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-0001.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-Rep