do.
You could do nothing, something less important or something more important.

Deferred gratification is generally regarded as good and an aid to
planning your life. The opposite is instant gratification, leading to
poor impulse control.

EP tells us that if procrastination was bad we wouldn't have evolved
with such a strong tendency to be afflicted by it. For example, if
early humans rushed into battle too quickly, before they were ready,
they would probably have been killed. If procrastination is planned
preparation it is a good thing.

Another benefit of procrastination, which applies to cryonics and any
bleeding-edge technology, is that it will be better in ten years time.

Why set off to Alpha Centauri now? After ten years your spaceship is
likely to be overtaken by newer, faster spaceships.

Why buy the latest computer now? Next years' model will be better.

I'd organise a support group for procrastinators, but I'm a bit busy just now.
Maybe tomorrow.

BillK


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Apr 13 11:37:37 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:37:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0704121742x1c52e56ayc5277c951ae230f0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <61c8738e0704121742x1c52e56ayc5277c951ae230f0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704130437uffdbe72k38d3ef0d8f07aca1@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Morris Johnson <mfj.eav at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Some food sectors will have to adjust economics, marketing, or
> > simply reduce available  food supply.
>
> Yep, as long as we are stupid enough to turn a primary, relatively
> high input, food into ethanol.


Give me a break.  No existing "natural" photosynthetic system (be it based
on corn, soybeans or "natural" grasses) can be considered "efficient".
Natural photosynthetic systems have at best 4% efficiency (sugar cane under
ideal conditions) and are usually 2% or less.  Plants should not be green.
The should be black.  Existing solar cells range from 6% to 36% efficiency
depending on what they are made of and groups have been funded to push those
into the 45-55% range.

The primary advantage that "natural" systems have is that they are based on
self-replicating systems and do not require the huge up-front investments
that would be required to cover the SW U.S. (or all U.S. homes, stores,
etc.) in solar cells.  So if you want a solution and want it quickly it
should be based on self-replicating systems and the general technology
development path within those systems should be in the direction of greater
efficiency.

What people aren't generally aware of is that more ideal "natural"
photosynthetic systems can be pushed to 6-8% efficiency in
photobioreactors.  So the solution for maximal output (either for food or
fuel) is solar ponds using a mix of photosynthetic microorganisms.  What you
want is photosynthetic spirulina for food and photosynthetic yeast for
alcohol.  It is worth noting that something like a dozen different species
of photosynthetic microorganisms have been sequenced and the information is
sitting in NCBI or DOE databases.  Constructing solar ponds has
significantly lower technology inputs, investment requirements and
bureaucracy and legal headaches compared with nuclear reactors.  Also worth
noting is that one can do it on land which may or will be unsuitable for
natural agricultural production.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070413/9f200d05/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Apr 13 12:12:53 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:12:53 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0704130437uffdbe72k38d3ef0d8f07aca1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <61c8738e0704121742x1c52e56ayc5277c951ae230f0@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0704130437uffdbe72k38d3ef0d8f07aca1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070413121253.GS9439@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 07:37:37AM -0400, Robert Bradbury wrote:

>    What people aren't generally aware of is that more ideal "natural"
>    photosynthetic systems can be pushed to 6-8% efficiency in
>    photobioreactors.  So the solution for maximal output (either for food

There are advantages in controlled eutrophication of large bodies
of water, versus highly controlled environments.

>    or fuel) is solar ponds using a mix of photosynthetic microorganisms.
>    What you want is photosynthetic spirulina for food and photosynthetic
>    yeast for alcohol.  It is worth noting that something like a dozen

Some microalgae contain up to 50% of oil, which is suitable for biodiesel.
Most important: unlike ethanol, oil does not have to be destilled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture

>    different species of photosynthetic microorganisms have been sequenced
>    and the information is sitting in NCBI or DOE databases.  Constructing
>    solar ponds has significantly lower technology inputs, investment
>    requirements and bureaucracy and legal headaches compared with nuclear
>    reactors.  Also worth noting is that one can do it on land which may
>    or will be unsuitable for natural agricultural production.

Or no land at all, shallow lagunes. The Salton Sea is an often cited
model.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Apr 13 14:22:10 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:22:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <20070413072206.GA9439@leitl.org>
References: <BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413101634.03ad6a28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 09:22 AM 4/13/2007 +0200, Eugen wrote:

snip

>I'm not signed up because there's no coverage in my patch
>of the geoid. You can be damn sure I would if I knew I'd
>get a crack at a halfway decent suspension.

The very least you should do is get enough US based life insurance to cover 
being suspended and let friends and family know what it is for and make 
plans to move near your provider if you become terminal.

Incidentally, where do you live?  I can't think of any part of the English 
speaking world that doesn't have coverage of a sort even if it is a local 
medical team being talked through doing a washout.

Keith




From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Apr 13 14:37:21 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:37:21 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413101634.03ad6a28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070413101634.03ad6a28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20070413143721.GA9439@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 10:22:10AM -0400, Keith Henson wrote:

> The very least you should do is get enough US based life insurance to cover 

I'm part of a local effort to bootstrap a service provider, but 
had to drop out for a while, because of baby-related and other
workload issues.

I'm not sure I would want to rely on U.S. alone. Establishing
some geographic diversity looks worthwhile.

> being suspended and let friends and family know what it is for and make 
> plans to move near your provider if you become terminal.

The probability of me dying within the next decade or two is
rather low. Otoh, at 40 the life insurance is not so cheap anymore.
Right now I can't spare the cash, since working on own company
bootstrap. Things should become much better in a couple years.
 
> Incidentally, where do you live?  I can't think of any part of the English 
> speaking world that doesn't have coverage of a sort even if it is a local 
> medical team being talked through doing a washout.

I'm not very impressed with people in U.K. (I'm currently based in Southern Germany).
To be frank, I'm not impressed with the current quality consistency anywhere.
(No, I don't have too high standards, I've just seen enough of how things should
be done properly). I *do* hope that situation will improve in 40-50 years, when
I'll need it.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Apr 13 14:51:16 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:51:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Books - Personal favorites,
	most influential/inspiring, etc.
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704130751k743d00c3n53884169e317ddee@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
> ... from the New York Times:
>
>
>  http://tinyurl.com/2cve2n

Note that this book review is 17 years old...but Stranger in a Strange
Land remains on my list of favorite books, not for the quality of it's
writing, but for the quality and power of its ideas.

How about some personal lists of our most influential/inspiring books?
 Here are probably my top five:

Godel, Escher, Bach - Douglas Hofstadter
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - Robert Pirsig
Stranger in a Strange Land - Robert Heinlein
The Power of Myth - Joseph Campbell
Synergetics - Buckminster Fuller

Bonus childhood favorite:
A Wrinkle in Time - Madeleine L'Engle

- Jef


From randall at randallsquared.com  Fri Apr 13 16:34:12 2007
From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:34:12 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org>
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
	<20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>
	<BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>

On Apr 13, 2007, at 3:14 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 04:56:39PM -0400, Randall Randall wrote:
>> Precisely.  The only difference is the history, but I'm
>> sure everyone would agree there is a distinct DVD I own
> I guess I'm not everyone. If two DVDs fell down and rolled
> into a corner, without me looking, I couldn't tell the
> difference. So couldn't anybody, but an omniscient
> observer. I'm an atheist, so this means nobody can tell
> in principle.
>
> Again, the DVD has no label, you carry the label by
> observing the system trajectory.

I agree that the label consists of the system trajectory.

Just because we don't have knowledge of a thing at a given
time, however, doesn't mean that the thing doesn't exist.

You argument seems to lead directly to (things I think are)
absurdities such as: before anyone thought of evolution,
evolution didn't exist.  I'm pretty sure you won't agree
with *that* one, but it's just another wording of "if we
don't know something at the current time, it doesn't exist."

>
> Knowledge is information, and information is very important
> in this unverse, from QM (two systems in the same quantum
> state are not distinguishable in principle) to singularities.

I think that this is misapplied, here.  If we had two systems
in the same quantum state, we might not be able to measure an
internal difference, but we certainly can distinguish them; if
we can't, then how do we know we have two?  Taken literally,
the statement "two systems are indistinguishable" is a logical
contradiction.

--
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
"Hey, Mr. Record Man, your system can't compete;
  It's the new artist model: File Transfer Complete..."
  - MC Lars, "Download This Song"




From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Apr 13 16:52:26 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:52:26 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
	<20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>
	<BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org>
	<87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
Message-ID: <20070413165226.GF9439@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:34:12PM -0400, Randall Randall wrote:

> > Knowledge is information, and information is very important
> > in this unverse, from QM (two systems in the same quantum
> > state are not distinguishable in principle) to singularities.
> 
> I think that this is misapplied, here.  If we had two systems
> in the same quantum state, we might not be able to measure an
> internal difference, but we certainly can distinguish them; if

No. We can't. Both in practice, and in theory. It's not
just a good idea, it's the law. 

I wonder why I keep posting that example, with literature,
but nobody seems to actually care to read it. It's been more
than a decade that we keep having these threads, and they
always go through the same motions. I'm getting tired of this.
I think I'm going to ban these for good.

> we can't, then how do we know we have two?  Taken literally,
> the statement "two systems are indistinguishable" is a logical
> contradiction.

Physics doesn't care a fig about what a monkey thinks is a contradiction. 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/13/4/008
http://www.engin.umich.edu/~CRE/03chap/html/transition/

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Apr 13 20:56:58 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:56:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta re recurring threads was Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <20070413165226.GF9439@leitl.org>
References: <87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
	<BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
	<20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>
	<BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org>
	<87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413160555.03b02d00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 06:52 PM 4/13/2007 +0200, Eugen wrote:

snip

>I wonder why I keep posting that example, with literature,
>but nobody seems to actually care to read it. It's been more
>than a decade that we keep having these threads, and they
>always go through the same motions. I'm getting tired of this.
>I think I'm going to ban these for good.

I wondered why these identity threads seemed so old to me.  Various moves 
and escapes have winnowed my SF collection to a remnant, but I kept several 
by A.E. Van Vogt including _The World of Null A_.  I don't know how many 
here have read it, but the copyright is 1945.  That *62* years ago.

I just reread it.

None of the identity arguments on this or any other forum I have seen has 
added a new idea to those expressed in that story written in 1945.

I.e., it's much older than a decade, and who knows, Van Vogt probably stole 
it from some even older source.

The meta question is why people continue to rehash this topic and several 
others?  It can't be just a part of growing up because some I know are not 
that much younger than I am.

Keith



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Apr 13 22:03:09 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:03:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <20070413143721.GA9439@leitl.org>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413101634.03ad6a28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070413101634.03ad6a28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413175642.03b22d98@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>


Does anyone know the origin of the l*r*m*st*r identity who did a lot of the 
editing on the transhumanist page?   From the number of edits he churns 
out, he must do little else.  He has been opposing identifing as cryonics 
members the people on list of transhumanists.

Keith



From randall at randallsquared.com  Fri Apr 13 22:30:13 2007
From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:30:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
In-Reply-To: <20070413165226.GF9439@leitl.org>
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
	<20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>
	<BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org>
	<87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413165226.GF9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <9CBF8227-A99A-4611-818A-068699BBE3B5@randallsquared.com>

On Apr 13, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:34:12PM -0400, Randall Randall wrote:
>> we can't, then how do we know we have two?  Taken literally,
>> the statement "two systems are indistinguishable" is a logical
>> contradiction.
>
> Physics doesn't care a fig about what a monkey thinks is a  
> contradiction.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles

It seems obvious that this doesn't apply to complex
macroscopic objects like DVDs and people, any more than
the fact that electrons have no "wet" property can be
applied to a bucket of water.  There are a lot of firm
statements I'm willing to make about a cup of coffee
on my desk that I freely admit don't apply to the
particles that make up the coffee.  Nor do I think
that this means the coffee is somehow not wet, or
the cup is somehow not green.

In any case, my statement quoted above stands even
with this, since "indistinguishable", here, seems to
mean, "...as long as we take care to lose track of
which is which by putting them near enough to have
their wavefunctions overlap."  It seems clear that
DVDs, coffee cups, and people will never overlap in
this way by accident, even if we had examples of all
three that had identical duplicates.

> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/13/4/008
> http://www.engin.umich.edu/~CRE/03chap/html/transition/

So far, I don't know enough math to understand the
relevance of the third link, or to understand the
second link at all from the available abstract.



--
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
"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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Apr 13 22:47:38 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:47:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070413173514.022456c0@satx.rr.com>

At 11:37 PM 4/12/2007 -0400, Keith wrote:

>I agree that there are people who call themselves
>"transhumanists" who will not sign up for cryonics for one reason or
>another.

Speaking.

>I don't take them very seriously

Oh well.

>and suspect they will be less
>represented in the post human future than those who do sign up, especially
>if they are older than say 50.

The most serious objection, IMO, is: Who in Enron-Cryocorp will keep 
the dewars topped up when the CEO can run off to the Bahamas with the 
insurance money? Eugen is right, that there's no money in cryonics at 
the moment; it's a labor of love by the convinced and hopeful. But if 
it grows a little in popularity? The usual answer is that cryo's 
accounting will be carefully scrutinized by the convinced and hopeful 
who also aim at eventual future resurrection. Sadly, the kinds of 
people likely to get involved in such utopian schemes are hopelessly 
naive (I speak as one) if not Aspergerish. Easy pickings. Either 
that, or the faithful 20th C die-hards will perish one by one and no 
newcomers will keep the home... freezers... freezing.

As a friend commented offlist, "Until it's written as an amendment to 
the Constitution with punishment attached to non-compliance [`It is a 
right to allow one to pursue a cryo-future and a federal crime NOT to 
keep the freezers freezing'], the odds aren't very good." And even 
then I wouldn't be too sure, especially after recent tiresome horrors 
of trying to deal with a major US insurance company (Unicare) who 
repeatedly denied payment of appropriate refunds--and when they 
finally broke down, *paid the already-paid medicos instead of 
providing a refund to the insured*. This is not the kind of 
institutional incompetence one wishes to depend on for one's revival.

Damien Broderick







From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Apr 13 21:56:32 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:56:32 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <20070413143721.GA9439@leitl.org>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413101634.03ad6a28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070413101634.03ad6a28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413174919.02c21918@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 04:37 PM 4/13/2007 +0200, Eugen wrote:

snip

>The probability of me dying within the next decade or two is
>rather low. Otoh, at 40 the life insurance is not so cheap anymore.
>Right now I can't spare the cash, since working on own company
>bootstrap. Things should become much better in a couple years.

Term life insurance such as through the IEEE might well be under a hundred 
dollars a year.  It's not best, but some of the policies allow you to 
convert them to whole lift without being examined.

snip

>I'm not very impressed with people in U.K. (I'm currently based in 
>Southern Germany).
>To be frank, I'm not impressed with the current quality consistency anywhere.

Some of that can't be helped.  No organization can compensate for your 
dying where you are not found for weeks or being at ground zero.

>(No, I don't have too high standards, I've just seen enough of how things 
>should
>be done properly). I *do* hope that situation will improve in 40-50 years, 
>when
>I'll need it.

Frankly I don't think you will need it in 40-50 years if you make it that 
long.  But perhaps I am being a bit optimistic.

Keith Henson



From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Apr 13 23:26:41 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:26:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070412233228.0397d008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412233228.0397d008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704131626h18e95514x4ef9c875c6a6a85@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> I agree that there are people who call themselves
> "transhumanists" who will not sign up for cryonics for one reason or
> another.  I don't take them very seriously ...

Hey, I resemble that remark!

I see nothing technically invalid about cryonics, but I have two
fundamental problems with investing a significant amount of my net
worth in it at this time.

(1) The infrastructure is woefully insufficient to provide confidence
that my investment would be well protected (and I've met people from
Alcor personally.)

(2) I see nearly zero probability that Jef would be relevant if
revived at any significantly future time.

Please don't respond with a knee jerk Pascal's Wager argument, since
my money provides a real return relative to my values in this life,
and I don't harbor the common illusion that my personal survival is
infinitely valuable.  If I were fairly wealthy, then I could be easily
tempted, but the same logic would likely prevail.

- Jef


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Apr 14 04:23:34 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:23:34 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070413173514.022456c0@satx.rr.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070414001138.03980120@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 05:47 PM 4/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>At 11:37 PM 4/12/2007 -0400, Keith wrote:
>
> >I agree that there are people who call themselves
> >"transhumanists" who will not sign up for cryonics for one reason or
> >another.
>
>Speaking.
>
> >I don't take them very seriously
>
>Oh well.
>
> >and suspect they will be less
> >represented in the post human future than those who do sign up, especially
> >if they are older than say 50.
>
>The most serious objection, IMO, is: Who in Enron-Cryocorp will keep
>the dewars topped up when the CEO can run off to the Bahamas with the
>insurance money?

It's a serious problem.  There have been at least two such episodes I am 
aware of at Alcor, one many years ago in the depths of the Dora Kent 
problems and one more recently where a contract bookkeeper made off with a 
substantial amount in a trust account.  Each time there is this kind of 
ripoff, the policies are changed.  I believe bookkeepers are now bonded so 
that any such loses are paid by the bonding company.  It is said that every 
law involving insurance companies is the result of some major fraud.

>Eugen is right, that there's no money in cryonics at
>the moment; it's a labor of love by the convinced and hopeful. But if
>it grows a little in popularity? The usual answer is that cryo's
>accounting will be carefully scrutinized by the convinced and hopeful
>who also aim at eventual future resurrection.

You should be aware that people *have* thawed out, though not for several 
decades now.

>Sadly, the kinds of
>people likely to get involved in such utopian schemes are hopelessly
>naive (I speak as one) if not Aspergerish. Easy pickings. Either
>that, or the faithful 20th C die-hards will perish one by one and no
>newcomers will keep the home... freezers... freezing.
>
>As a friend commented offlist, "Until it's written as an amendment to
>the Constitution with punishment attached to non-compliance [`It is a
>right to allow one to pursue a cryo-future and a federal crime NOT to
>keep the freezers freezing'], the odds aren't very good."

It's a crime right now.  The bookkeeper noted above went to jail.

>And even
>then I wouldn't be too sure, especially after recent tiresome horrors
>of trying to deal with a major US insurance company (Unicare) who
>repeatedly denied payment of appropriate refunds--and when they
>finally broke down, *paid the already-paid medicos instead of
>providing a refund to the insured*. This is not the kind of
>institutional incompetence one wishes to depend on for one's revival.

Unfortunately it's the only game in town.

Far better that you live through the singularity than put your trust in the 
humans who keep the Dewars topped off with LN2.  But if you have no other 
choice, you have to trust people . . . . like me and my friends of the last 
22 years.

Keith 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Apr 14 04:56:03 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:56:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] latest Steorn announcement
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070413235341.023b9a20@satx.rr.com>

http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2007/04/steorn_has_released_their_long.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3aaRrEIp-0

[quote:]
<Here's what's new:

- During the first week of July, Steorn's device will be given a 
public demonstration at a location in London. Steorn employees will 
be on hand to answer questions, and the event will be broadcast in 
real time over the web. Online spectators will also be able to 
interact with the Steorn representatives via live chat. While the 
July event had been indicated earlier, the online component is new 
and this public announcement commits Steorn to produce by putting 
their credibility on the line.

- Steorn's "Jury of 12" scientists chosen to test the technology and 
release their results publicly is actually a jury of 22. Of the 5000 
applicants, 1000 were trained scientists. Twenty two were chosen for 
their expertise and the level of "public confidence" in these candidates.

- The jury is currently in the process of reviewing the technology, 
and will begin testing it within "the next couple of months".>



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Apr 14 08:52:02 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:52:02 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta re recurring threads was Personal Identity
	Bis
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413160555.03b02d00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
	<20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>
	<BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org>
	<87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413165226.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070413160555.03b02d00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704140152o30da6a94l7e4004530ef7bb07@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/14/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

I wondered why these identity threads seemed so old to me.  Various moves
> and escapes have winnowed my SF collection to a remnant, but I kept
> several
> by A.E. Van Vogt including _The World of Null A_.  I don't know how many
> here have read it, but the copyright is 1945.  That *62* years ago.
>
> I just reread it.
>
> None of the identity arguments on this or any other forum I have seen has
> added a new idea to those expressed in that story written in 1945.
>
> I.e., it's much older than a decade, and who knows, Van Vogt probably
> stole
> it from some even older source.
>
> The meta question is why people continue to rehash this topic and several
> others?  It can't be just a part of growing up because some I know are not
> that much younger than I am.


John Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" published in 1689 is
often cited as the first reference in modern works on personal identity, and
it is still a subject of active philosophical discussion. I'm pretty clear
in my own views, but it seems I disagree on many details even with those who
basically agree with me that a copy of a person is as good as the original.
So one reason the topic is continually rehashed (in addition to the fact
that there are those who aren't at all convinced) is that there are
intricacies involved, such as Lee Corbin's anticipation paradox, which are
not immediately evident.

The objection raised by Keith also seems symptomatic to me of a hostility by
some on this list towards philosophy in general (a philosopher would not
dismiss a problem simply on the grounds that it has been discussed for 200
or 2000 years without resolution). This is a little odd given that, like it
or not, transhumanism is a philosophical movement as much as it is anything.
I would also point out that people such as Max More, Nick Bostrom and Anders
Sandberg are all professionally trained philosophers.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070414/3ff55dfd/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Apr 14 09:47:37 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:47:37 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Books - Personal favorites,
	most influential/inspiring, etc.
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704130751k743d00c3n53884169e317ddee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740704130751k743d00c3n53884169e317ddee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704140247u415b7e87x71cd19bdd36a964d@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/14/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

How about some personal lists of our most influential/inspiring books?


Language, Truth and Logic - A. J. Ayer
The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
Reasons and Persons - Derek Parfit
Permutation City - Greg Egan
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - Hunter S. Thompson

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070414/15fba9b1/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Apr 14 04:32:09 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:32:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704131626h18e95514x4ef9c875c6a6a85@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070412233228.0397d008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412233228.0397d008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070414002525.03990d98@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 04:26 PM 4/13/2007 -0700, Jef wrote:
>On 4/12/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree that there are people who call themselves
> > "transhumanists" who will not sign up for cryonics for one reason or
> > another.  I don't take them very seriously ...
>
>Hey, I resemble that remark!
>
>I see nothing technically invalid about cryonics, but I have two
>fundamental problems with investing a significant amount of my net
>worth in it at this time.

I don't know anyone who paid for it lump sum.

>(1) The infrastructure is woefully insufficient to provide confidence
>that my investment would be well protected (and I've met people from
>Alcor personally.)

Man, if you think it is shaky today, you should have seen it in 1985 when I 
signed up.  Still, all the people Alcor had charge of in those days are 
*still* frozen.

>(2) I see nearly zero probability that Jef would be relevant if
>revived at any significantly future time.

I can't argue with your personal evaluation of your worth.

>Please don't respond with a knee jerk Pascal's Wager argument, since
>my money provides a real return relative to my values in this life,
>and I don't harbor the common illusion that my personal survival is
>infinitely valuable.  If I were fairly wealthy, then I could be easily
>tempted, but the same logic would likely prevail.

A contract with CI paid with insurance is a nearly trivial amount of money 
by middle class standards.

I hope you are not that poor.

Keith




From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Apr 14 15:03:58 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:03:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Books - Personal favorites,
	most influential/inspiring, etc.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704140247u415b7e87x71cd19bdd36a964d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740704130751k743d00c3n53884169e317ddee@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704140247u415b7e87x71cd19bdd36a964d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704140803r1a4ee020r1a04a870d634315b@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/14/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/14/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>
> > How about some personal lists of our most influential/inspiring books?
>
> Language, Truth and Logic - A. J. Ayer
> The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
> Reasons and Persons - Derek Parfit
> Permutation City - Greg Egan
> Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - Hunter S. Thompson

Thanks Stathis.  I've ordered Ayer's book and may get to it after
"World of Null-A" which just came to my attention courtesy of Keith.

It would be wonderful if any and all who engage in discussions of
personal identity were familiar with Reasons and Persons, but I was
disappointed at what I perceive as Parfit's reluctance to fully
embrace the implications of his own work.  Such tentativeness seems to
distinguish your thinking from mine as well.  I suspect it is more a
matter of temperament than philosophy, assuming you must be (I)NTP on
the MTBI, while I'm INTJ.

Looking forward to any additional recommendations from members of this list.

- Jef


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Apr 14 15:09:27 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:09:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Books - Personal favorites,
	most influential/inspiring, etc.
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704140803r1a4ee020r1a04a870d634315b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740704130751k743d00c3n53884169e317ddee@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30704140247u415b7e87x71cd19bdd36a964d@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740704140803r1a4ee020r1a04a870d634315b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704140809w156415acy3bb954bd1a67e969@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/14/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> the MTBI, while I'm INTJ.

Sorry, should have been MBTI.

And I might as well acknowledge here that the 5-axis "big five" scheme
of personality categorization is better warranted, though not as
popular.

- Jef


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Apr 14 16:56:39 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:56:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta re recurring threads was Personal Identity
 Bis
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070414125629.03d50ef0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 06:52 PM 4/14/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote:

>On 4/14/07, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:

snip

>John Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" published in 1689 
>is often cited as the first reference in modern works on personal 
>identity, and it is still a subject of active philosophical discussion. 
>I'm pretty clear in my own views, but it seems I disagree on many details 
>even with those who basically agree with me that a copy of a person is as 
>good as the original. So one reason the topic is continually rehashed (in 
>addition to the fact that there are those who aren't at all convinced) is 
>that there are intricacies involved, such as Lee Corbin's anticipation 
>paradox, which are not immediately evident.

Materialists, i.e., engineering types, for the most part agree with you 
that an identical copy of a person (or a computer) is equivalent and for 
the most part can't imagine why anyone would have a different opinion.

>The objection raised by Keith also seems symptomatic to me of a hostility 
>by some on this list towards philosophy in general (a philosopher would 
>not dismiss a problem simply on the grounds that it has been discussed for 
>200 or 2000 years without resolution). This is a little odd given that, 
>like it or not, transhumanism is a philosophical movement as much as it is 
>anything.

It didn't start that way.  Max More and the early Extropian archives should 
be consulted, but my memory is that it grew mostly out of recognition that 
advanced technology, particularly nanotechnology based advanced medicine 
would allow us to do something about the wretched "human 
condition."  Transhumanism may now be a philosophical movement, but it is 
so much wind without massive amounts of engineering work to implement it at 
the physical level.

>I would also point out that people such as Max More, Nick Bostrom and 
>Anders Sandberg are all professionally trained philosophers.

I don't recall Anders getting involved in these threads.  His posts seem to 
be of an extremely level headed "be cautious" tone.  Nick I don't know, 
other than perhaps a tendency to take more credit for ideas (being in a 
simulation) than is justified.  My early memories of Max More are of him in 
scrubs doing whatever was needed on a suspension team, and doing it very well.

Keith Henson



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sat Apr 14 16:56:20 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:56:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen a "bad Idea"
In-Reply-To: <461DE9E0.1040702@thomasoliver.net>
References: <017601c7794d$86ee5f00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV134CC706FA686A5FF37456A7580@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704102041o7e2083dma563c7e996aec264@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV84CA3EAC93092AD3DAFD5A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110024n60e06d31o7a25b23fb66657fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13715C195C21F5BE21BD92A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704110645w74e75880ybc944921395a74bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV43F588206348D9A79F50EA75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412012049.04754a70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<461DE9E0.1040702@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704140956i3e342820jaec1cd6982734398@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/12/07, Thomas <Thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:
>
> Keith Henson wrote:
>
> I ran this by Paul Torgerson of Worldwide Energy, an emerging hydrogen
> fuel cell/electrolyzer company.  He had this to say:


We cannot claim that a hydrogen fuel cell/electolyzer company is an
"unbiased" source.  Nor is the DOE, since it is generally operating under
presidential mandate to "go hydrogen" (This may be promoted by Bush but I
think Clinton initiated it).

Solar panels are by far the most expensive means of energy production
> around. To power just US housing would take an estimated area the size of
> Arizona, and we build about 15 million new homes a year.   The sun only
> shines part time.  Puttting a solar panel on your roof is not enough to
> solve
> the energy crisis.


Statements by about the land area requirements are completely useless unless
the type of solar panel is specified (since efficiencies vary by at least a
factor of 4).  The problem isn't that we lack the land area the problem is
that we lack the production capacity to do this in any reasonable time.

The hydrogen economy has already been implemented.


Quick, show me where -- I want to go visit those big hydrogen storage tanks,
those shiny new LH2 transport trucks or those cryogenic pipelines just so I
can touch them and ooh and ahhh.

Very high temperature nuclear electrolysis looks like the cheapest means of
> hydrogen production.  This will use electricity and heat to crack water
> molecules.  The new GEN IV light water reactors being developed by DOE won't
> be ready until 2030.


So *where* might I ask is the electricity going to come from?  2030 is 23
years from *now*.

[Paul clarified with the following:)
>
> Current US annual hydrogen production is the equivalent of 71.8 Gigawatts
> Thermal ("GWth") of nuclear or fossil power. This equates to 118 nuclear
> (or
> fossil) plants to supply the hydrogen using the projected system
> configuration of 600 Megawatts Thermal ("MWth") nuclear to 50 MWth for
> Hydrogen Production.  More than 500 nuclear reactors (or fossil plants,
> with
> carbon sequestration, will be needed by 2050 to achieve the DOE's goal of
> substituting 25% of liquid transportation fuel with hydrogen.


And how is this going to solve the problem?  There are less than 10 nuclear
reactors on the drawing boards in the U.S. currently (maybe less than 5).
And you are going to multiply that by a factor of 50 to 100???

If the Company captures five to ten percent market share of this potential
> market, Worldwide's metal-tubular solid oxide electrolyzer cell ("MTSOEC")
> stack production would grow to thousands of WET multi-megawatt MTSOEC
> stacks containing from 468,750 to 937,000 linear feet of WET produced
> electrodes,  from commissioning of the first commercial reactor (in 2025)
> through 2050 .


And where is the infrastructure to build this and how does it compare with
the infrastructure required to build the solar cells?  (Solution A: build
solar cell factories and install them; Solution B: build lots of nuclear
reactors, lots of MTSOEC factory capacity, lots of hydrogen production
capacity, lots of hydrogen transport capacity, ...)  Hmmm... what is wrong
with this picture?

Try getting that much energy from bacteria or plants.


I did.  My calculations suggested that even without significant improvements
in photosynthetic efficiency something like half of the *grazing* land area
in the SW U.S. states would need to be converted to solar ponds.  More
importantly the solar ponds don't require fancy new technology and building
lots of new factories.  Perhaps most importantly harvesting biofuels from
them would be *more* profitable than raising cattle on the land so it could
probably be done without the need for massive government subsidies, loans,
etc.

Nuclear hydrogen has an estimated cost of $2/gal of gas equivalent
> (GGE).  Plus nuclear electrolysis doesn't produce CO2.


I assume he means nuclear electrolysis of water.

Burning methane produces CO2, so does burning ethanol.


Burning methane or ethanol or biodiesel doesn't produce any net CO2 *if* the
carbon that goes into producing them comes from the atmosphere (i.e. through
photosynthesis).

People riding the bio fuels wagon think a bunch of ethanol plants can
> suddenly solve the world's energy needs. In fact, ethanol costs more to make
> than its worth.


This point is sharply disputed.  So long as gas prices remain above
$2.00/gal I believe ethanol would be profitable even without subsidies.  (I
believe this is from Vinod Khosla whom is a reasonably reputable source.)

It creates the next big problem of having to use our food supply to make it
> in volume.


Gee, you mean we might stop subsidizing U.S. farmers and allow Brazil to
sell us ethanol they are more than happy to produce and sell at U.S. market
prices?

The DOE is spending big bucks working on carbon sequestration.  One of
> the most novel uses I've seen is pumping it down dry oil wells.  It
> actually
> fills the voids and makes the wells produce more oil.


Bad bad bad.  The oil in the ground *should* stay there.  Its taking the
carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere that is the
fundamental problem.

There are no easy answers to the worlds energy crisis.  We'll never have
> the magic power to crack enough water into hydrogen with solar energy
> to produce 138 billion GGEs a year.


It would appear Paul doesn't understand the concepts of nanotechnology,
nanofactories, self-replicating systems and the transition from pre KT-I to
KT-II level civilizations.

DOE is investing billions in the future, but the ideas below don't merit the
> energy spent to send the message.


 Just because our government is spending money doesn't mean it is being
spent well.

Small scale ideas look foolish when we confront the big picture and become
> better informed people.


Small scale ideas are what will solve these problems.  A human being is a
100W machine.  So it requires less than a square meter of  sunshine a day to
sustain a person *if* you could make the energy conversion efficient
enough.  The problem isn't that we lack the energy.  The problem is that we
currently lack the technology to convert it from sustainable sources (wind,
sunlight, tides, etc.) rather than unsustainable sources (such as oil, coal
and uranium).

I would argue that anyone working on, or promoting, technologies which do
not provide long term sustainable solutions is going in the wrong direction.

I would also cite Eugen's recent arguments that uranium based nuclear
reactors are not a sustainable low cost solution -- witness the change in
the price of pitchblende over the last couple of years.  Paul's numbers fall
apart unless one has a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle -- so in his long term
projections he is either assuming (a) breeder reactors; (b) a thorium based
fuel cycle (as Eugen has discussed), or (c) that we will make nuclear fusion
work cost effectively sometime in our lifetime (I'm not holding my breath).

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070414/6a9bd51d/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sat Apr 14 17:16:59 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:16:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070410190615.04692cb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <002b01c77a57$56848fa0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<461A7C80.6090007@thomasoliver.net>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070409172544.02c43458@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070410190615.04692cb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704141016s4b2f2c5fj34d4348eca53d13f@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/10/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> I suspect that if it were less expensive to make fresh water out of sea
> water for crops than it is to export the oil, grow the crops in other
> locations with low cost water, and ship them back, people would be doing it
> now.


I think you are arguing that systems make sense.  There are large numbers of
systems in place that do not make sense (from an efficiency or cost
viewpoint) that are in place due to the fact nobody has looked at them from
the perspective of "what would be the *best* solution?"  The trouble with
"best" solutions is that they often have high up-front investment costs.  So
they don't get implemented until the society (esp. far sighted individuals
with a society) get rich enough.  What would be really interesting is to see
how/where the oil wealth in S.A. is distributed and whether it is
distributed to people who are willing to innovate and take risks [1].

It takes a *lot* of water to grow food, and it is really expensive in terms
> of energy to make fresh water out of salt.  I am well aware that advancing
> technology could change this picture.


It doesn't have to take a lot of *fresh* water.  The cyanobacteria and algae
in the oceans are perfectly happy producing reduced carbon (hydrocarbons)
and proteins in salt water.  You are dealing with a historic artifact that
the food system is oriented around cheap fresh water production methods.

Think about it this way, when the oil runs out how are they going to power
> the desalination plants?


That was the point of the URL.  S.A. is one of the richest countries in the
world in terms of solar energy wealth per individual.  Now that could change
over the next few decades if they subsidize population growth at the expense
of infrastructure investment.

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dchap1.html
>
> Which indicates that desalination plants produce water for around $1/cubic
> meter.


The question I would ask is whether this cost includes the recent
improvements in desalination plant technology.  I think the Science Channel
had a recent news blurb about a breakthrough that was going to make them
2-3x more energy efficient (through better recovery of otherwise wasted
energy) and that was being looked at by L.A. and/or San Diego to solve their
water problems.

Given that it takes about 1000 tons of water to grow a ton of wheat, that
> would run up the cost of wheat for the water alone to $1000 a ton.


But it the water is used for transpiration to drag the nutrients from the
roots up into the leaves.  You don't have this problem if you grow you food
in solar ponds or relatively sealed greenhouses that you can condense the
water from at night.  Its a "change the traditional thinking" or
"infrastructure investment" problem.

Wheat runs about a $100 a ton, and shipping to the mid east might run
> around $50 a ton.  It would still cost them better than 5 times the
> current
> cost.  http://www.ndwheat.com/buyers/default.asp?ID=287
>

So don't use wheat.  Use cyanobacteria engineered to produce a lot of starch
that end up tasting like wheat.

Interesting way to look at food imports as water imports, and a certain area
> of the world would be in deep trouble if food imports were shut off.
> http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_02/uk/dossier/txt32.htm

<http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_02/uk/dossier/txt32.htm>
As we have learned the hard way with oil imports.  All countries should try
to structure their economies so they are sustainable without essential
foreign sources.  Otherwise one can be subjected to extortion, coercion,
etc. and have higher than really necessary taxes in order to support large
military budgets required to prevent people from attempting to subject you
to such situations.

Robert

1. It would be interesting to ask the question of why S.A. isn't building
ships to tow icebergs from the North Atlantic (or Antartctic) back to S.A.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070414/8b4974f4/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Apr 14 17:27:02 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:27:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert Wright: How cooperation (eventually) trumps
	conflict
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704141027t3e75a773m1aa5949716f622de@mail.gmail.com>

I just discovered this video (posted 2007-01) of Robert Wright arguing
the arrow of morality more concretely and (I hope) more persuasively
than I do.

<http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/68>

- Jef


From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Apr 14 18:10:11 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:10:11 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta re recurring threads was Personal Identity
	Bis
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413160555.03b02d00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
	<BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
	<20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>
	<BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org>
	<87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070413160555.03b02d00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20070414181011.GP9439@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 04:56:58PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote:

> The meta question is why people continue to rehash this topic and several 
> others?  It can't be just a part of growing up because some I know are not 
> that much younger than I am.

I'm completely baffled either. It looks like a pointless ritual to me.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Apr 14 19:17:35 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:17:35 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta re recurring threads was Personal Identity
	Bis
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704140152o30da6a94l7e4004530ef7bb07@mail.gmail.com>
References: <040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
	<20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>
	<BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org>
	<87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413165226.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070413160555.03b02d00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<f21c22e30704140152o30da6a94l7e4004530ef7bb07@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070414191735.GW9439@leitl.org>

On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 06:52:02PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    a little odd given that, like it or not, transhumanism is a
>    philosophical movement as much as it is anything. I would also point

Well, if transhumanism is not about science, technology and politics
then I'd please like to have my money back.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Apr 14 20:24:19 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:24:19 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia page and cryonics
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413174919.02c21918@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413101634.03ad6a28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070411171757.04702fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070412143957.03aa99e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY140-DAV13B2AB9D2210BEE743CCD4A75E0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070413101634.03ad6a28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070413174919.02c21918@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20070414202419.GZ9439@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 05:56:32PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote:

> Term life insurance such as through the IEEE might well be under a hundred 
> dollars a year.  It's not best, but some of the policies allow you to 
> convert them to whole lift without being examined.

That sounds awfully cheap. I'm not an IEEE member though, and I'm not sure
what the rates for Alcor membership + transport are for a 40 year old
Eutrashperson. Any european Alcor members in my age bracket want to chime in?
 
> >To be frank, I'm not impressed with the current quality consistency anywhere.
> 
> Some of that can't be helped.  No organization can compensate for your 
> dying where you are not found for weeks or being at ground zero.

I'm speaking about the so-called best case, which has wildly varying
quality issues. This has not improved a lot over time, and arguably
regressed. Certainly no linear semilog-plot there.
 
> Frankly I don't think you will need it in 40-50 years if you make it that 
> long.  But perhaps I am being a bit optimistic.

I used to be more optimistic, but the last ~25 years have made me more 
cautious. I'll be very happy with a high likelihood of a decent suspension
in that time frame (40-50 years). Meanwhile, I try to not kill myself
with my supplement regime, and generally try to live more or less healthy.


-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Apr 15 01:19:17 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:19:17 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta re recurring threads was Personal Identity
	Bis
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070414125629.03d50ef0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070414125629.03d50ef0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704141819u42d2e557j91397807e1934d1f@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/15/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

Materialists, i.e., engineering types, for the most part agree with you
> that an identical copy of a person (or a computer) is equivalent and for
> the most part can't imagine why anyone would have a different opinion.
>

You probably feel that way after these many long discussions. If you ask
someone at random who has a scientific view of the world, it is not a
foregone conclusion that he will agree. Perhaps that's unfortunate, but it's
the way it is.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070415/d70f2b75/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Apr 14 14:35:06 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 07:35:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Manifest Destiny for >H
References: <20070411184709.GF9439@leitl.org><304768.82604.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com><f21c22e30704130236qa725626rf52adc9f9c4e6890@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070413095805.GN9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <001c01c77eb7$12595db0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Eugen writes (and has made this point before)

> Diversification guarantees you some of the postbiota will be not 
> intelligent. By the bulk of the postbiomass most of it might be
> arguably only slightly smarter than rocks, with a few gods sprinkled
> in-between.

Does anyone have a simple, convincing argument that supplies some
reason that vastly transhuman engines won't absorb all resources
within reach?  Even if *some* particular AI had a predilection not
to expand its influence as far as it could, wouldn't it lose the 
evolutionary race to those who would?

The "few gods sprinkled in-between" would seem to me to be
showing superhuman restraint in not gobbling up all lesser
entities.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Apr 14 17:39:00 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:39:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal Identity Bis
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl><040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org><3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com><20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org><BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com><20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org>
	<87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
Message-ID: <002401c77ecc$03142af0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Randall writes

>> Again, the DVD has no label, you carry the label by
>> observing the system trajectory.
> 
> I agree that the label consists of the system trajectory.
> Just because we don't have knowledge of a thing at a given
> time, however, doesn't mean that the thing doesn't exist.

I think that you are referring to the history of a particular
system. Given two identical CDs, even down to scratches,
I agree that there is a fact of the matter as to which one
historically was the original and which is a copy. 

It's just that I can think of no important consequence of the
answer to the question "which is the original?".  If the two
are identical, then for *all* purposes they are interchangeable.
And isn't that the only relevant question here, or am I missing
something?

>> Knowledge is information, and information is very important
>> in this unverse, from QM (two systems in the same quantum
>> state are not distinguishable in principle) to singularities.
> 
> I think that this is misapplied, here.  If we had two systems
> in the same quantum state, we might not be able to measure an
> internal difference, but we certainly can distinguish them; if
> we can't, then how do we know we have two?  Taken literally,
> the statement "two systems are indistinguishable" is a logical
> contradiction.

Yes.  They differ by location, at least, even if we agree to regard
their histories as even more unimportant. 

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Apr 14 17:17:57 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:17:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta re recurring threads was Personal Identity
	Bis
References: <87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com><BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl><040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org><3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com><20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org><BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com><20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org><87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070413160555.03b02d00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <001f01c77eb9$04c3d160$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

On  Friday, April 13, 2007 1:56 PM you wrote

> The meta question is why people continue to rehash this topic
> and several others?

As for me, there are a number of unsolved issues regarding identity.

I don't know, of course, what other people's motivations are, even
given that I know my own (we don't usually really have a handle on
why we do what we do).

The ones which seem undeniably important are those that appear 
to be mirrored in actual choices that post-humans will have to make,
issues regarding their very own survival and just what that actually
means in light of duplication, memory erasure, and related issues.
It may be abundantly clear to you (and to others) exactly what
doctrines you'll embrace and what ones you'll abhor, but it's not
to all of us.

Evidently I'm not alone in wishing to work out the consequences of 
our various takes on various aspects of these issues. (And every so
often, such as right now, I do feel that progress is being made.)

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Apr 14 04:58:02 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:58:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity
	Paradox)
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704110428j784f61e1n9e0cc294afb1ed89@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c77d07$e0345e80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704121659w6110eae0re37afcb5e2f0aec9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005601c77e51$a87c07e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> Let's summarise. You feel that the sort of  anticipation which tells the
> average human that he won't have the experiences of his copy in the
> next room cannot be rationally justified and should be expunged.

Yes, since if one is going to anticipate *any* future experience, then
as a person and his recent duplicate are physically identical in all 
important respects, one should anticipate being *both* of the future
systems.

> On the other hand, you feel that the sort of anticipation which makes
> the average human worry more about the future than the past cannot
> be rationally justified but should be left alone. Is there an inconsistency here?

Well, thanks for pointing this out.  Yes, there is an inconsistency, but I'll
try to minimize it. As much as *logically* these extreme thought experiments
show that one should anticipate what has already happened to one as much
as anticipate what is going to happen to one, perhaps there just isn't any
payoff for doing so?  That is, my anticipation module makes me drool over
a pleasant even upcoming tomorrow night, but I only have fond memories
of the same kind of event that happened to me last week, and they're not
the same thing.  Moreover, so far as *choices* are concerned, I can
very, very seldomly do anything about the past.  But determining whether
my duplicate will get $10M and deposit in our account is important.

(To those of a very practical bent, such choices are not important today,
but after people upload, and copies are cheap, they'll need to come to
decisions about these questions.)

So let me admit the inconsistency, but of the two memes

     A:   try as hard as you can to identify with all future instances
     B:   try to anticipate things that happened to you in the past

only A seems valuable.

Lee



From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Sun Apr 15 03:36:06 2007
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:36:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta re recurring threads was Personal Identity
	Bis
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30704141819u42d2e557j91397807e1934d1f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <786176.30844.qm@web37210.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

For what it's worth,
I think it's just a difference in interest.  
I think the posts regarding the questions between Lee,
Heartland and Stathis are questions of a physiological
Personal Identity Bis. While I understand that on this
list it must have been written a thousand times,
sometimes it is always nice to refresh the memory.  

Anna:)

--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/15/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com>
> wrote:
> 
> Materialists, i.e., engineering types, for the most
> part agree with you
> > that an identical copy of a person (or a computer)
> is equivalent and for
> > the most part can't imagine why anyone would have
> a different opinion.
> >
> 
> You probably feel that way after these many long
> discussions. If you ask
> someone at random who has a scientific view of the
> world, it is not a
> foregone conclusion that he will agree. Perhaps
> that's unfortunate, but it's
> the way it is.
> 
> Stathis Papaioannou
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



      Get news delivered with the All new Yahoo! Mail.  Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. Start today at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Apr 15 05:09:58 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:09:58 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity
	Paradox)
In-Reply-To: <005601c77e51$a87c07e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704110428j784f61e1n9e0cc294afb1ed89@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c77d07$e0345e80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704121659w6110eae0re37afcb5e2f0aec9@mail.gmail.com>
	<005601c77e51$a87c07e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704142209y53bf961cx969e91653e3eca3d@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/14/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> Stathis writes
>
> > Let's summarise. You feel that the sort of  anticipation which tells the
> > average human that he won't have the experiences of his copy in the
> > next room cannot be rationally justified and should be expunged.
>
> Yes, since if one is going to anticipate *any* future experience, then
> as a person and his recent duplicate are physically identical in all
> important respects, one should anticipate being *both* of the future
> systems.
>
> > On the other hand, you feel that the sort of anticipation which makes
> > the average human worry more about the future than the past cannot
> > be rationally justified but should be left alone. Is there an
> inconsistency here?
>
> Well, thanks for pointing this out.  Yes, there is an inconsistency, but
> I'll
> try to minimize it. As much as *logically* these extreme thought
> experiments
> show that one should anticipate what has already happened to one as much
> as anticipate what is going to happen to one, perhaps there just isn't any
> payoff for doing so?  That is, my anticipation module makes me drool over
> a pleasant even upcoming tomorrow night, but I only have fond memories
> of the same kind of event that happened to me last week, and they're not
> the same thing.  Moreover, so far as *choices* are concerned, I can
> very, very seldomly do anything about the past.  But determining whether
> my duplicate will get $10M and deposit in our account is important.


But my anticipation module makes me worry more about what happens to me than
what happens to my copy in the next room, in the same way as I worry more
about the future than the past. In fact, there is a sense in which my
relationship to copies of me in the past is the same as my relationship to
copies of me in the next room or in parallel universes that I can't access.
Even if I could change things so that in some alternate history things
worked out better for me, I wouldn't thereby anticipate the past more.

I have agreed with you all along that this sort of thinking is not always
rational and consistent, but there is no universal law saying that our
feelings have to be rational and consistent. There is no rational reason why
I should wish to survive in any capacity at all; it's just that humans have
evolved with the strong desire to survive. We could imagine an AI that was
perfectly rational and yet had no qualms about terminating its existence (in
fact, that would be the best sort of AI to build: we wouldn't want
super-beings around who cling to life as tenaciously as humans do).

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070415/330228a6/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Apr 15 05:18:07 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:18:07 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Manifest Destiny for >H
In-Reply-To: <001c01c77eb7$12595db0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <20070411184709.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<304768.82604.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30704130236qa725626rf52adc9f9c4e6890@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070413095805.GN9439@leitl.org>
	<001c01c77eb7$12595db0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704142218i10cfb7e1vf4be00d4ec14e11d@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/15/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> Eugen writes (and has made this point before)
>
> > Diversification guarantees you some of the postbiota will be not
> > intelligent. By the bulk of the postbiomass most of it might be
> > arguably only slightly smarter than rocks, with a few gods sprinkled
> > in-between.
>
> Does anyone have a simple, convincing argument that supplies some
> reason that vastly transhuman engines won't absorb all resources
> within reach?  Even if *some* particular AI had a predilection not
> to expand its influence as far as it could, wouldn't it lose the
> evolutionary race to those who would?


This is true, but you could apply the argument to any agent: bacteria,
aliens, humans, nanomachines, black holes... ultimately, those entities
which grow, reproduce or consume will prevail. However, it might be aeons
before everything goes to hell, especially if we anticipate problems and try
to prevent or minimise them.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070415/9b1bd789/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Apr 15 05:53:34 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:53:34 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0704141016s4b2f2c5fj34d4348eca53d13f@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070410190615.04692cb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<002b01c77a57$56848fa0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<461A7C80.6090007@thomasoliver.net>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070409172544.02c43458@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070410190615.04692cb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070414204906.03d6d170@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:16 PM 4/14/2007 -0400, Robert wrote:

>On 4/10/07, Keith Henson 
><<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com > wrote:

snip

>>Given that it takes about 1000 tons of water to grow a ton of wheat, that 
>>would run up the cost of wheat for the water alone to $1000 a ton.
>
>But it the water is used for transpiration to drag the nutrients from the 
>roots up into the leaves.  You don't have this problem if you grow you 
>food in solar ponds or relatively sealed greenhouses that you can condense 
>the water from at night.  Its a "change the traditional thinking" or 
>"infrastructure investment" problem.

You *can't* grow food in a "relatively sealed greenhouse."  Think about it.

>>Wheat runs about a $100 a ton, and shipping to the mid east might run
>>around $50 a ton.  It would still cost them better than 5 times the current
>>cost. 
>><http://www.ndwheat.com/buyers/default.asp?ID=287>http://www.ndwheat.com/buyers/default.asp?ID=287
>
>So don't use wheat.  Use cyanobacteria engineered to produce a lot of 
>starch that end up tasting like wheat.

Shortly after you have this much ability to design living things, I expect 
you could just run humans (or simulations) directly on electricity.

Keith



From benboc at lineone.net  Sun Apr 15 08:15:37 2007
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:15:37 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics is the only option?
In-Reply-To: <mailman.333.1176320086.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.333.1176320086.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <4621DF29.2080301@lineone.net>

Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> Cryonics is a nice way of putting your money where your mouth is. 
> Also, because it doesn't look as if life extension will achieve
> escape velocity in our biological life time, cryonics is the only
> option if you want to sample the transhuman future in person. The
> only option. There is no other, currently.


This may be literally true now (April 2007), but i suspect that it won't
be true for long. I can't say how long it will be before life-extension
(defined as keeping people alive in their current form) becomes
available, but i think there is a third option that should be possible
quite soon - maybe within a decade.

Nobody seems to think about keeping people alive (which means keeping
their brain alive) in /any/ form, it's always in a human body.

What occurs to me is that, as long as your brain is kept alive and can
communicate with the outside world, you are surviving. The rest of the
body doesn't matter, it can be regarded as a life-support system for the
brain, as well as providing transport, sense organs and communication.

Given a constant blood supply, a brain can stay alive even if the rest
of the body is gone, or damaged beyond repair (This doesn't apply, of
course, if your problem is a damaged brain, but the vast majority of
cases of death boil down to one simple thing: The brain starves of oxygen).

So, how about a replacement body? An artificial life-support system. It
wouldn't at first be anything like a human body, probably more like a
roomful of equipment, but that could change as more developments are made.

I'm not saying this would be easy to do, but it seems to me that the
problems of providing neural interfaces are harder than the problems of
providing a suitable blood supply. With the progress being made in that
area, it shouldn't be long before, at least in theory, someone could
keep their brain alive and functioning despite the loss of the rest of
the body. Maybe some of the sensory organs (eyes, ears) could be kept
alive together with the brain.

Whether you'd want to do this is another matter, but it's survival, and
it means you have the possibility of continuing to interact with the
world, to make decisions and earn your keep. Things that cryonics
patients can't do.

Of course, this would be a temporary state, until the kind of technology
you are interested in comes along. That's another advantage over
cryonics: You can make a decision about what to do next, when the time
comes.

I was thinking about Stephen Hawking. Would you be willing to be in a 
position similar to his for a while if it meant you could keep going? I 
think we aren't far from being able to achieve this.

You may prefer to be suspended and take your chances. Some people would 
even prefer to be dead, i'm sure, than live as a 'brain in a jar', even 
though it would just be temporary. But it's something to think about.

Now, who thinks i'm talking bollocks? And if so, why?

ben zaiboc


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 14 20:05:40 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert Wright: How cooperation (eventually)
	trumps conflict
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704141027t3e75a773m1aa5949716f622de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <236231.43174.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

> I just discovered this video (posted 2007-01) of
> Robert Wright arguing
> the arrow of morality more concretely and (I hope)
> more persuasively
> than I do.
> 
> <http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/68>

I was convinced before you ever started arguing. But
it is a great talk. :)




Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 14 18:46:49 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival
In-Reply-To: <20070413095805.GN9439@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <914926.19620.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> Diversification guarantees you some of the postbiota
> will be not 
> intelligent. By the bulk of the postbiomass most of
> it might be
> arguably only slightly smarter than rocks, with a
> few gods sprinkled
> in-between.

This is one possible outcome. There is certainly an
Everett branch from here to a world where machine
phase-spiders pounce upon machine-phase flies in order
to drain their batteries. But it is only one of many
possible. It all has to do with choices. Ours
presently unless we at some point make a decision that
benches us permanently in this great game called
evolution. Perhaps it will be the A.I.'s choices
thereafter unless we bench ourselves before the
Singularity. In any case, this particular scenario can
only be possible many choices beyond the Singularity.

> Logging in Brazil is very rational, and kills
> habitats just fine.
> In fact, if you'd confront these loggers (who have
> children at home
> to feed) they'll shoot you dead.

Yes. But our latin lumberjack is playing the "feed my
children" game and not the "save the environment
game". The whole point of designing an A.I. is to save
the world and not damn it. At least that is what I
*thought* it was about.
  
> Palm plantations in Indonesia are also rational.
> Building airstrips
> and shopping malls is also perfectly rational.

The goals one has depend on what game one is playing.
In that sense any particular move can be rational in
one game and irrational in another.

> Interactions between very asymmetrical players have
> no payoff for the 
> greater player, and hence produce no cooperation. 

Yes, you derive absolutely no benefit from the tens of
thousands of lymphocytes that sacrifice their precious
little lives for your overall heath and well-being on
a daily basis. Why not defect on them and go have
unprotected sex in a brothel in South Africa? :)
 
> Expecting reason to always prevail is unreasonable.
> Human-Ebola interaction
> is not governed by reason.

Sure it is. We quarantine people with Ebola and that
is perfectly reasonable. We also have people that
interact with Ebola in the laboratory trying to find a
vaccine for it. That too is reasonable.
 
> If you thought humans are good at SNAFUs, you should
> see some of what
> gods do.

I don't believe in any gods except those we ourselves
can aspire to be.




Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Apr 15 12:13:52 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:13:52 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics is the only option?
In-Reply-To: <4621DF29.2080301@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.333.1176320086.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<4621DF29.2080301@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704150513h74dcca9el7bca97fc3da0f232@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/15/07, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:

What occurs to me is that, as long as your brain is kept alive and can
> communicate with the outside world, you are surviving. The rest of the
> body doesn't matter, it can be regarded as a life-support system for the
> brain, as well as providing transport, sense organs and communication.
>
> Given a constant blood supply, a brain can stay alive even if the rest
> of the body is gone, or damaged beyond repair (This doesn't apply, of
> course, if your problem is a damaged brain, but the vast majority of
> cases of death boil down to one simple thing: The brain starves of
> oxygen).
>
> So, how about a replacement body? An artificial life-support system. It
> wouldn't at first be anything like a human body, probably more like a
> roomful of equipment, but that could change as more developments are made.
>
> I'm not saying this would be easy to do, but it seems to me that the
> problems of providing neural interfaces are harder than the problems of
> providing a suitable blood supply. With the progress being made in that
> area, it shouldn't be long before, at least in theory, someone could
> keep their brain alive and functioning despite the loss of the rest of
> the body. Maybe some of the sensory organs (eyes, ears) could be kept
> alive together with the brain.


It's possible in principle, but I don't see how removing the brain from the
body would be any advance over what is currently done when organ systems
start failing, which is to try to fix them medically or surgically, and if
that doesn't work to replace them with artificial alternatives such as renal
dialysis. The most extreme examples are seen in Intensive Care Units, where
multiple organ systems often fail together and people are kept alive for
moderately long periods with external machinery. In the future this may
progress to the point where a person can be kept alive indefinitely even
though little more than his brain is functioning, as per your scenario.
However, even if the machines work perfectly, the brain itself will still be
subject to aging and the diseases of aging; and if we could find a way to
stop this for the brain, we probably would have found it for the rest of the
body as well.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070415/4759e595/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sun Apr 15 14:28:43 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:28:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics is the only option?
In-Reply-To: <4621DF29.2080301@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.333.1176320086.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<4621DF29.2080301@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704150728k69499e4ao4d8202cb1c54a10b@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/15/07, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
>
> Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> > Also, because it doesn't look as if life extension will achieve escape
> velocity in our biological life time, cryonics is the only option if you
> want to sample the transhuman future in person. The only option. There is no
> other, currently.


I disagree completely.  So long as you do not disassemble the brain
(cremation being the obvious example) and prevent the bacteria from eating
everything and prevent the proteases from destroying too much structure you
have a fighting chance.  I would argue that enbalming and dessication both
accomplish this.   I would put these approaches as in the same category of
destructiveness as early cryonics suspension methods.  I can think of less
destructive methods as well such as pumping the body (or brain) full of
general purpose antibiotics and protease inhibitors and perhaps cooling it
down to slightly above freezing.  It could be argued that these methods are
less destructive than at least the early cryonic suspension methods.

The *critical* aspects are to prevent excessive loss of clarity about where
the synapses were connected and the proteins (and perhaps neurotransmitter
quantities) present at those synapses.  *Everything* else is secondary.  I
can imagine a recovery procedure using bacteria engineered to operate at
very cool temperatures (antarctic bacteria function down to -4 C) where
normal human proteins are essentially nonfunctional.  These bacteria would
be engineered to enter cells, remove any preservatives, restore water to the
tissues, repair any membrane damage, etc. and allow "reanimation".  Now of
course this might be easier with real nanorobots (where one has more precise
control over the program being executed), but we can start engineering
restoration bacteria today while it will probably be 30-40 years before we
can start engineering nanorobots (at the rate we are going).

Nobody seems to think about keeping people alive (which means keeping their
> brain alive) in /any/ form, it's always in a human body.


Not true.  I've discussed "head on a body-bot" on the GRG list.  Recent
progress with heart pumps and miniaturization of dialysis equipment make it
only a matter of time before this becomes feasible.

As Stathis has  pointed out this doesn't solve the problem of "brain rot"
but that is a completely different development vector (which we are largely
getting a handle on -- at least in terms of Parkinsons, Alzheimer's and
neuronal stem cell manipulation).

What occurs to me is that, as long as your brain is kept alive and can
> communicate with the outside world, you are surviving. The rest of the body
> doesn't matter, it can be regarded as a life-support system for the brain,
> as well as providing transport, sense organs and communication.


Essentially correct, though one could argue there are other glands within
the body which may be producing hormones which may be essential to proper
brain operation.  Your stomach and fat cells releasing hormones which
interact with the "hunger" centers in the brain.  But one can substitute for
these with a general purpose hormone (drug) "tweeking" med center in the
body-bot.

I'm not saying this would be easy to do, but it seems to me that the
> problems of providing neural interfaces are harder than the problems of
> providing a suitable blood supply. With the progress being made in that
> area, it shouldn't be long before, at least in theory, someone could keep
> their brain alive and functioning despite the loss of the rest of the body.
> Maybe some of the sensory organs (eyes, ears) could be kept alive together
> with the brain.


Until the progress with neural intefaces (esp. sight & sound) advance
significantly, I would much prefer "head-on-a-bot" than "brain-in-a-vat".
There will be the problem of linking the motor cortex or spine to external
motor control functions (unless one is comfortable living only in a sight,
sound & voice enabled VR).  Obviously we know humans can function without
sight and sound.  I think the real barrier is "robust" thought command
interfaces to allow one to interact with the external world (the blind
substitute sound & touch for sight and the deaf make use of sight and to a
lesser extent touch to offset their handicaps).  The real trick isn't so
much providing the inputs (people with cochlear implants rapidly learn to
reparse the sounds they are hearing) but mapping the outputs into external
interfaces seems to be the area where we are lacking currently.  Though
there is a lot of very active work in this area (thought control of mouse
cursors, mapping spinal cord signals to limb control, etc.).

Whether you'd want to do this is another matter, but it's survival, and it
> means you have the possibility of continuing to interact with the world, to
> make decisions and earn your keep. Things that cryonics patients can't do.


I know.  I suspect the number of people in the U.S. who die annually because
of one organ or another failing when their brains are still functional
numbers in the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions).  The number of
people who die from cancer metastasis to the brain (which can destroy brain
structure) is relatively low.  The number that die from a stroke (or injury)
that destroys critical parts of the brain is higher -- but I bet it isn't
more than 10 to 20% of the total annual death toll in developed countries.

Now, who thinks i'm talking bollocks? And if so, why?


No, you are on the money.  The thing to shift is the concept from "you are
dead" to "you are dead without significant assistive technology".  In
ancient times I would have been dead probably 30+ years ago when I started
to become moderately nearsighted.  One doesn't leap from tree to tree or go
into battle if you can't see clearly more than a few feet in front of your
face (for example, I'm using a 23" wide screen TV as a monitor.  If I take
off my glasses I can notice paragraphs of text but what they contain is
unreadable.  If I look out the window "unassisted" I can barely register the
tree trunks, much less go swinging from branch to branch.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070415/57d39ca3/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sun Apr 15 14:52:13 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:52:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070414204906.03d6d170@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <002b01c77a57$56848fa0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<461A7C80.6090007@thomasoliver.net>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070409172544.02c43458@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070410190615.04692cb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070414204906.03d6d170@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704150752t72444034taa3641218c39b5e1@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/15/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> You *can't* grow food in a "relatively sealed greenhouse."  Think about
> it.


Ok, yes, one has the problem of adding the CO2, releasing the O2 and
retaining the H2O, *but* they have different condensation temperatures and
it isn't as if we don't know how to do this type of separation.  Its also
true that the Saudi's aren't lacking for CO2 to enrich the greenhouses with
CO2 given how much methane I expect they are flaring from oil fields (or
outputs from oil or methane fueled power plants).

>
> Shortly after you have this much ability to design living things, I expect
> you could just run humans (or simulations) directly on electricity.


That design  capability is much closer than you think Keith.  We've got  ~33
years of experience engineering microorganisms (since the first  genetic
engineering labs were built in the mid-70s).  The blueprints have been in
the databases for  nearly a decade (since the late '90s).  You've got at
least two companies now (Codon Devices & Synthetic Genomics) working on
providing robust technologies in these areas to "end users" at an affordable
cost.  The photosynthetic systems and starch production systems are well
understood biochemical systems.  We do *not* yet have the blueprints or
electric eels (or even sharks which are capable of sensing minute electric
currents).  Running humans as sims on electricity requires the development
of mind uploading or the synthesis of a full AI and I'd put those at least
20, more likely 30 years, post the first concrete example of a completely
synthetic bacteria (we are several years into the era of completely
synthetic viruses).

Now whether the Saudis would get their future planning together to engineer
something like this isn't clear.  I'd place greater probability on something
like this being developed in the UAE, esp. Dubai since they seem to be the
most forward thinking.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070415/5083fba0/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Apr 15 15:25:53 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:25:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics is the only option?
In-Reply-To: <4621DF29.2080301@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.333.1176320086.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<mailman.333.1176320086.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070415102756.03d87358@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 09:15 AM 4/15/2007 +0100, ben wrote:
>Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> > Cryonics is a nice way of putting your money where your mouth is.
> > Also, because it doesn't look as if life extension will achieve
> > escape velocity in our biological life time, cryonics is the only
> > option if you want to sample the transhuman future in person. The
> > only option. There is no other, currently.
>
>
>This may be literally true now (April 2007), but i suspect that it won't
>be true for long. I can't say how long it will be before life-extension
>(defined as keeping people alive in their current form) becomes
>available, but i think there is a third option that should be possible
>quite soon - maybe within a decade.
>
>Nobody seems to think about keeping people alive (which means keeping
>their brain alive) in /any/ form, it's always in a human body.
>
>What occurs to me is that, as long as your brain is kept alive and can
>communicate with the outside world, you are surviving. The rest of the
>body doesn't matter, it can be regarded as a life-support system for the
>brain, as well as providing transport, sense organs and communication.
>
>Given a constant blood supply, a brain can stay alive even if the rest
>of the body is gone, or damaged beyond repair (This doesn't apply, of
>course, if your problem is a damaged brain, but the vast majority of
>cases of death boil down to one simple thing: The brain starves of oxygen).
>
>So, how about a replacement body? An artificial life-support system. It
>wouldn't at first be anything like a human body, probably more like a
>roomful of equipment, but that could change as more developments are made.
>
>I'm not saying this would be easy to do, but it seems to me that the
>problems of providing neural interfaces are harder than the problems of
>providing a suitable blood supply.

Decades ago Russian researchers spliced a small dog's head on a larger 
dog.  The heads stayed alive for days to weeks before tissue rejection got 
them.  Google has 513 links for "keep a severed head alive," including the 
text from the Whole Earth Review article.

>With the progress being made in that
>area, it shouldn't be long before, at least in theory, someone could
>keep their brain alive and functioning despite the loss of the rest of
>the body.

It would take so much progress that I would be amazed to see it happen 
before nanotechnology medicine was able to just repair people.  Keeping 
someone alive on external perfusion is a very short term business, a few 
days before bacteria infect the perfusion equipment.

I am not putting this down in theory, but the practice is so far advanced 
that I don't think it could be done with nanotechnology medicine.

>Maybe some of the sensory organs (eyes, ears) could be kept
>alive together with the brain.
>
>Whether you'd want to do this is another matter, but it's survival, and
>it means you have the possibility of continuing to interact with the
>world, to make decisions and earn your keep. Things that cryonics
>patients can't do.

The cost to keep someone in LN2 is a few hundred dollars a year.  Now cost 
could come down, but they would have to come down by a factor in the 
millions (at least) for it to be possible for a "severed head" to be able 
to earn its keep.

>Of course, this would be a temporary state, until the kind of technology
>you are interested in comes along. That's another advantage over
>cryonics: You can make a decision about what to do next, when the time
>comes.
>
>I was thinking about Stephen Hawking. Would you be willing to be in a
>position similar to his for a while if it meant you could keep going? I
>think we aren't far from being able to achieve this.
>
>You may prefer to be suspended and take your chances. Some people would
>even prefer to be dead, i'm sure, than live as a 'brain in a jar', even
>though it would just be temporary. But it's something to think about.
>
>Now, who thinks i'm talking bollocks? And if so, why?

I am not putting your idea down on a theoretical basis, but at the 
practical level it is far, far beyond the state of the art.  I agree it 
would be temporary because technology at the level that could take care of 
an isolated brain or a head is very close to being able to build a person a 
brand new body.

Keith



From mfj.eav at gmail.com  Sun Apr 15 15:39:36 2007
From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 08:39:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
Message-ID: <61c8738e0704150839w4f1a2076n3df34d37c608470a@mail.gmail.com>

The problem is  willingness of the production to consumption chain  to
implement bio-based change.

It would be nice to jump steps and keep the commercial end up to the science
end as happens with computational technologies and products therefrom.  Not
many years ago there was the "clock speeds above 1Ghz were illegal for
citizens to own".
That old law vaporized easily.  The "no GMO" issue has taken a decade out of
ag crops development.  No "no embryonic stem cells" has taken  a decade out
of biomedicine.  The singularity has to overcome luddites every step of the
way.

It's gong to take ethanol plants, then solid and liquid state fermentation
plants then intergrated food/fuel/pharma plants to put the cash behind the
novel changes like black, high efficiency pond scum GMO's that come in 1000
varieties depending upon what the end use chemistry
is to be.

Now if someone could convince the public that global warming required a
response that captures water in novel bioproducts
because simple old forests and farms won't cut it and that the resulting
abundance of bioproducts would decrease the cost of all consumables there
should be an economic pull to realize the end goal soooner.

As well there are 2 saleable commercial  reasons for AGI
commercial development.  Governments want to be the first to no just predict
short term but create made to order weather .
Nobody wants all the storms  or all the drought.  Markets want to know where
and when to time economic activity to coincide with
beneficial weather driven conditions.

The second is novel healthy lifestyle food and pharma.  AGI computational
capacity should deliver novel biology for these commercial products.

If the vast majority don't want to live an indeterminate period of time or
possess enhancements let them be happy with this level and let them
naturally select themselves out of the gene pool as they gradually grow old
and die.  It's a huge waste  but 10,000 + years of conditioning to accept
our current state is not something  everyone's mind can dissassociate
from.

The challenge is to build a global critical mass to sustain the
commercialization of the leading edge extropian, AGI singularity, transhuman
as an expanding economy in spite of the luddite drives of the rest of
society.


MFJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070415/cb949258/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Apr 15 15:43:12 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 08:43:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity
	Paradox)
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704110428j784f61e1n9e0cc294afb1ed89@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c77d07$e0345e80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704121659w6110eae0re37afcb5e2f0aec9@mail.gmail.com>
	<005601c77e51$a87c07e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704142209y53bf961cx969e91653e3eca3d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006501c77f75$78076440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> > Moreover, so far as *choices* are concerned, I can
> > very, very seldomly do anything about the past.  But
> > determining whether my duplicate will get $10M and
> > deposit it in our account is important.
> 
> But my anticipation module makes me worry more about
> what happens to me than what happens to my copy in the
> next room,

Which could inspire you to error (if you are trying to maximize
your well being). Insofar as choices go, under certain conditions,
such as the above, the survival of your duplicate is optimal for
you (rather than the survival of the instance having to make the
choice).

> in the same way as I worry more about the future than the past.
> In fact, there is a sense in which my relationship to copies of me
> in the past is the same as my relationship to copies of me in the
> next room or in parallel universes that I can't access. Even if I
> could change things so that in some alternate history things
> worked out better for me, I wouldn't thereby anticipate the past more. 

Yes, that's right.

> I have agreed with you all along that this sort of thinking is not
> always rational and consistent, but there is no universal law
> saying that our feelings have to be rational and consistent.

Alas, right too. But we must be rational about our choices,
and so just as in other areas of life, sometimes the urging
of our feelings must be overriden.

> There is no rational reason why I should wish to survive in
> any capacity at all; it's just that humans have evolved with
> the strong desire to survive. We could imagine an AI that
> was perfectly rational and yet had no qualms about terminating
> its existence

Such a being could indeed exist.  If only we could rid the literature
(and some views as expressed on mailing lists) of the notion that
every entity must be motivated to survive!

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Apr 15 15:52:23 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:52:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert Wright: How cooperation (eventually)
 trumps conflict
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740704141027t3e75a773m1aa5949716f622de@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <f7bfe5740704141027t3e75a773m1aa5949716f622de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070415104544.022aba40@satx.rr.com>

At 10:27 AM 4/14/2007 -0700, Jef wrote:
>I just discovered this video (posted 2007-01) of Robert Wright arguing
>the arrow of morality more concretely and (I hope) more persuasively
>than I do.
>
><http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/68>

It's mordantly funny. But a friend makes the following cautionary comments:

<It's true that things will get better and for many of the reasons he 
cites.  But it's all so dumbed-down...  His 'business class' example 
is laughable.  As a butler, I've stood by listening to the business 
class fliers of the world talking openly about destabilising the 
economy of an African country in order to firm up access to the 
silver supply.  And the way they talked of it, and its broad 
acceptance, signified to me that it wasn't unusual.  Arms dealers 
also think of themselves as reasonable people.  These people don't 
speak of other nations as less than human, but they act as if they 
are.  Is that progress?  Merely hypocrisy.>

I think that's going too far. But the relationships involved are 
still far too close to the colonial and imperial.

Damien Broderick



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sun Apr 15 15:55:00 2007
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:55:00 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics is the only option?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070415102756.03d87358@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <mailman.333.1176320086.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<4621DF29.2080301@lineone.net>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070415102756.03d87358@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0704150855h575d8bc7m4da96bfe59c6984b@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/15/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am not putting your idea down on a theoretical basis, but at the
> practical level it is far, far beyond the state of the art.  I agree it
> would be temporary because technology at the level that could take care of
> an isolated brain or a head is very close to being able to build a person
> a
> brand new body.


I disagree.   The methods for keeping humans with defective immune systems
alive for extended periods are well defined.  Indeed there are probably
thousands to SCID mice being raised in germ free facilities on any given
day.  Antibiotics will deal with bacterial contamination of perfusion
systems.  More problematic is supplementation with new red blood cells and
removal of the old.  But the newer artificial blood molecules may eliminate
the need for this.  To maintain the immune system you might need an external
WBC production bioreactor but I'm reasonably certain that WBC growth and
differentiation factors are well enough understood that you could grow up
batches of an individual's WBC progenitor cells and provide periodic
supplements.

A brand new body requires at *least* a decade (minimal body growth time
based on normal cell division rates) unless you take the 3D printing
approach and we are probably several decades away from doing that at a
"body" vs. a tissue or organ level.

Interestingly, a mouse head or a rabbit head transplanted onto a Roomba is
not that far beyond "current" technology.  I suspect the methods exist to do
it but the microsurgey that would probably be required is probably beyond
that of most home experimenters.  What you need is "direct" connect plumbing
interfaces (as in home aquariums) and some kind of ultra high speed neural
interface chip you can interconnect directly to the spinal cord (and allow
the computer mapping and neural rewiring to work out what the signals all
mean).  Keeping a "Mouse driven Roomba" alive for even a week would make
people sit up and take notice.  They'd start thinking about their pet cat or
dog and then ....  (It isn't as if the Japanese don't already *have* the
robots.)

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070415/0e4c603a/attachment.html>

From benboc at lineone.net  Sun Apr 15 15:34:47 2007
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:34:47 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics is the only option?
In-Reply-To: <mailman.407.1176639237.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.407.1176639237.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <46224617.6090302@lineone.net>

"Stathis Papaioannou" <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> It's possible in principle, but I don't see how removing the brain 
> from the body would be any advance over what is currently done when 
> organ systems start failing, which is to try to fix them medically or
>  surgically, and if that doesn't work to replace them with artificial
>  alternatives such as renal dialysis. The most extreme examples are
> seen in Intensive Care Units, where multiple organ systems often fail
> together and people are kept alive for moderately long periods with
> external machinery. In the future this may progress to the point
> where a person can be kept alive indefinitely even though little more
> than his brain is functioning, as per your scenario. However, even if
> the machines work perfectly, the brain itself will still be subject
> to aging and the diseases of aging; and if we could find a way to
> stop this for the brain, we probably would have found it for the rest
> of the body as well.

Good point.

So by the time we are capable of doing this, all the hospitals will be 
doing it anyway?

There would doubtless be some kind of cost-benefit calculation involved, 
to decide just who would get this treatment. Unless you're in America, 
where, i assume, you die if you can't afford whatever life-saving 
treatment you need (is this correct?).

A problem i can see here is the usual assumption in the medical 
profession that there is a point at which you should be allowed to die. 
Once you've had a good innings in conventional terms, there would likely 
be little incentive to make great efforts to keep you alive. Perhaps it 
would be a good idea to try to promote the creation of 
'transhumanist-friendly' medical clinics. Probably a bit too much to 
hope for.

Actually, one good reason for removing the brain from a failing body 
would be for ease of access to all the life-support systems, and ease of 
swapping them out for others as and when necessary. The 'body' would be 
whatever physical infrastructure the life-support modules were plugged 
in to, and you could then take advantage of heterostasis, keeping local 
conditions optimal for each system separately, without upsetting the 
rest of the body.

It would also make cryonic suspension much easier if that was eventually 
decided upon. Plus easier other things, too, like neural interfacing and 
  eventual uploading.

ben zaiboc


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Apr 15 16:02:04 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:02:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics is the only option?
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0704150728k69499e4ao4d8202cb1c54a10b@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <mailman.333.1176320086.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<4621DF29.2080301@lineone.net>
	<deaa866a0704150728k69499e4ao4d8202cb1c54a10b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070415105840.0223faa8@satx.rr.com>

At 10:28 AM 4/15/2007 -0400, Robert Bradbury wrote:

>If I look out the window "unassisted" I can barely register the tree 
>trunks, much less go swinging from branch to branch.

Robert, I've told you and told you: at your age you just have to 
*stop* that branch-swinging! I know it's fun, but one of these days 
you're going to fall out of a tree and hurt yourself.

Damien Broderick




From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Apr 15 16:54:16 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:54:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert Wright: How cooperation (eventually)
	trumps conflict
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070415104544.022aba40@satx.rr.com>
References: <f7bfe5740704141027t3e75a773m1aa5949716f622de@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070415104544.022aba40@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704150954o3ff40bd9r3a8eca3527c88fa6@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/15/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 10:27 AM 4/14/2007 -0700, Jef wrote:
> >I just discovered this video (posted 2007-01) of Robert Wright arguing
> >the arrow of morality more concretely and (I hope) more persuasively
> >than I do.
> >
> ><http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/68>
>
> It's mordantly funny. But a friend makes the following cautionary comments:
>
> <It's true that things will get better and for many of the reasons he
> cites.  But it's all so dumbed-down...  His 'business class' example
> is laughable.

I mentally flinched a few times during Wright's presentation, but for
the very reasons of concreteness and personal biases (to which people
can relate) that might make his presentation more persuasive than my
characteristically abstract form of presentation.

- Jef


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Apr 15 17:12:08 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:12:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Manifest Destiny for >H
References: <20070411184709.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<304768.82604.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30704130236qa725626rf52adc9f9c4e6890@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070413095805.GN9439@leitl.org>
	<001c01c77eb7$12595db0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704142218i10cfb7e1vf4be00d4ec14e11d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007001c77f81$69e2f9e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> > Does anyone have a ... reason that vastly transhuman engines
> > won't absorb all resources within reach?  Even if *some*
> > particular AI had a predilection not to expand its influence
> > as far as it could, wouldn't it lose the evolutionary race to
> > those who did?
> 
> ...You could apply the argument [that those agents who try to 
> expand their influence over everything they can] to any agent:
> bacteria, aliens, humans, nanomachines, black holes... ultimately,
> those entities which grow, reproduce or consume will prevail.

Bacteria can be checked by clean rooms, aliens (like human empires)
might check each other over interstellar distances, and humans (as
individuals) are held in check by envy, law, and custom.

> However, it might be aeons before everything goes to hell,
> especially if we anticipate problems and try to prevent or
> minimise them. 

I don't know why you think that this must be "hell".  I could
imagine rather beneficient super-intelligences taking over vast
areas, checked ultimately by the speed of light, and their own
ability to identify with far-flung branches of themselves. Some
of these may even deign to give a few nanoseconds of runtime
every now and then to their ancient noble creators.

Lee



From scerir at libero.it  Sun Apr 15 17:19:24 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:19:24 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede><f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com><002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede><f21c22e30704051947o20791ba7tcfa6453b1af5654@mail.gmail.com><000301c77873$9f917270$b2bf1f97@archimede><f21c22e30704062001w5507b71dv53c87ef83df07337@mail.gmail.com><000301c778fb$a80283d0$1f961f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704070704u3386a80eo237899d3daad1b68@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006701c77f82$375fa6c0$51b81f97@archimede>

Stathis
> I believe that the brain follows classical
> laws, but even if quantum indeterminacy had
> a role to play, it wouldn't add anything that
> we don't already have with the pseudorandomness
> provided by classical chaos.

[Sorry for the late response].

By chance I've found an interesting quote (of David McAllester,
an AI professor) about free will, determinism, and 'compatibilism'
(I think Lee already discussed this point, more or less).

"The idea that I could be simulated on a computer seems at odds with my
subjective experience of free will and my intuition that my future actions
are not yet determined - I am free to choose them. But consider a computer
program that plays chess. In actual chess playing programs the program
"considers" individual moves and "works out" the consequences of each move.
This is a rather high level description of the calculation that is done, but
it is fair to say that the program "considers options" and "evaluates
consequences". When I say, as a human being, that I have to choose between
two options, and that I have not decided yet, this seems no different to me
from the situation of a chess playing computer before it has finished its
calculation. The computer's move is determined - it is a deterministic
process - and yet it still has "options". To say "the computer could move
pawn to king four" is true provided that we interpret "could do x" as "it is
a legal option for the computer to do x". To say that I am free is simply so
say that I have options (and I should consider them and look before I leap).
But having options, in the sense of the legal moves of chess, is compatible
with selecting an option using a deterministic computation. A chess playing
program shows that a determined system can have free will, i.e., can have
options. So free will (having options) is compatible with determinism and
there is no conflict."

So I think it is a bit early to say that quantum randomness,
or quantum contextuality, or (?) non-commutative probabilities,
or classical randomness (note that the algorithmic information
content of classical randomness lies almost entirely
in the description of initial conditions) play an essential
role, regarding free will.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wh8710176puq0456/
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701097
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1223

[It is possible that this one is among those ... 'recurring
threads'. So I'll stop it here, since I cannot say something
new or interesting or even reasonable :-)]

s.

"I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will.
Jews believe in free will. They believe that man
shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In
that respect I am not a Jew."

Who said that?
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1607298,00.html




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Apr 15 18:07:34 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:07:34 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta re recurring threads was Personal Identity
 Bis
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070415140730.038172b8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 11:19 AM 4/15/2007 +1000, you wrote:


>On 4/15/07, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>
>>Materialists, i.e., engineering types, for the most part agree with you
>>that an identical copy of a person (or a computer) is equivalent and for
>>the most part can't imagine why anyone would have a different opinion.
>
>You probably feel that way after these many long discussions.

It didn't take these long discussions.  I have no memory of any time in the 
past I had a different opinion, and my writings for the last two decades 
are consistent with that view.  For example:

http://www.alcor.org/cryonics/cryonics8610.txt starting at page 29.

>If you ask someone at random who has a scientific view of the world, it is 
>not a foregone conclusion that he will agree. Perhaps that's unfortunate, 
>but it's the way it is.

Few people with any experience expect uniformity in ideas between 
people.  I am sure there are people out there who expect we could find an 
element between carbon and nitrogen (or a whole number between 6 and 7) if 
we just looked hard enough.  I can't imagine why someone would have such an 
opinion, but I am not surprised to find such people.  After all, number of 
my friends used to think their spirits were brought to earth 75 million 
years ago by Xenu.

Keith Henson



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Apr 15 18:10:08 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:10:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Grim Vision ...?
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070415140859.03d87cc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 10:52 AM 4/15/2007 -0400, Robert wrote:

>On 4/15/07, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>>You *can't* grow food in a "relatively sealed greenhouse."  Think about it.
>
>Ok, yes, one has the problem of adding the CO2, releasing the O2 and 
>retaining the H2O, *but* they have different condensation temperatures and 
>it isn't as if we don't know how to do this type of separation.

Condensing gases is an energy expensive process.  Google finds 376,000 for 
CO2 separation amine.  This process is how they scrub CO2 out the air in 
nuclear subs (I ran into it working on space colony designs back in the mid 
70s).  It is widely used in purifying hydrogen made from methane or 
coal.  But besides gas exchange problems, consider how "greenhouse effect" 
got its name.  The *outside* temperature in Saudi Arabia might be 130 
degrees F.  Think about how hot it gets inside a parked car in the summer 
and you will get an idea of how hard it would be to seal up a 
greenhouse.  You could also look up the power bills for cooling Biosphere II.

>>Shortly after you have this much ability to design living things, I expect
>>you could just run humans (or simulations) directly on electricity.
>
>That design  capability is much closer than you think Keith.  We've 
>got  ~33 years of experience engineering microorganisms (since the 
>first  genetic engineering labs were built in the mid-70s).  The 
>blueprints have been in the databases for  nearly a decade (since the late 
>'90s).  You've got at least two companies now (Codon Devices & Synthetic 
>Genomics) working on providing robust technologies in these areas to "end 
>users" at an affordable cost.  The photosynthetic systems and starch 
>production systems are well understood biochemical systems.

Even granting you "well understood," I don't think we are close to being 
able to design a synthetic algae that would be an acceptable food for 
humans.  But even if we could, how are you going to prevent the tanks from 
being infected with wild type algae and bacteria?  People have *died* from 
eating even relatively non-toxic algae.  (I forget why, too much RNA or 
something.)

>We do *not* yet have the blueprints or electric eels (or even sharks which 
>are capable of sensing minute electric currents).  Running humans as sims 
>on electricity requires the development of mind uploading or the synthesis 
>of a full AI and I'd put those at least 20, more likely 30 years, post the 
>first concrete example of a completely synthetic bacteria (we are several 
>years into the era of completely synthetic viruses).
>
>Now whether the Saudis would get their future planning together to 
>engineer something like this isn't clear.  I'd place greater probability 
>on something like this being developed in the UAE, esp. Dubai since they 
>seem to be the most forward thinking.

It seems most unlikely to me that rich Arabs are going to even going 
consider growing algae paste for human consumption--at least not their own.

Keith



From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Apr 15 18:22:26 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:22:26 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics is the only option?
In-Reply-To: <46224617.6090302@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.407.1176639237.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<46224617.6090302@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <20070415182226.GE9439@leitl.org>

On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 04:34:47PM +0100, ben wrote:

> There would doubtless be some kind of cost-benefit calculation involved, 
> to decide just who would get this treatment. Unless you're in America, 
> where, i assume, you die if you can't afford whatever life-saving 
> treatment you need (is this correct?).

Emergency care people are required by law to treat anyone, even if they're
not covered (this gets frequently abused, of course). 
 
> A problem i can see here is the usual assumption in the medical 
> profession that there is a point at which you should be allowed to die. 

They won't switch you off if the relatives continue demanding treatment.
It may be living hell on earth, but you will be kept alive.

> Once you've had a good innings in conventional terms, there would likely 
> be little incentive to make great efforts to keep you alive. Perhaps it 
> would be a good idea to try to promote the creation of 
> 'transhumanist-friendly' medical clinics. Probably a bit too much to 
> hope for.

If you have the coin, you can buy any service you need.
 
> Actually, one good reason for removing the brain from a failing body 
> would be for ease of access to all the life-support systems, and ease of 
> swapping them out for others as and when necessary. The 'body' would be 
> whatever physical infrastructure the life-support modules were plugged 
> in to, and you could then take advantage of heterostasis, keeping local 
> conditions optimal for each system separately, without upsetting the 
> rest of the body.

"Moving the brain" while keeping it alive is quite impossible with
current surgery. It is rather difficult to extract even a fixated
brain (a very different animal from live brain) from the cranial 
cavity without injuring it.
 
> It would also make cryonic suspension much easier if that was eventually 

It wouldn't. Just leave the brain in its natural container, see
http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/casereport8504.html
for details.

> decided upon. Plus easier other things, too, like neural interfacing and 
>   eventual uploading.

Gradual/incremental in vivo uploading is quite a way off, since requiring
medical devices assembled by NC-chemistry, aka machine-phase. Working
at below -150 C has definite advantages, since you can work with sections 
of cryogenic water glass, imaging from the surface down abrasively/ablatively,
and process data with macroscale equipment which doesn't have to be in situ.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Apr 15 18:57:35 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:57:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
In-Reply-To: <006701c77f82$375fa6c0$51b81f97@archimede>
References: <011f01c7762a$e2fb6a20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c776d5$ee89ac20$cb971f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704042233u4be73d17n47d005cc93e6779@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801c7779a$7e5f1d20$c4bf1f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704051947o20791ba7tcfa6453b1af5654@mail.gmail.com>
	<000301c77873$9f917270$b2bf1f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704062001w5507b71dv53c87ef83df07337@mail.gmail.com>
	<000301c778fb$a80283d0$1f961f97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30704070704u3386a80eo237899d3daad1b68@mail.gmail.com>
	<006701c77f82$375fa6c0$51b81f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704151157gf834b02g9130f534997b0545@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/15/07, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:

> with selecting an option using a deterministic computation. A chess playing
> program shows that a determined system can have free will, i.e., can have
> options. So free will (having options) is compatible with determinism and
> there is no conflict."
>
> So I think it is a bit early to say that quantum randomness,
> or quantum contextuality, or (?) non-commutative probabilities,
> or classical randomness (note that the algorithmic information
> content of classical randomness lies almost entirely
> in the description of initial conditions) play an essential
> role, regarding free will.

Isn't it obvious that determinism is *required* for the experience of
free will?  How meaningless a concept if there were no experience of a
causal link between subjective choice, action, and consequences.

- Jef


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Apr 15 19:15:58 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:15:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta re recurring threads was Personal Identity
	Bis
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413160555.03b02d00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <BAY140-DAV3C20DB95A725938606710A75F0@phx.gbl>
	<040f01c77cb9$4474d590$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070412124910.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<3CFAB4E7-3CA7-467C-8887-9481754BF163@randallsquared.com>
	<20070412160504.GR9439@leitl.org>
	<BA354978-F711-46AC-96CE-FB99BA2C1247@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413071429.GY9439@leitl.org>
	<87B34747-04A0-461D-B9E9-1C6A8E1AA72D@randallsquared.com>
	<20070413165226.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070413160555.03b02d00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740704151215v4ea0448bnd0ea5501d857901d@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/13/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> At 06:52 PM 4/13/2007 +0200, Eugen wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >I wonder why I keep posting that example, with literature,
> >but nobody seems to actually care to read it. It's been more
> >than a decade that we keep having these threads, and they
> >always go through the same motions. I'm getting tired of this.
> >I think I'm going to ban these for good.
>
> I wondered why these identity threads seemed so old to me.  Various moves
> and escapes have winnowed my SF collection to a remnant, but I kept several
> by A.E. Van Vogt including _The World of Null A_.  I don't know how many
> here have read it, but the copyright is 1945.  That *62* years ago.
>
> I just reread it.
>
> None of the identity arguments on this or any other forum I have seen has
> added a new idea to those expressed in that story written in 1945.

I read the story this weekend.  What a quaintly futuristic read!

While I found clear statements of Slawomir's position that it's
logically impossible that two physical objects be identical, and
examples of the common idea that personal identity is defined
essentially by personal memory and functional similarity, I saw
nothing even hinting at personal identity consisting in the extent to
which an agent is seen to represent a given abstract entity.

- Jef


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Apr 15 23:39:41 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:39:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] new serial starts on-line: POST MORTAL SYNDROME
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070415182921.021641b8@satx.rr.com>

Blatant self-promotion time. An sf thriller about life- and 
intelligence-extension by me and my wife, Barbara Lamar, has been 
acquired by COSMOS Magazine On-line, and the first of 56 episodes is 
up today. It will run five days a week, and there's an RSS link.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/fiction/online/serials/post_mortal_syndrome

Enjoy! (Well, we hope...)

Damien Broderick



From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Apr 16 01:05:58 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:05:58 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity
	Paradox)
In-Reply-To: <006501c77f75$78076440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704110428j784f61e1n9e0cc294afb1ed89@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c77d07$e0345e80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704121659w6110eae0re37afcb5e2f0aec9@mail.gmail.com>
	<005601c77e51$a87c07e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704142209y53bf961cx969e91653e3eca3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<006501c77f75$78076440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704151805p3858e87fp28267485b3b51025@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/16/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> Stathis writes
>
> > > Moreover, so far as *choices* are concerned, I can
> > > very, very seldomly do anything about the past.  But
> > > determining whether my duplicate will get $10M and
> > > deposit it in our account is important.
> >
> > But my anticipation module makes me worry more about
> > what happens to me than what happens to my copy in the
> > next room,
>
> Which could inspire you to error (if you are trying to maximize
> your well being). Insofar as choices go, under certain conditions,
> such as the above, the survival of your duplicate is optimal for
> you (rather than the survival of the instance having to make the
> choice).


I could say I am more concerned about my current self, due to the
anticipation issue. In the long term if duplication becomes commonplace
those people who count copies as selves will prevail, but this sort of
argument doesn't necessarily determine what we should do and certainly not
how we should feel.  Men who have thousands of children would ultimately
dominate the gene pool, but this doesn't mean that anyone will want to do
this, and it is in fact very rare that totalitarian leaders, who could if
they wanted to inseminate thousands of women, would actually attempt
this.Weare at the mercy of our neurophysiology, which did not evolve
in an
environment where cloning, duplication, artificial insemination etc. were
options.

> in the same way as I worry more about the future than the past.
> > In fact, there is a sense in which my relationship to copies of me
> > in the past is the same as my relationship to copies of me in the
> > next room or in parallel universes that I can't access. Even if I
> > could change things so that in some alternate history things
> > worked out better for me, I wouldn't thereby anticipate the past more.
>
> Yes, that's right.
>
> > I have agreed with you all along that this sort of thinking is not
> > always rational and consistent, but there is no universal law
> > saying that our feelings have to be rational and consistent.
>
> Alas, right too. But we must be rational about our choices,
> and so just as in other areas of life, sometimes the urging
> of our feelings must be overriden.


I consider it "irrational" that I am concerned about the welfare about some
guy tomorrow who thinks he is me, has my memories and my possessions. If he
travelled to today in a time machine and cleaned out my/his bank account,
I'd be upset. It's just the fact that we don't coincide which allows me to
think that we are the same person, or that I will "become" him. You say that
all copies of me are me, but I should be more concerned about future copies
than past copies even if I can't affect the future copies more than the past
copies by my present actions. That is, you are trying to be "rational" as
far as possible but admit to some inconsistencies. I say that none of the
other copies are really me, because if we were all in a sinking ship
together each of us would fight for the last place on the lifeboat. However,
I accept that due to the way brains have evolved, some of these copies will
be regarded as me (those in the future, or at random some of those in the
future if the future is branching) while other will not. This isn't any more
"rational" than, say, wanting to have sex even though we know it won't lead
to reproduction; but it's the way our brains work.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070416/fa9c90df/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Apr 16 01:35:24 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:35:24 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Manifest Destiny for >H
In-Reply-To: <007001c77f81$69e2f9e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <20070411184709.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<304768.82604.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30704130236qa725626rf52adc9f9c4e6890@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070413095805.GN9439@leitl.org>
	<001c01c77eb7$12595db0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704142218i10cfb7e1vf4be00d4ec14e11d@mail.gmail.com>
	<007001c77f81$69e2f9e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30704151835q5991d743y61da537b393eac1c@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/16/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

Stathis writes
>
> > > Does anyone have a ... reason that vastly transhuman engines
> > > won't absorb all resources within reach?  Even if *some*
> > > particular AI had a predilection not to expand its influence
> > > as far as it could, wouldn't it lose the evolutionary race to
> > > those who did?
> >
> > ...You could apply the argument [that those agents who try to
> > expand their influence over everything they can] to any agent:
> > bacteria, aliens, humans, nanomachines, black holes... ultimately,
> > those entities which grow, reproduce or consume will prevail.
>
> Bacteria can be checked by clean rooms, aliens (like human empires)
> might check each other over interstellar distances, and humans (as
> individuals) are held in check by envy, law, and custom.


Right, but parrotting the argument for AI's taking over the world, some
bacteria, aliens or humans, due to diversity, would be less subject to these
checks, and they will come to predominate in the population, so that after
multiple generations the most rapacious entity will eat everything else and
ultimately make the universe synonymous with itself. On the other hand,
maybe there will be long, long periods of dynamic equilibrium, evn between
competing species grossly mismatched in intelligence, such as humans and
bacteria.

> However, it might be aeons before everything goes to hell,
> > especially if we anticipate problems and try to prevent or
> > minimise them.
>
> I don't know why you think that this must be "hell".  I could
> imagine rather beneficient super-intelligences taking over vast
> areas, checked ultimately by the speed of light, and their own
> ability to identify with far-flung branches of themselves. Some
> of these may even deign to give a few nanoseconds of runtime
> every now and then to their ancient noble creators.


I'm not as worried about the future behaviour of super-AI's as many people
seem to be. There is no logical reason why they should have one motivation
rather than another. If humans can be concerned about flowers and trees, why
can't super-intelligent beings be concerned about humans? After all, we
weren't created by flowers and trees to have any particular feelings towards
them, while we *would* be the ones creating the AI's. And even if some AI's
went rogue, that would be no different to what currently happens with large
populations of humans.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070416/f6ffa59b/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Apr 16 03:38:43 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:38:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] new serial starts on-line: POST MORTAL SYNDROME
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070415182921.021641b8@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070415182921.021641b8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070415223601.02331a08@satx.rr.com>

Incidentally, I see that the opening epigraphs we carefully chose 
have been deleted. These were:

  ==============================

Some have argued that even if we had the technological capability to 
change human personality in fundamental ways, we would never *want* 
to do so because human nature in some sense guarantees its own 
continuity. This argument, I believe, greatly underestimates human 
ambition and fails to appreciate the radical ways in which people in 
the past have sought to overcome their own natures... We may be about 
to enter into a posthuman future, in which technology will give us 
the capacity gradually to alter that essence over time.

Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future


Because an artificial chromosome provides a reproducible platform for 
adding genetic material to cells, it promises to transform gene 
therapy from the hit-and-miss methods of today... It would be an 
inert scaffolding dotted with independent insertion sites where 
modules of genes and their control sequences could be placed using 
the various enzymes that splice and clip DNA... By not altering a 
single one of the 3 billion bases on our existing chromosomes, 
geneticists would minimize the chance of inadvertently stepping on 
the many as yet unappreciated interactions within our genome.

Gregory Stock, Redesigning Humans

=================================

These quotations from notable thinkers who have lately published on 
the topic--one a conservative opponent, the other an optimistic 
proponent--provide a real-world anchor to the speculations at the 
core of our novel. Without them, the beginning seems to present 
itself as just a mad-bomber-thriller.

Damien Broderick 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Apr 16 03:40:21 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:40:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Anticipation and Benefit (was Re: The Anticipation
	Dilemma)
References: <035101c77c02$ca1dfc10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704110428j784f61e1n9e0cc294afb1ed89@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c77d07$e0345e80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704121659w6110eae0re37afcb5e2f0aec9@mail.gmail.com>
	<005601c77e51$a87c07e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704142209y53bf961cx969e91653e3eca3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<006501c77f75$78076440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704151805p3858e87fp28267485b3b51025@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00b901c77fd9$32517b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> I could say I am more concerned about my current self, due to
> the anticipation issue.

I take it to mean that you sanction choices that are illogical by
those of us who view copies as selves.  That is, you intend to
make decisions based upon your (inconsistent) anticipation of 
how "you" will feel or be later, as opposed to making decisions
that some of us would argue are for your greater total benefit.

> In the long term if duplication becomes commonplace those
> people who count copies as selves will prevail, but this sort
> of argument doesn't necessarily determine what we should do...

Right.  I can accede to John Clark's pointing out that entities
which think memories of a particular human are nothing special
will prevail, and Damien could accede to teleporters having
an evolutionary edge in the future. Yet this doesn't change the
perception by us that the suggested changes actually kill us.

> I consider it "irrational" that I am concerned about the welfare
> about some guy tomorrow who thinks he is me, has my
> memories and my possessions.

Yes;  our eternal divide on this list that suggests to some that
we never make progress  :-)

Lee

P.S.

> If he travelled to today in a time machine and cleaned out
> my/his bank account, I'd be upset.

I might be too, unless I granted him the benefit of the doubt
that something very strange is afoot.  Otherwise, I know that
my duplicate would take the benefit of *this* instance into
account too, unless, as I say, extraordinary circumstances
were somehow prevailing.

> I say that none of the other copies are really me, because
> if we were all in a sinking ship together each of us would
> fight for the last place on the lifeboat.

In the lifeboat, my instances (e.g. "I") would all be thinking
about how to maximize the number of survivors, yet after
the waters begin to close over our heads, our animal instincts
take over.  I don't identify with those particular instincts, and
will delete them if ever given an opportunity.

So, just to be clear and for the record, an instance of you
given the choice between saving itself xor saving an extremely
recent duplicate who would be able to deposit $10M to the
S. P. account, that instance of you would choose for itself
to survive?



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Apr 16 03:44:38 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:44:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Greenhouse Power? (was A Grim Vision ...?)
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070415140859.03d87cc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <00be01c77fd9$e689f4a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Keith writes

> Think about how hot it gets inside a parked car in the summer 
> and you will get an idea of how hard it would be to seal up a 
> greenhouse.  You could also look up the power bills for cooling
> Biosphere II.

Why doesn't this furnish a productive energy source?  That is, the
temperature difference generated between such an enclosure and
the outside sounds as though it could be useful.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Apr 16 03:52:59 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:52:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Gets Expensive Treatments Under Socialism? (was
	Cryonics is the only option?)
References: <mailman.407.1176639237.601.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<46224617.6090302@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <00c601c77fdb$4e588d20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Ben writes

> There would doubtless be some kind of cost-benefit calculation involved, 
> to decide just who would get this treatment. Unless you're in America, 
> where, i assume, you die if you can't afford whatever life-saving 
> treatment you need (is this correct?).

But if money doesn't decide, who does, and how?  Is it assumed that
the "waiting list" works well enough where you live?  In the U.S.
there have been cases IIRC where famous baseball players have
gone to the head of the list;   and I cannot believe that people
who are less connected (like me) could possibly stand the same
chance as people who are well-connected (like powerful politicians).

Does this problem seem to come up in countries with even more
socialized medicine than we have in the U.S.?

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Apr 16 04:02:27 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:02:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Manifest Destiny for >H
References: <20070411184709.GF9439@leitl.org>
	<304768.82604.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30704130236qa725626rf52adc9f9c4e6890@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070413095805.GN9439@leitl.org>
	<001c01c77eb7$12595db0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704142218i10cfb7e1vf4be00d4ec14e11d@mail.gmail.com>
	<007001c77f81$69e2f9e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30704151835q5991d743y61da537b393eac1c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00c901c77fdc$bd4707b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> > Bacteria can be checked by clean rooms, aliens (like human empires)
> > might check each other over interstellar distances, and humans (as
> > individuals) are held in check by envy, law, and custom.
> 
> Right, but parrotting the argument for AI's taking over the world, some
> bacteria, aliens or humans, due to diversity, would be less subject to
> these checks, and they will come to predominate in the population,
> so that after multiple generations the most rapacious entity will eat
> everything else and ultimately make the universe synonymous with itself.

Well, this often happens!  99% of all species, or something like that, are
extinct.  But what is different, I say, between any precedent and what
may very well happen, is that extremely advanced intelligence here on 
Earth could have absolutely catastrophic effects on *all* other life forms.

> On the other hand, maybe there will be long, long periods of dynamic
> equilibrium, evn between competing species grossly mismatched in
> intelligence, such as humans and