From amara at amara.com Sat Dec 1 02:41:54 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:41:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] abandon all services Message-ID: scerir: >that the present birth rate might be 'supported' >(possibly) by the population of immigrants. That immigrants thing again. I challenge you to spend time at the Roma Questura (on the outskirts of Rome) that processes the permessos for the extracommunitari. The queue begins at 4am. You can experience first-hand the result of the Bossi-Fini immigration law. Notice how the Questura uniformly treat the immigrants in the spectrum of people you see (business suits to field workers) as sub-humans. Those people just want to work, and they cannot. Don't be surprised if a few might be angry and engage in petty theft, but that's the minority. Most of extracommunitari who are not Australians or New Zealanders or Canadians or Americans or Russians or Chinese (i.e. those who either marry or leave) sell roses, beg to wash your windshields on street intersections, or sell purses, because that's all that they can do. They leave the in-fighting and bickering and backstabbing and distrust and larger-scale thefts to the home indigenous crowd. People like the clerks at Poste Italiane. They are Italians, not immigrants because immigrants can't get that kind of job. They are probably 40 years old, living at home, given that job by their uncle and unable to buy that ?1,40 liter of milk. They need a Christmas gift for their girlfriends, and guess what? In front of them are 22 brown padded envelopes from a person with a Dr. in front of her name, sending to herself from her address in Italy to an address in the United States. That means that she is probably rich if she is spending her holiday in the U.S., and because she doesn't have an Italian name, it's OK if they slash open 42% of the envelopes. What a disappointment that they only contain notebooks in English and with numbers and strange math symbols and doesn't include Rolex watches. Oh, but Italians don't do that. It's always 'them' and never 'us' who do any of those things. Right? The firewall at the research area of Tor Vergata is in the strange configuration that it is because the network is attacked by both people trying to break in, and spammers working on the inside of the network. Who do you think is spamming their co-workers, those gypsies selling roses? Why do you think your cousin doesn't permit any of his administered computers inside of the network to have passwords and only allows more secure methods to log in? Why do you think every researcher except the stranieri (who can't imagine that one needs to lock their door against their co-workers) locks their door when they go to lunch? Who do you think stole that van full of solar physics sensing equipment that left in broad daylight from CNR? Immigrants? No, those people were probably lost in the black hole of the Questura in a queue trying to get a permesso. Italians did that. Your us', not 'them'. Please spend some time to watch the large number of the researchers waste the meager resources because they don't know how to work with each other and help each other. Ethics be damned, what's most important is to have your status and if you trample on a few graduate students who haven't any salaries for the last year because the Italian Space Agency didn't pay yet the contracts that they signed three years ago, so what? Graduate students and post docs are expendable resources. Whatever happens to them, it doesn't matter, because their Italian families will pick up the pieces. There will be more to take their places when the young person, who couldn't take it, leaves the field. Then, instead of 300 science students at Rome University out of 50,000 there will be 299. The other 49,300 students (who are specializing in television media) will have fewer technical people to check their text. If the journalists cut out the words of one scientist and write that DNA was found in the dust of comet Wild 2 on every major newspaper and on three television networks, few will know the difference. The few scientists in the country, who do know the difference, won't say a word because they are only happy that science is on the front page. And when the director of the observatory, where the poor researcher tried to correct the journalist, posts the big news of DNA found in the dust of the comet as Official News of the Observatory**, then so what? Tax-funded Italian scientists can feed garbage to the scientifically illiterate public with no violation of ethics. It's normal to Italy, right? The only person who criticized the observatory director was, in fact, an immigrant, with a temporary contract, renewed only every year, desperately poor, with no resources and no Italian family to support her. So I sincerely hope that a population of immigrants 'supports' the Italian birth rate. There might be less graffiti on the historical archeological structures, less trash on the roads, people who are kinder to each other, trust each other more, and treat each other with more respect. I will miss very much my friends in Italy, now that I've moved, but they are unfortunately very much like me and unlike what I write above and too few in number living there. Amara P.S. Is it any wonder that more than 50% of the accomplished work of the Italian Transhumanists is done by Italians who don't live in the country? -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From scerir at libero.it Sat Dec 1 07:23:09 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:23:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Evolutiion is not random,... References: <200711252325.lAPNP6gr029125@andromeda.ziaspace.com><394130.83672.qm@web31304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001d01c833eb$070e06b0$76971f97@archimede> Robert Picone: [...] the "underlying process of evolution", which is neither inherently random nor inherently deterministic. That seems close to something Schrodinger wrote in his inaugural address to the Prussian Academy of Sciences (1929). Schrodinger firstly asserts: "Franz Exner (to whom I am personally indebted for his exceptionally great support) was the first who contemplated the possibility of an acausal conception of nature." See here something about Exner's indeterminism http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000624/00/FIRENZP4.doc Then he writes: "In my opinion this question [acausal concept of nature] does not involve a decision as to what the real character of a natural happening is, but rather as to whether the one or the other predisposition of mind be the more useful and convenient one with which to approach nature. [...]. We can hardly imagine any experimental facts which would finally decide whether Nature is absolutely determined or is partially indetermined. The most that can be decided is whether the one or the other concept leads to the simpler and clearer survey of all the observed facts." s. about the complexity of evolution .... http://www.virtualknowledgestudio.nl/staff/andrea-scharnhorst/heraeus.php From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sat Dec 1 07:41:58 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 02:41:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] abandon all services In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <377595.55567.qm@web30409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Amara, Based on my knowledge of the last few months of you're experience that you've stated, I've come to believe you have had a horrible experience, I'm sorry to hear that. I've never been to Italy. I can't assume to understand what it might have been like being a scientist in Italy as I can't even perceive what it's like to go to Italy as I haven't experienced it 8:) Should I visit? You've pretty much convinced me that it's not the greatest idea to try and develop Transhumanism ideas within the particular framework as it seems futile for a nation that has no technology that isn't working to achieve higher gains? Is this the cause? Just curious Anna Looking for a X-Mas gift? Everybody needs a Flickr Pro Account. http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From scerir at libero.it Sat Dec 1 11:04:15 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:04:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] abandon all services References: Message-ID: <001001c83409$ea34fbb0$f6961f97@archimede> Amara writes: That immigrants thing again. I challenge you to spend time at the Roma Questura (on the outskirts of Rome) that processes the permessos for the extracommunitari. The queue begins at 4am. [...] Please spend some time to watch the large number of the researchers waste the meager resources because they don't know how to work with each other and help each other. [...] So I sincerely hope that a population of immigrants 'supports' the Italian birth rate. There might be less graffiti on the historical archeological structures, less trash on the roads, people who are kinder to each other, trust each other more, and treat each other with more respect. # I can read about these things on papers. I can see these facts on the roads. Every day. Since long time. Sometimes I ask myself: do Italian artists represent this reality? I mean, 'present time' artists, not Dante and his 'Comedy'. I mean 'artists', not street-calligraphers. Well, I found nothing, personally. Nothing with the exception of two works of art. They are not new. But the artists created them exactly when the great kaos developed. ----- Renato Guttuso, 1974, 'Vuccir?a' (a market in Palermo, Sicily, 'Vucciria' means 'butchery', pron. voocceereeah) http://www.artinvest2000.com/vucciria.htm something more about the real place in Palermo http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/travel/20journeys.html ----- Federico Fellini, 1978, 'Prova d'Orchestra' (movie), http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/40/fellini.htm http://www.activitaly.it/immaginicinema/fellini/Prova_%20d_orchestra/fellini _prova_orchestra.htm In a Medieval Roman chapel, now an oratorio, an elderly factotum sets up for rehearsal. The musicians arrive, joking and teasing. A union shop steward explains that a TV crew is there, talking to them is optional, and there will be no extra compensation. Musicians talk about their instruments. The German conductor arrives and puts them through their paces. He yells, he insults. The shop steward calls a 20 minute break. The conductor retreats to his dressing room and talks about how the world of music has changed, moving away from respect for the conductor. He returns to the rehearsal to find the orchestra in full revolt. What can bring them back to the music? ----- s. "Painting is being inspired by what one sees, and thinks, be it a sunset, a tree, a pair of old shoes or a painting." -Renato Guttuso, 1966. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renato_Guttuso From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Dec 2 00:25:44 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:25:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Mailing list for the Transhumanist Technical Roadmap Message-ID: <200712011825.44507.kanzure@gmail.com> Hi all, http://heybryan.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hplusroadmap This is my announcement relaying that I have opened a mailing list for the discussion of the roadmap; I am inviting every able body to join and to contribute. I will be breaking down the roadmap into emailed sections to be discussed, reviewed, edited, allowing for the suggestion of new projects and at the same time making contacts with productive researchers to get things rolling, outlining additional plans, seeking out the necessary resources, and so on. I am starting to break up the roadmap into pursuable projects, opening up some FTP accounts for the placement of important documents, such as designs or relevant literature, etc. In the case of those projects involving (open source) software, there will be version control systems installed. Transhumanism, in its essence, is about self-transformation, this devotion to change and to creating more. Each of us is solely responsible for the transformative technologies. When I sat down months ago to start the roadmap, I was not expecting such immediate support, and so now I am taking the next natural step on the journey. I wish you all well and hope you will join me on the path. - Bryan From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 2 16:43:23 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:43:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on kqed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712021710.lB2HA64b019423@andromeda.ziaspace.com> There was a commentary on the Singularity Summit on National Public Radio this morning from about 0745 to 0800 on KQED. Does anyone have a transcript of the show, or a recording on YouTube? It was reasonably well done, in that the ideas were not treated as futuristic sci-fi but rather as just a little outside mainstream thinking. They spent a lot of time on irrelevant matter having nothing to do with AI, such as Gary Kasparov's contest with Deep Blue and battle bots, but this could be expected in any singularity story made for public consumption. spike From amara at amara.com Sun Dec 2 19:04:33 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:04:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] abandon all services Message-ID: Anna: After any large injury or injustice or abuse or theft, the person needs time to recover, and I had since late summer intended Boulder to be my strong recovery strategy from my previous years. It's better that you not ask a person who is still trying to pay or make up for the stolen things and needs time to recover (me) and instead ask your question of an Italian scientist who still has hope. The person I am thinking of is not afraid to write about many of the Italian insanities and he lives in the north, too, so what he can say is more balanced: Tommaso Dorigo: Quantum Diaries Survivor http://dorigo.wordpress.com/ Also, read Beppe Grillo, a political activist comedian (his humor is wry, you might not get it right away): http://www.beppegrillo.it/english.php I can't imagine most of the Transhumanist goals succeeding there with the present infrastructure. Should you visit? It depends on your goals. If I didn't have my friends and volcanoes still there, I would not consider stepping a foot there again, but I'm not very balanced in my opinion right now. And of course, of any place, visiting a place is different than living in that place. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Dec 2 19:39:04 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:39:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Books for the holidays? Message-ID: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> Hi all, Any scifi books that come highly recommended? Holiday season is here, and my time will free up for some intense reading, to which I say it's about time. I apologize in advance for the formatting in this email re: book titles. I do not think I will be doing it again. I recently finished reading Benford's _Tides of Light_ which was interesting because of the cyborg/podia creatures, though endlessly annoying because of the reduced English language that the main character spoke with. There were also embedded personality chips introduced in the story. (I also just finished _The Wild_). I have also been trying out some Cadigan, like _Mindplayers_ and _Synners_ as well as other cyberpunk like C. J. Cherryh and her _Cyteen_ (but got annoyed with the political backdrop). Carver's _Neptune Crossing_ and sequel _Strange Attractors_ are also in the input pile. I might have to do a rereading of _Diaspora_. All look interesting. At the moment I am finishing up Zindell's sf series that started with _Neverness_ and reading (half-way atm) _War in Heaven_. Other items in my stack include _Neuromancer_, _The Algebraist_, and _Hyperion_. What I am considering: _Gridlinked_ _The Line of Polity_ _Brass Man_ _Polity Agent_ all by Neil Asher _The Book of the New Sun_ which includes: ????????_The Shadow of the Torturer_ ????????_The Claw of the Conciliator_ ????????_The Sword of the Lictor_ ????????_The Citadel of the Autarch_ all by Gene Wolfe. _The Golden Age_ _The Phoenix Exultant_ _The Golden Transcendence_ all by John C. Wright And maybe it is time that I purchase a copy of _Accelerando_, _A Fire Upon the Deep_ and a paper back copy of _A Deepness in the Sky_. I have ordered: Greg Egan: _Schild's Ladder_ _Quarantine_ _Luminous_ _Permutation City_ _Brain Plague_ (Elysium Cycle) by Joan Slonczewski - Bryan From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 2 20:09:22 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:09:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Books for the holidays? In-Reply-To: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071202140615.023678d0@satx.rr.com> Well, um : The White Abacus Transcension The Hunger of Time* (maybe; it's a simplified singularity) Godplayers/K-Machines by... Damien Broderick *with Rory Barnes From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Dec 2 20:43:09 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:43:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Books for the holidays? In-Reply-To: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <32944.72.236.102.98.1196628189.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Just for fun, consider Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series: "The Golden Compass", "The Subtle Knife" and "The Amber Spyglass". They are young-adult and quick and pleasant. Plus a bit thought provoking. Not sure how extropian they are, but they do aim at "doing away with the finality of death"... although I'm not clear about the retention of consciousness! It seems implied but no description of how. Regards, MB > Hi all, > > Any scifi books that come highly recommended? Holiday season is here, > and my time will free up for some intense reading, to which I say it's > about time. > > I apologize in advance for the formatting in this email re: book titles. > I do not think I will be doing it again. > > I recently finished reading Benford's _Tides of Light_ which was > interesting because of the cyborg/podia creatures, though endlessly > annoying because of the reduced English language that the main > character spoke with. There were also embedded personality chips > introduced in the story. (I also just finished _The Wild_). I have also > been trying out some Cadigan, like _Mindplayers_ and _Synners_ as well > as other cyberpunk like C. J. Cherryh and her _Cyteen_ (but got annoyed > with the political backdrop). Carver's _Neptune Crossing_ and sequel > _Strange Attractors_ are also in the input pile. I might have to do a > rereading of _Diaspora_. All look interesting. At the moment I am > finishing up Zindell's sf series that started with _Neverness_ and > reading (half-way atm) _War in Heaven_. Other items in my stack include > _Neuromancer_, _The Algebraist_, and _Hyperion_. > > What I am considering: > > _Gridlinked_ > _The Line of Polity_ > _Brass Man_ > _Polity Agent_ > all by Neil Asher > > _The Book of the New Sun_ which includes: > _The Shadow of the Torturer_ > _The Claw of the Conciliator_ > _The Sword of the Lictor_ > _The Citadel of the Autarch_ > all by Gene Wolfe. > > _The Golden Age_ > _The Phoenix Exultant_ > _The Golden Transcendence_ > all by John C. Wright > > And maybe it is time that I purchase a copy of _Accelerando_, _A Fire > Upon the Deep_ and a paper back copy of _A Deepness in the Sky_. > > I have ordered: > > Greg Egan: > _Schild's Ladder_ > _Quarantine_ > _Luminous_ > _Permutation City_ > > _Brain Plague_ (Elysium Cycle) by Joan Slonczewski > > - Bryan > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From James.Hughes at trincoll.edu Sun Dec 2 20:55:50 2007 From: James.Hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:55:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Books for the holidays? In-Reply-To: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD280390637A800@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> > Any scifi books that come highly recommended? Richard Morgan's Thirteen is an extremely thoughtful, well-written and fast-paced novel that reflects on a variety of post-human types about one hundred years from now, and how human-racism might shape transhuman law and relations. Highly recommended. J. From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 2 21:09:22 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:09:22 +0000 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on kqed In-Reply-To: <200712021710.lB2HA64b019423@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712021710.lB2HA64b019423@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Dec 2, 2007 4:43 PM, spike wrote: > > There was a commentary on the Singularity Summit on National Public Radio > this morning from about 0745 to 0800 on KQED. Does anyone have a transcript > of the show, or a recording on YouTube? It was reasonably well done, in > that the ideas were not treated as futuristic sci-fi but rather as just a > little outside mainstream thinking. They spent a lot of time on irrelevant > matter having nothing to do with AI, such as Gary Kasparov's contest with > Deep Blue and battle bots, but this could be expected in any singularity > story made for public consumption. > J Hughes just posted a note to the WTA list. Sounds like it might be the show that you heard. ------------------------------ Hughes, James J. to WTA Rick Kleffel interviewed IEETers Jamais Cascio and James Hughes at the Singularity Summit in San Francisco back in September. The piece ran on NPR's Weekend edition this morning as "Artificial Intelligence Enters Brave New World." (MP3) ------------------- BillK From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 2 20:55:47 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:55:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary Message-ID: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> On Saturday, December 01, 2007 8:46 PM Dennis May dennislmay at yahoo.com wrote: It is my view that the Fermi Paradox as expressed in Fermi's question "Where is everybody?" actually consists of 3 separate questions: 1a. How old is the universe? 2a. How commonly [time and spatial density] do technological civilizations evolve, how long do they last, and how far do they and their signals/evidence spread before becoming extinct or indistinguishable from background noise. 3a. Why don't we have open evidence that any such civilizations that might exist within our range? The fact that we do not have unambiguous proof that any alien life exists comes down to two possibilities: 1b. Such life does not (yet) exist. 2b. We have not (yet) found it. If possibility 2 is the case there are two possibilities: 1c. There are no advanced alien civilizations (yet). 2c. We have not (yet) found them. If possibility 2 is the case we have four possibilities: 1d. The density is so small we will never find them before we go extinct. 2d. The density is small and they will be difficult to find. 3d. The density is not small but they will still be difficult to find. 4d. They are not that difficult to find - we have not given it enough time/correct effort and/or there has been successful interference with that effort. Some commentary first: Question 1a: The consensus of the moment is that the observable universe is 13.7 +/- 0.2 billions years old. I say consensus of the moment because during my life time the estimated Big Bang age has varied from less than 9 billion years to over 20 billions years from one time to another. That doesn't even count the time when there was an even division between supporters of a Steady State universe and the Big Bang. Even in the last year and a half there has been suggestions that brightness observations of standard candles can put the the Hubble constant off by as much as 15% [15.8 billion year old Big Bang] and lately [last couple weeks] the matter and dark matter numbers are estimated to be off as much as 10-20%. Not to mention the many other issues with the Big Bang hypothesis. The clustering of galaxies and voids puts a Plasma Theory universe age a minimum of 20X larger than a Big Bang universe age. I have my own competing theory with the universe being infinite in age. Depending on the results of question (2a) an old universe may or may not be that significant to the question of the Fermi Paradox. Question 2a: This question is the primary thrust of most of the current debate related to the Fermi Paradox. There are hundreds of variables and many interesting views as well as some very poorly conceived ideas. It would take another book like "Where is Everybody?" to comment on all the ideas The book is only five years old but some of the information is already out of date. Finally here is a summary of my views. There isn't a single answer to the Fermi Paradox but rather a combination of factors leading to no open evidence of alien civilizations. Rather than a single explanation we should be looking at a consistent set of views leading to a high probability of no observation. Due to the subject matter opinions vary widely - I would expect little agreement about such a list. Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary - Totaling 100% 1. Alien Military Strategy: Weight: 50% The more complex and advanced the civilization the less likely it is they will engage in risky behavior - or they will not last to become complex and advanced civilizations. We see evidence of this in the behavior of individuals who live long lives, we see it in the risky behavior of animals with large numbers and short lives versus those with longer lives and small numbers, and we see it in civilizations whose fate has turned on risky behavior. Though Star Trek makes for entertaining theater the idea of contacting [much less engaging in fist fights with] even one alien civilization is extremely high risk behavior - much less contacting new ones often. In the folklore of Star Trek they should have caused the annihilation of all Earth life many dozens or hundreds of times over. I see almost zero chance that an old advanced civilization would engage in such behavior or they would not be old and advanced - they would be extinct. It has been understood since at least the late 1980s' that advanced military communication and radar would resemble wide band white noise at low power levels and be burst/impulse rather continuous broadcasts. The book "Where is Everybody" has sources from 1994 and 1999 - but it was known elsewhere prior to that. Impulse black-body white noise is the communication method of advanced civilizations [or something even more stealth] - something we will not detect. Of course this solution has implications concerning the place of individuals in advanced civilizations having military concerns magnitudes in advance of our own. The New York Times giving away secrets to the enemy on the front page would hardly be tolerated - tolerance for such behavior is historically unprecedented - eventually it is suicidal. I don't believe hippie protesters or whiskey drunk teenage aliens are going to leak out information about their civilization or do a drive by as we expect would happen if we suddenly had warp-drive on Earth. Those civilization which do permit it exist for short times at high risk. Our human experience with civilizations indicates that contact with new civilizations is dangerous and sometimes fatal. This was true before advanced weapons and true within a single species. It is not clear what happened to several of our hominid cousins along the way but I'm sure two hominid species occupying a common area was a problem. It is clear that humans have had little tolerance for animals that preyed on humans for food. Alien species might have many things to offer but they might also cause death and destruction. Every contact could be a species fatal crap shoot. 2. Advanced Alien Civilizations are Rare: Weight: 25% Though I believe primitive life in the universe to be extremely common - increasing complexity requires stability and a favorable environment on timescales not likely to be found many places. Even when complex multi-cellular life evolves it is not obvious that much of it will evolve past the levels seen for a hundred million years on Earth. Even when human levels of intelligence are achieved we see human history did not produced a technological civilization for a very long time with some set backs lasting hundreds or thousands of years. In our recent past many events could have set humans back long periods of time - on the other hand there have been many lost opportunities where we could have advanced more quickly and been ahead of where we are now. In the world today vast numbers of people support primitivism which would set humanity back again if enacted. We are not in space in any significant way - with our level of technology we have only been in the game for a single human lifetime. Besides the environmental and biological challenges - the cultural challenges to becoming an advanced civilization likely means they are rare. 3. Recent Technological Civilizations Would be Rare and Hard to Find: 15% If any recent technological civilizations appears and are broadcasting it is unlikely we would receive their signal. If they are recent it is also unlikely they will be close or have visited. The power required is overwhelming unless you broadcast in a narrow frequency range in a pencil beam - steered in a single direction. Such broadcasts are extremely hard to find unless you know where to look - in both direction and frequency - and you have to hope it stays on target for some time to confirm its origin. With our current technology such signals would have to be purposeful and have to happen to be directed at us. The chances increase with greater receiving capabilities and more investment. We might get lucky but I place the chances at less than 1-2% of intercepting purposeful signals any time soon. Most alien civilizations will not engage in this behavior for long - nor will we. 4. Earthly Military Issues: 5% Given that the military controls [directly or indirectly] much of the high technology on Earth - from my experience I would expect that any evidence which can be controlled from entering the public domain will be prevented from doing so. There are opportunities for evidence to enter the public domain but there are many more opportunities for the military to intercept and/or discredit such public disclosures should they happen. Disinformation is a strong military tactic - to be used both for and against such evidence depending on the circumstance. It is not obvious that any proof that can be controlled will ever see the light of day. Advanced military groups divest themselves of their greatest advantage any time they let technical information slip out that could have military application. It is assumed that all alien information could have military implications. 5. Individuals Have the Evidence: 3% Some years ago I concluded that depending on the circumstances evidence of alien civilization might be best kept secret in private collections. Collectors of other objects of lesser value have made such conclusions in the past. Many items of value lay hidden in private collections - in several important cases that is all that preserved them from being lost forever [dispersal of the Vatican Library]. Public collections of anything important can become a political target at some point [Library at Alexandria]. 6. Already Publicly Have the Evidence and Don't Know it: 2% History is full of examples where the evidence of something is clear in hindsight. The evidence may already exist in multiple forms and simply not be understood in the proper context. In the future I suspect any long term successful technological human descendants will employ the Superstealth tactic [Stealth, Nomadic, Dispersed (SND)] in order to dull the effectiveness of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WoMD) in space. There is certainly no harm in listening for alien signals as long as it does not involve giving away the fact that you are listening. In a similar vein it is worth prospecting for evidence of lost alien civilizations - the ruins of which may be almost anywhere. There is no doubt we will look for life of any kind and fossils wherever we go. It is also important to look for what might be background residual evidence of technological processes. The Fermi Paradox is interesting to discuss - solutions require constant updating as technology, mathematical modeling, and the sciences evolve. Please feel free to pass this on to other groups or individuals who might be interested. Dennis May From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 2 21:34:52 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:34:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Books for the holidays? References: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00ca01c8352b$2d155de0$e7893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, December 02, 2007 2:39 PM Bryan Bishop kanzure at gmail.com wrote: > Any scifi books that come highly recommended? Two by Adolfo Bioy-Casares: _The Invention of Morel_ _A Plan for Escape_ Regards, Dan From emerson at singinst.org Sun Dec 2 21:35:54 2007 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:35:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Singularity Summit Story on NPR Weekend Edition, December 2nd, 2007 Message-ID: <632d2cda0712021335h485bf23n9aca4b8db37ca68f@mail.gmail.com> NPR Weekend Edition, December 2nd, 2007 Artificial Intelligence Enters Brave New World www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16816185 If you value this story, please use NPR's "Email this page" to share it. This will signal interest in the subject, and may increase the chance of more stories about the Singularity Institute. Stories on this subject are difficult to secure, so I would greatly appreciate your help changing this. Best, Tyler -- Tyler Emerson, Executive Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence P.O . Box 50182, Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA 650-353-6063 | emerson at singinst.org | singinst.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ka.aly at luxsci.net Sun Dec 2 22:52:34 2007 From: ka.aly at luxsci.net (Khaled Aly) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:52:34 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Computer Backups In-Reply-To: <20071130212030.GW4005@leitl.org> References: <795291.76223.qm@web31305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0711292039g26bf1336y962eaf96ff2545b@mail.gmail.com> <20071130135832.RZQX9427.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <580930c20711300723j4b872c9dldf162f96481de15d@mail.gmail.com> <20071130180116.BYL12162.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <4750765D.5050208@luxsci.net> <20071130212030.GW4005@leitl.org> Message-ID: <47533732.4060102@luxsci.net> Your point is absolutely right. I didn't read this comment precisely at first while. I don't use gmail services and haven't read the terms of use. But I could almost definitely assume this would violate. I didn't mean to sound suggestive, although my text would read so, but meant it is an existing practical option to the masses for a limited sub-gb storage. Be it porn or junk or real legitimate private/personal data, then illegitimately stored by unidentified parties. I do prefer client-based email, and I keep wondering why http mail has not yet made it over the basic proprietary html limitation to become optionally downloadable and locally manageable by a standard client. Do you think the internet may merit just a little more attention to regulatory issues at this time? Eugen Leitl wrote: > On another list this caused a (temporary?) account suspension due > to violation of terms of use. Since gmail now offers you both > POP3 and IMAP I suggest y'all use it, if you use for more than > a sacrificial porn stash. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 2 23:06:02 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:06:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Computer Backups In-Reply-To: <47533732.4060102@luxsci.net> References: <795291.76223.qm@web31305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0711292039g26bf1336y962eaf96ff2545b@mail.gmail.com> <20071130135832.RZQX9427.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <580930c20711300723j4b872c9dldf162f96481de15d@mail.gmail.com> <20071130180116.BYL12162.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <4750765D.5050208@luxsci.net> <20071130212030.GW4005@leitl.org> <47533732.4060102@luxsci.net> Message-ID: <580930c20712021506j2ca92cd9y7af9de8b147c39a4@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 2, 2007 11:52 PM, Khaled Aly wrote: > Your point is absolutely right. I didn't read this comment precisely at > first while. I don't use gmail services and haven't read the terms of use. > But I could almost definitely assume this would violate. > I have not checked either. Gspace is however a very public and official Firefox extension. See http://www.getgspace.com/. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sun Dec 2 23:02:16 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:02:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Books for the holidays? In-Reply-To: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <47533978.6000903@mydruthers.com> > as other cyberpunk like C. J. Cherryh and her _Cyteen_ (but got annoyed I'm a Cherryh fan, but like John Brunner, the quality varies widely. I'm nearly done with her "Rusalka", and I may not go on to the sequels. But I've liked practically everything in the Chanur universe. Which is not to say that any of it is "A" material; it's just good entertainment. > _Diaspora_ A real winner. I've found myself referring to the orphanogenesis scene several times over the last few months. http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/DIASPORA/01/Orphanogenesis.html Egan's other brilliant book is "Permutation City". The rest are fun to read, but not mind-changing. > _Neuromancer_, That was a real stunner when it came out. So much is derivative of it that it may not carry the same impact unless you can read it with a fresh mind. Some people can read old books and forget what came after, and some can't. > _Hyperion_ The first couple of books in this series were quite good, but it trailed off. > _The Book of the New Sun_ which includes: > _The Shadow of the Torturer_ > _The Claw of the Conciliator_ > _The Sword of the Lictor_ > _The Citadel of the Autarch_ > all by Gene Wolfe. Quintessential Wolfe. If you like writers who understand how to exercise the language, I strongly recommend this series. Wolfe has some other really good books and series, but this is my favorite. > _The Golden Age_ > _The Phoenix Exultant_ > _The Golden Transcendence_ > all by John C. Wright Counter-recommended if you ask me. > And maybe it is time that I purchase a copy of _Accelerando_, This was a lot of fun, as much for all the inside references as for the story. Stross really understands the future we're talking about and how quickly it will arrive. > _A Fire Upon the Deep_ and a paper back copy of _A Deepness in the Sky_. Vinge has written quite a few winners, and I thought this series was among them. Each book has a different set of contrasting races that explore what it means to be intelligent. Group minds, uplifted sessile "creatures", and on and on. The future tech will be less unbelievable just a short time after they were written, but that shows Vinge's clear vision, too. What a fun collection to look forward to! Chris -- C. J. Cherryh, "Invader", on why we visit very old buildings: "A sense of age, of profound truths. Respect for something hands made, that's stood through storms and wars and time. It persuades us that things we do may last and matter." Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From emerson at singinst.org Mon Dec 3 02:36:13 2007 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:36:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Your SIAI FAQ Suggestions? Message-ID: <632d2cda0712021836n2b88e123va5ba86ecc688f86@mail.gmail.com> What commonly-asked questions do you think the Singularity Institute should answer in a FAQ? Please send over your suggestions. Email me one, 10, or even 100, but make sure they're questions you think are common. Send suggestions to emerson at singinst.org. Drew Reynolds, creator of the valuable Accelerating Future Database (acceleratingfuture.com/people/), will oversee this project with SIAI team. No promises, but in addition to text, we hope to create FAQ-audio/video to share through blogs, Facebook, YouTube, etc. If one of your questions is used, we'll list you as a contributor and link to your blog/site (let us know if you want anonymity). Thanks! -- Tyler Emerson, Executive Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence P.O . Box 50182, Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA 650-353-6063 | emerson at singinst.org | singinst.org From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 03:36:47 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 22:36:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary In-Reply-To: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> References: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <62c14240712021936j17f6e0fdv81865259e79f65ed@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 2, 2007 3:55 PM, Technotranscendence wrote: > On Saturday, December 01, 2007 8:46 PM Dennis May dennislmay at yahoo.com > wrote: > It is my view that the Fermi Paradox as expressed in Fermi's question > "Where is everybody?" actually consists of 3 separate questions: > The Fermi Paradox is interesting to discuss - solutions require constant > updating as technology, mathematical modeling, and the sciences evolve. I recently made a comment on this (comment #2 "MikeD") http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001568.html#comments From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 03:47:27 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:47:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] PJ on future stuff on Fast Forward Radio Message-ID: <29666bf30712021947o42d885d0o38434983ab3b8748@mail.gmail.com> I know this is late notice, but... While I was up at the Foresight Unconference, I met Phil Bowermaster of "The Speculist" blog, who is interviewing me tonight at 8 pm on his Fast-Forward Radio podcast. My segment's from 8:15 - 8:45 pm. We'll start out talking about empathy and technology and see where it goes from there. I've never been interviewed before, so if anyone wants to hear me make newbie mistakes, or ask questions, now's your chance! :) http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001527.html PJ From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 3 05:44:09 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:44:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on kqed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712030610.lB36ApEt012683@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] singularity summit on kqed > > On Dec 2, 2007 4:43 PM, spike wrote: > > > > There was a commentary on the Singularity Summit on National Public > Radio > > this morning from about 0745 to 0800 on KQED. Does anyone have a > transcript > > of the show, or a recording on YouTube?... > > > J Hughes just posted a note to the WTA list. > Sounds like it might be the show that you heard. > > ------------------------------ > > Hughes, James J. to WTA > > > > (MP3) > > BillK Thanks BillK, ja that is it. After I reviewed it, I was disappointed in a few things. They didn't really give an adequate overview of the singularity notion, rather some vague descriptions of general AI, and didn't even mention Eliezer which seems cold being as the conference was organized by SIAI. spike From neptune at superlink.net Mon Dec 3 12:33:36 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:33:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary Message-ID: <006a01c835a8$ba3e92e0$9b893cd1@pavilion> Just passing this along from the Yahoo group, [How to build a Space Habitat] Regards, Dan On Sunday, December 02, 2007 11:33 PM Dennis May dennislmay at yahoo.com wrote: Big voids are easy to explain in theories other than the Big Bang. All you need is an old universe and the voids, walls, long filaments, and clusters are easy to understand. No reason to assume parallel universes or ETI engineering. Dennis From: "Mike Dougherty" msd001 at gmail.com To: "ExI chat list" extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 10:36 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary > On Dec 2, 2007 3:55 PM, Technotranscendence wrote: > > On Saturday, December 01, 2007 8:46 PM Dennis May dennislmay at yahoo.com > > wrote: > > It is my view that the Fermi Paradox as expressed in Fermi's question > > "Where is everybody?" actually consists of 3 separate questions: > > > The Fermi Paradox is interesting to discuss - solutions require constant > > updating as technology, mathematical modeling, and the sciences evolve. > > I recently made a comment on this (comment #2 "MikeD") > http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001568.html#comments > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 3 13:12:09 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:12:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Watson echo. In-Reply-To: <47533978.6000903@mydruthers.com> References: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> <47533978.6000903@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <1196687516_1283@S1.cableone.net> You might find this interesting. http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/ Not long ago I was at a conference of about 200 people. It was the kind of conference Extropians would be comfortable at. Inadvertently it comprised an example of what Watson got attacked for. One ethnic classification was considerably over represented compared to their numbers in the population and another classification was under represented, consisting of only a single individual. That's about what you would expect from a selection process that is blind on this axis, but highly discriminatory on another axis. Sorry to be vague about the conference and details. Keith PS. There is an addendum apologizing for referencing Philip Rushton. From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 3 15:41:54 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:41:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Watson echo. In-Reply-To: <1196687516_1283@S1.cableone.net> References: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> <47533978.6000903@mydruthers.com> <1196687516_1283@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1196696495_4268@S4.cableone.net> At 06:12 AM 12/3/2007, you wrote: >You might find this >interesting. >http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/ Correction. http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/ Keith From amara at amara.com Mon Dec 3 16:04:38 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:04:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary Message-ID: This old-ish conversation might interest people too: Further Away from the Lamppost http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/24/further-away-from-the-lamp-post Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 20:53:44 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:53:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Forbes: How to Spy on People Message-ID: <29666bf30712031253t52d6f78avc67f8cf3d2976853@mail.gmail.com> Forget about the government and wiretapping. I've heard about a lot of this, but a couple of these babies were new to me. After reading this article, I sincerely hope you are all in happy, deceit free relationships and that none of you are doing anything nefarious. Because if you aren't, you're in for a world full of hurt. PJ In Pictures: How They're Watching You: http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/11/21/privacy-surveillance-technology-oped-cx_res_1126privacy_slide.html Commentary How To Spy On People James D. Zirin 11.28.07, 6:00 AM ET http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/27/zirin-cyber-spying-oped-cx_jdz_1128zirin.html?partner=weekly_newsletter "No one cares more about the things you do than the person that used to be married to you," says Jacalyn F. Barnett, a New York matrimonial lawyer. Indeed, everyone knows that the government engages in pervasive surveillance of citizens in its prosecution of the war on terror. And, it has been widely reported that Google and Microsoft accumulate personal data on Internet users as well. But, the most pervasive form of electronic surveillance nowadays comes from people you know--your boss, your business competitor, someone on a journalist's beat, and even your spouse. In Pictures: How They're Watching You Want to zero in on someone anywhere on the planet? Just call GeoEye. GeoEye is the premier provider of geospatial imagery to its commercial customers to help them better map and monitor the world. GeoEye operates a constellation of Earth imaging satellites, mapping aircraft, an international network of ground stations and advanced imagery processing capabilities. And, if that's not revealing enough, GeoEye plans to launch its next-generation Earth imaging satellite, GeoEye1, in late first quarter or early second quarter 2008. GeoEye1 will be the world's highest resolution and most accurate commercial imaging satellite with a ground resolution of about 16 inches. Just think, one could punch up Angelina Jolie and see what she's doing anywhere in the world--with the camera lens only 16 inches away. On the other hand, if you don't care what your favorite movie star is doing geospatially, but are more curious about what your wife or business rival is doing on the Internet, you can bug her computer with a program known as "Pandora" available online for $49. Pandora will send to your computer a log of everything the target is doing. Yes, e-mails, Web site visits, draft letters--right down to the last keystroke. Pandora, named for the first woman in Greek mythology whose curiosity unleashed a multitude of sins, can be physically installed in the target's computer by one with access. It seems our entire culture is enmeshed in a thicket of electronic gadgets for bugging, visual surveillance and computer monitoring, which all but put the traditional private detective out of business. The president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers has said that there is electronic evidence in almost every case. "It has completely changed our field." No longer the need for the high-priced gumshoe to follow someone around. Too labor intensive. Just install surreptitiously in the target's car a GPS vehicle tracking system, available on the Internet for $700, and follow her travels on your computer screen while you stay at home with your other eye, perhaps, on a football game. Is your child's nanny up to no good while you are out on the town? Follow her movements about the house with a $600 motion activated digital video camera neatly concealed in a clock, a book or an air purifier. Is your employee consulting lawyers in preparation for a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against you? Tap into his litigation strategy and discover the strengths and weaknesses of the case by intercepting office e-mail communications with his attorney. All you need do is warn the employee of an e-mail policy in place that provides, among other things, that your computers are to be used for business purposes only; that employees have no personal right of privacy in the material they send or receive through your computer systems; and that you reserve the right to access and disclose material on your system. A Manhattan judge recently ruled such communications outside the attorney/client privilege since the employee was warned that his boss was "looking over his shoulder." And if you get into litigation, almost all private information, if relevant to the lawsuit, is fair game for subpoena. Banking, brokerage and credit card records may reveal the most sensitive financial information. E-Z Pass bills may disclose clandestine journeys or secret meetings. Telephone records may tell a tale of who you know, who you talk to, how frequently and how long. If you think your life is an open book, you're right. Eavesdropping is dangerous and may even be criminal. Bernard Kerik, former New York City police commissioner under Rudy Giuliani, and Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro raised eyebrows recently over reports that he allegedly assisted her in bugging her estranged husband's boat. Hewlett Packard chairwoman Patricia Dunn was indicted after she allegedly ordered intrusive spying on board members and journalists in a hunt for who was leaking business secrets to the press. The charges against her were later dropped in the "interests of justice." The private detective involved pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges. The company settled the civil suits for a reported $14.5 million. In most states and in the federal system, anti-eavesdropping laws largely prohibit interception type surveillance such as wiretapping. There have been few reported convictions. However, federal law, as well as New York law, generally allows recording of a conversation if one of the parties to the conversation consents. Such a recording is not deemed an interception. The recording, if relevant, would probably be admissible in evidence. In California, however, such one-party recordings are deemed inadmissible. Meanwhile, the "great game" continues in cyberspace. And the names aren't changed to protect the innocent. In Pictures: How They're Watching You James D. Zirin is a trial lawyer in New York and co-host of the program Digital Age. From jonkc at att.net Mon Dec 3 21:40:02 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:40:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary References: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <018301c835f5$27694850$95074e0c@MyComputer> I can only see two solutions to the Fermi Paradox: 1)We are the first. 2) There is a fundamental limit on what intelligence can achieve, possibly due to war but probably because of the danger of having too much control over ones mind and entering into a positive feedback loop; in other words, electronic drug addiction. John K Clark From randall at randallsquared.com Mon Dec 3 21:41:31 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:41:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Forbes: How to Spy on People In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712031253t52d6f78avc67f8cf3d2976853@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30712031253t52d6f78avc67f8cf3d2976853@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0FC182E5-A11B-4393-9BDE-17C0F1F7EEE4@randallsquared.com> On Dec 3, 2007, at 3:53 PM, PJ Manney wrote: > > Commentary > How To Spy On People > James D. Zirin 11.28.07, 6:00 AM ET > http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/27/zirin-cyber-spying-oped- > cx_jdz_1128zirin.html?partner=weekly_newsletter [snip] > And, if that's not revealing enough, GeoEye plans to launch its > next-generation Earth imaging satellite, GeoEye1, in late first > quarter or early second quarter 2008. GeoEye1 will be the world's > highest resolution and most accurate commercial imaging satellite with > a ground resolution of about 16 inches. Just think, one could punch up > Angelina Jolie and see what she's doing anywhere in the world--with > the camera lens only 16 inches away. Hah. That's not what that means, of course. Resolution is a measure of the smallest single thing that can be seen. When I see an article that gets such a basic fact wrong, I wonder about the rest of it, too. :) -- Randall Randall "If I can do it in Alabama, then I'm fairly certain you can get away with it anywhere." -- Dresden Codak From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 23:17:21 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 17:17:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary In-Reply-To: <006a01c835a8$ba3e92e0$9b893cd1@pavilion> References: <006a01c835a8$ba3e92e0$9b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200712031717.21514.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 03 December 2007, Technotranscendence wrote: > Just passing this along from the Yahoo group, [How to build a Space > Habitat] What group in particular? I can't seem to find that one. - Bryan From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 23:43:36 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:43:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary In-Reply-To: <018301c835f5$27694850$95074e0c@MyComputer> References: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> <018301c835f5$27694850$95074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <62c14240712031543g480ed760mc0fed7b87119472f@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 3, 2007 4:40 PM, John K Clark wrote: > I can only see two solutions to the Fermi Paradox: > > 1)We are the first. > > 2) There is a fundamental limit on what intelligence can achieve, possibly > due to war but probably because of the danger of having too much control > over ones mind and entering into a positive feedback loop; > in other words, electronic drug addiction. How about: each preceeding intelligence so completely consumes the resources of the universe that the environment that remains is devoid of their signature, we eventually rise up from their unusable leftovers with some clever new mode of being and wonder why nobody is around. If we were close enough to have detected them, we would have been swept along in their Singularity wave with them. I guess this is a special condition of your scenario 1 - we are the first in the current petri dish we identify as our local space-time. I don't remember the exact quote, the idea is that Life seems pretty scarce in the whole of the universe, but where it exists on Earth it flourishes completely. (try keeping your lawn free of weeds and bugs for example) Is Life a meta-definition of a particular kind of pattern, with various seemingly unrelated instances or strains? It would help with the Fermi paradox question if "Life" or "Intelligence" were more rigorously defined, no? From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 4 05:08:43 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:08:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] "Psychological Considerations" Message-ID: <007601c83633$c8f54b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> In the favorite novel of my youth, Van Vogt's "The Mixed Men", at one point while debating strategy one character turns to another and says, "Yes, but have you considered the psychological aspects?" This detachment of such concerns from the ordinary or bottom level part of a strategy always struck me (since I've been an adult, anyway) as an interesting reflection on how much the characters---and presumably Van Vogt himself---thought that this kind of "psychology" could be abstractly formalized, and that there would be a definite planning phase in which such aspects would be addressed. Now I wonder about whether for "psychological reasons" it was a good idea to publicize cryonics in the pre-Matrix era, using my 20-30 hindsight. I suggest that just as we may view the period since 1953 as the "post-mechanical era" because it was the watershed of folks coming to see that life is mechanical, so 1998 may go down as the "post-Matrix" era because that was when Hollywood correctly gambled that its audiences were ready for virtual reality and its attendant presuppositions. It's quite conceivable to me that the great minds of coming eras might evaluate the pre-Matrix era as one in which the introduction of the cryonics meme did more harm than good. "It actually generated more antagonism of a long lasting nature than would have arisen had the cryonics meme-workers waited until 1998 when society was ready", could be one of their conclusions. On another topic, it may be that "psychological considerations" should have also dictated that intelligence estimates of Iran's bomb-making progress be suppressed at the current time, rather than publicized. For it's quite possible, especially now that we appreciate how important to Saddam Hussein had been the Middle-Eastern perception that he had or was close to having a bomb, that Iran has suffered a loss of face now not easily appreciated in the West. Now, indeed, (if the report is accurate) Iran may have to sigh and begin trying to impress their neighbors in earnest. Usually I give Western governments the benefit of doubt (many people here complain that too many of us systematically give western governments too much such benefit!) when it comes to calculating "psychological considerations". I often suppose that deep in the State Department or the Pentagon, very shrewd minds try to calculate---who knows, even abstractly!?---the the likely "psychological" reactions of other nations' leaders and the societies of other nations. Upp! Keep that mouse from hitting Reply, just a bit longer! Naturally, the results of such strategical rumination do not seem, to put it mildly, to be very much in evidence, at least not successfully so, but who knows, perhaps that's just a reflection on its immense difficulty. I mean, that *could* be the case. Lee From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 06:09:17 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:39:17 +1030 Subject: [ExI] from the other side In-Reply-To: <580930c20711300712i29fad7fare27407238745bfa6@mail.gmail.com> References: <795291.76223.qm@web31305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0711292039g26bf1336y962eaf96ff2545b@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20711300511y2984054bv281a7a261ea91b64@mail.gmail.com> <20071130134011.GL4005@leitl.org> <580930c20711300712i29fad7fare27407238745bfa6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0712032209q337c1d8ie049afbcb856a0f2@mail.gmail.com> On 01/12/2007, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Nov 30, 2007 2:40 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 02:11:38PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > > *Windows* PC?!! :-( > > > > You can simply use a WebDAV share (works also over SSL), > > which is supported by any system known to man. > > Thank you, even though my admittedly cryptical remark was intended to > express scandal at the fact that somebody amongst us is a Windows > user... :-) > > Stefano Vaj > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Guilty as charged. And, in fact, it's Vista. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 4 07:48:43 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:48:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary In-Reply-To: <018301c835f5$27694850$95074e0c@MyComputer> References: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> <018301c835f5$27694850$95074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20071204074843.GA4005@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 04:40:02PM -0500, John K Clark wrote: > I can only see two solutions to the Fermi Paradox: > > 1)We are the first. Yes, that's the most likely explanation by far. > 2) There is a fundamental limit on what intelligence can achieve, possibly Don't think so -- even suited monkeys and habitats are very observable, if given enough time. > due to war but probably because of the danger of having too much control > over ones mind and entering into a positive feedback loop; > in other words, electronic drug addiction. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 Tue Dec 4 08:03:31 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:03:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] from the other side In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0712032209q337c1d8ie049afbcb856a0f2@mail.gmail.com> References: <795291.76223.qm@web31305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0711292039g26bf1336y962eaf96ff2545b@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20711300511y2984054bv281a7a261ea91b64@mail.gmail.com> <20071130134011.GL4005@leitl.org> <580930c20711300712i29fad7fare27407238745bfa6@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0712032209q337c1d8ie049afbcb856a0f2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071204080331.GB4005@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:39:17PM +1030, Emlyn wrote: > Guilty as charged. And, in fact, it's Vista. How else are we supposed to get government malware, but through packet injection into unsigned system updates? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 09:26:27 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:56:27 +1030 Subject: [ExI] from the other side In-Reply-To: <20071204080331.GB4005@leitl.org> References: <795291.76223.qm@web31305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0711292039g26bf1336y962eaf96ff2545b@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20711300511y2984054bv281a7a261ea91b64@mail.gmail.com> <20071130134011.GL4005@leitl.org> <580930c20711300712i29fad7fare27407238745bfa6@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0712032209q337c1d8ie049afbcb856a0f2@mail.gmail.com> <20071204080331.GB4005@leitl.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc0712040126m60f9b5b4y3b2c27ad0a26be48@mail.gmail.com> On 04/12/2007, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:39:17PM +1030, Emlyn wrote: > > > Guilty as charged. And, in fact, it's Vista. > > How else are we supposed to get government malware, but through > packet injection into unsigned system updates? > With Vista, the OS/malware distinction is kinda blurry... -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 23:01:20 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:01:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary In-Reply-To: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> References: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <7641ddc60712031501v62439263o4871c0e970e50cc9@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 2, 2007 3:55 PM, Technotranscendence quoted: > > 1. Alien Military Strategy: Weight: 50% > > Our human experience with civilizations indicates that contact with new > civilizations is dangerous and sometimes fatal. ### Nah - for every fatality in an inter-civilization conflict there is a survivor as well (hard to imagine that all, or even a fraction of conflicts would result in bilateral destruction of participants). For every loser there is a winner, and a tough one, too. If we are going to meet aliens they are likely to be the winners, and especially winners with a long track history of winning. Those that are most likely to be seen will be probably expansionist, like Robin Hanson's maximum speed expanders, evolved to expand as quickly as possible....and not cower in one star system waiting to be surrounded. Rafal From seienchan at gmail.com Sun Dec 2 21:10:42 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:10:42 +0000 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Books for the holidays? In-Reply-To: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD280390637A800@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> References: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD280390637A800@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Message-ID: <7d6322030712021310y13ec53a4q4e408dd786ae87e9@mail.gmail.com> >Just for fun, consider Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series: "The Golden Compass", "The Subtle Knife" and "The Amber Spyglass". They are young-adult and quick and pleasant. Plus a bit thought provoking. Not sure how extropian they are, but they do aim at "doing away with the finality of death"... although I'm not clear >about the retention of consciousness! It seems implied but no description of how. In Britain, the first book is called "The Northern Lights". :) I'd argue that HDM are worthy less because they deal precisely with the Transhumanist aims, but more because in their entirety they promote rational and dynamic thought. They're honestly just very excellent books that promote very excellent ideas, executed skillfully. Also, I believe a lot of the many worlds concept in the second book was at least in part inspired by David Deutsch's work on Quantum Mechanics (everett's interpretation, anybody?), which can only be a good thing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Mon Dec 3 15:39:30 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:39:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is Evolution Random? Message-ID: <8CA03D9D463BACA-B00-2569@WEBMAIL-MB16.sysops.aol.com> ""Funda-Mentality" Is the Conscious Mind Subtly Linked to a Basic Level of the Universe? Age-old battle lines over the puzzling nature of mental experience are shaping a modern resurgence in the study of consciousness. On one side are the long-dominant "physicalists" (reductionists, materialists, functionalists, computationalists. . ) who see consciousness as an emergent property of the brain's neural networks ("brain = mind = computer"). On the alternative, rebellious side are those who see a necessary added ingredient: proto-conscious experience intrinsic to reality, perhaps understandable through modern physics (panpsychists, pan-experientialists, "funda-mentalists"). It is argued here that the physicalist premise alone is unable to solve completely the difficult issues of consciousness (e.g. experience, binding, pre-conscious conscious transition, non-computability and free will) and that to do so will require supplemental panpsychist/pan-experiential philosophy expressed in modern physics. In one such scheme proto-conscious experience is a basic property of physical reality accessible to a quantum process associated with brain activity. The proposed process is Roger Penrose's objective reduction (OR), a self-organizing "collapse" of the quantum wave function related to instability at the most basic level of spacetime geometry. In the Penrose-Hameroff model of "orchestrated objective reduction" ("Orch OR"), OR quantum computation occurs in cytoskeletal microtubules within the brain's neurons and links cognition with proto-conscious experience and Platonic values embedded in spacetime geometry. The basic idea is that consciousness involves brain activities coupled to self-organizing ripples in fundamental reality." __________________ Hi, I have no problem about the conscious mind {experience of consciousness/awareness} as a self-organizing form of energy involved in our four dimentional universe including time, a linear one directional movement from unawarenees to awareness. First there is unawareness before the so called singularity/big bang, then there is awareness in time/entropy expands. Now our universe's expansion is slowing down due to gravity/attraction between masses of matter but gravity has no effect in the atomic and molecular interactions within each brain matter. The basic energy interactions between atoms and molecules depends on the negative and positive ions which are both deterministic and random. Can our brain act both as organic and inorganic computer simulated mind alternating as conscious and unconscious processes? ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003 From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 2 22:28:04 2007 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 22:28:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] books for the holidays In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <436506.43397.qm@web27013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The Greg Egan choices you made are excellent choices for thinking about transhumanity and posthumanity. I would also recommend Ken McLeod's books "The Cassini Division" and "the Stone Canal". The Cassini Division is about a war between post-civilisation humans without digital technology (their computers are all micromechanical "babbages") and the posthumans who've uploaded themselves and now live inside Jupiter. Ken McLeod's other books (apart from the "engines of light" trilogy) deal with a future vision where civilisation breaks apart, leading to a sort of post-civilised state. While not strictly transhuman, it's thought-provoking about the future state of humanity. ___________________________________________________________ Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 2 22:38:00 2007 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 22:38:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Petitioning the British Prime Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <88933.46422.qm@web27011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hi folks, I decided to try and embrace the new world of digital democracy and set up an e-petition. In Britain, the latest gimmick from our government is the "petition the Prime minister" website, where if you can get a couple of hundred british citizens or residents to sign their name to an e-petition, you will get an official response from a government spokesperson. As Britain has a sixty-year history of heavily socialised medicine, and one of the big moral issues facing transhumanism is around access to future genetic technologies, I decided to grab the bull by the horns and set up a petition demanding that Britain's healthcare service provides equal access to genetic treatments eg for parkinsons and for future babies, when such technologies are proved safe. You can see the wording on the following link: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/geneticequality/ Now, as you can see my current attempts to advertise the petition have failed dismally. I've tried a couple of general science forums, and no-one's paid any attention. Can you think of good places for me to get the message out to the good people of Britain? At heart, even if all I get is the official government response "the healthcare budget won't stretch that far" or "we don't include details of technologies more than five years in the future in government planning", I'll be happy just to have the response. Thanks for reading, Tom ___________________________________________________________ Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ From Claus.Bornich at autocue.co.uk Tue Dec 4 10:05:04 2007 From: Claus.Bornich at autocue.co.uk (Claus Bornich) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:05:04 -0000 Subject: [ExI] Books for the holidays? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just came back from a long weekend to Paris, where I read Permutation City between conferences, exploring and cr?pes. A very good read, truly an epic story in what seems to be the Greg Egan style, vast in time, space and concept. Written some three years earlier than Diaspora it was not quite as mind-bendingly breathtaking, but still light years ahead of much of the sf penned into existence. Reading Greg Egan is inspiring, but as much as I'd like to I'll not go into detail, lest I diminish the delight of discovery. Which one should I read next? As for Vernor Vinge I would recommend reading A Deepness in the Sky first, the prequel to A Fire Upon the Deep. And don't forget The Peace War if you haven't already read it and if you enjoyed that, possibly Marooned in Realtime. Currently, I'm re-reading Accelerando. When originally published as novellas in Asimov's it was perfectly in sync with my unfolding understanding of such wonderful ideas as transhumanism, extropy, the singularity, open source and daily scouring of slashdot for the latest techno news. Funny and densely packed with ideas, rocketing you straight into a weird and wonderful singularity. It permanently imprinted the name Charles Stross in my memory, and I've since read Toast, Singularity Sky and can't wait to explore Iron Sunrise and Glasshouse. Never did read the last three parts of Accelerando, so I'm hoping it ends with the same energy and vision it started out with. Got most of the books you mention lined up on my bookshelf and I'd strongly recommend the Golden Age too. I've yet to read the Golden Transcendence though, maybe this x-mas... I don't think it matters if His Dark Materials is extropian or not, it's such a nice and intelligent trilogy. Perfect for x-mas, both for your own pleasure and wrapped up for young and old minds alike. Never heard of Thirteen by Richard Morgan, so I'll add that to my list and I'll be watching for more tips showing up in this thread (I'm reading the digest version so I might be a bit out of sync). Happy Holiday Reading Claus From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 10:38:54 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:38:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Books for the holidays? In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712021310y13ec53a4q4e408dd786ae87e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD280390637A800@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> <7d6322030712021310y13ec53a4q4e408dd786ae87e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712040238l34b21714vdf191e181f30b20f@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 2, 2007 10:10 PM, Seien wrote: > In Britain, the first book is called "The Northern Lights". :) > Should we assume that it is also translated in British English? :-) Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 10:46:41 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:46:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Books for the holidays? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <580930c20712040246w794f6aeev2a66dcd41f946f43@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 4, 2007 11:05 AM, Claus Bornich wrote: > > Just came back from a long weekend to Paris, where I read Permutation City > between conferences, exploring and cr?pes. A very good read, truly an epic > story in what seems to be the Greg Egan style, vast in time, space and > concept. Written some three years earlier than Diaspora it was not quite as > mind-bendingly breathtaking, but still light years ahead of much of the sf > penned into existence. > I must say that Egan is IMHO the H+ SF writer by definition. Not always much ideology in his works, and some science is of course quite distorted or simplified or invented for fictional purposed, but the scenarios include almost everything which has been pondered by the average transhumanist in recent years, and more. See also Luminous, Quarantine and above all the most radically posthuman story, Schild's Ladder. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 10:48:21 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:48:21 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary In-Reply-To: <018301c835f5$27694850$95074e0c@MyComputer> References: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> <018301c835f5$27694850$95074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 04/12/2007, John K Clark wrote: > 2) There is a fundamental limit on what intelligence can achieve, possibly > due to war but probably because of the danger of having too much control > over ones mind and entering into a positive feedback loop; > in other words, electronic drug addiction. If anything, drug addiction occurs in our culture due to having too little control over one's mind. Some drug addicts wish they had never been tempted to use the drug in the first place, and most drug addicts wish they could easily switch off their addiction, or that there was something else they could do that was as least as enjoyable as the drug but more productive. If they had complete control over their minds, it would be a simple matter to arrange for these things to be the case. If you thought that the denial of all pleasures was important, you could simply make yourself content to deny yourself all pleasures. This would involve making pleasure-denial more pleasant than the anticipation of pleasure indulgence. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 11:03:37 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:03:37 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Petitioning the British Prime Minister In-Reply-To: <88933.46422.qm@web27011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <88933.46422.qm@web27011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 03/12/2007, Tom Nowell wrote: > As Britain has a sixty-year history of heavily > socialised medicine, and one of the big moral issues > facing transhumanism is around access to future > genetic technologies, I decided to grab the bull by > the horns and set up a petition demanding that > Britain's healthcare service provides equal access to > genetic treatments eg for parkinsons and for future > babies, when such technologies are proved safe. Why do you assume that the healthcare system won't use such technologies? History suggests that every medical technology that works eventually is used. Very expensive treatments are sometimes justified on political grounds, but more often they are justified on the grounds that they will decrease overall expenditure by, for example, reducing costs associated with hospitalisation of the chronically ill. (Killing the chronically ill would be cheaper still, but fortunately that's politically unacceptable, even for the worst dictatorships). -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 11:03:37 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:03:37 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Petitioning the British Prime Minister In-Reply-To: <88933.46422.qm@web27011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <88933.46422.qm@web27011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 03/12/2007, Tom Nowell wrote: > As Britain has a sixty-year history of heavily > socialised medicine, and one of the big moral issues > facing transhumanism is around access to future > genetic technologies, I decided to grab the bull by > the horns and set up a petition demanding that > Britain's healthcare service provides equal access to > genetic treatments eg for parkinsons and for future > babies, when such technologies are proved safe. Why do you assume that the healthcare system won't use such technologies? History suggests that every medical technology that works eventually is used. Very expensive treatments are sometimes justified on political grounds, but more often they are justified on the grounds that they will decrease overall expenditure by, for example, reducing costs associated with hospitalisation of the chronically ill. (Killing the chronically ill would be cheaper still, but fortunately that's politically unacceptable, even for the worst dictatorships). -- Stathis Papaioannou From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 12:16:58 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:16:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is Evolution Random? In-Reply-To: <8CA03D9D463BACA-B00-2569@WEBMAIL-MB16.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA03D9D463BACA-B00-2569@WEBMAIL-MB16.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200712040616.58892.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 03 December 2007, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > The basic energy interactions between atoms and molecules depends on > the negative and positive ions which are both deterministic and > random. Not entirely random, see statistical mechanics. - Bryan From george at betterhumans.com Tue Dec 4 15:48:21 2007 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:48:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Peter Houghton, world's first permanent artificial heart patient, has died Message-ID: Sad news: Our friend Peter Houghton has died at the age of 68. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i93XoFH-SXFJ_KVjEJRF8zWqF0Gw From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Dec 4 16:17:33 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:17:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Books for the holidays? In-Reply-To: <580930c20712040238l34b21714vdf191e181f30b20f@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD280390637A800@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> <7d6322030712021310y13ec53a4q4e408dd786ae87e9@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712040238l34b21714vdf191e181f30b20f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <33325.72.236.103.45.1196785053.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > On Dec 2, 2007 10:10 PM, Seien wrote: > >> In Britain, the first book is called "The Northern Lights". :) >> > > Should we assume that it is also translated in British English? :-) > IIUC, the author *is* British. :) Regards, MB From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 4 16:01:49 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:01:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary In-Reply-To: References: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> <018301c835f5$27694850$95074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <1196784090_2656@S3.cableone.net> At 03:48 AM 12/4/2007, you wrote: >On 04/12/2007, John K Clark wrote: > > > 2) There is a fundamental limit on what intelligence can achieve, possibly > > due to war but probably because of the danger of having too much control > > over ones mind and entering into a positive feedback loop; > > in other words, electronic drug addiction. It's more subtile than just drug-like addiction. Consider Second Life. >If anything, drug addiction occurs in our culture due to having too >little control over one's mind. Some drug addicts wish they had never >been tempted to use the drug in the first place, and most drug addicts >wish they could easily switch off their addiction, or that there was >something else they could do that was as least as enjoyable as the >drug but more productive. If they had complete control over their >minds, it would be a simple matter to arrange for these things to be >the case. If you thought that the denial of all pleasures was >important, you could simply make yourself content to deny yourself all >pleasures. This would involve making pleasure-denial more pleasant >than the anticipation of pleasure indulgence. If you put sex drugs cults in Google and take the first link, you can see what I wrote about the origin of drug addiction some 5 years ago. Be glad to discuss it in depth. Keith From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 4 16:55:12 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:55:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox - Weighted Summary In-Reply-To: <1196784090_2656@S3.cableone.net> References: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> <018301c835f5$27694850$95074e0c@MyComputer> <1196784090_2656@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <20071204165512.GR4005@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:01:49AM -0700, hkhenson wrote: > It's more subtile than just drug-like addiction. Consider Second Life. Computation takes atoms and Joules. Evolution favors self-replicating systems. If anything, circumstellar server clouds are much more visible than planetary surface-contaminating biofilm. P.S. 6DOF now works in SL, albeit with a hack: http://www.google.com/search?q=spacenavigator+second+life -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 4 17:48:49 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:48:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary Message-ID: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> i apologize in advance for my non-blackberry internet cell phone connection which does not format well here. why must we think that intelligent alien races would either self -destruct from civil war or if not that, give up expansionism to become virtual lotus eaters? Lol The great powers out there may frown on macro-engineering projects as being a scar on the natural beauty of the universe and that is why we don't see it. Or they may have technology so advanced that they simply do not need dyson sphere sized solar collectors, etc.. Perhaps they have gone post-singularity and have bored into other planes of existance so young races like ours have room to develop. They may be cosmic ecologists at heart. I believe intelligent alien life is out there and may even be aware of us and have our location marked down on their maps as being off limits for now. Humanity may be voracious in its appetite to devour and reshape nature but that may not be the case out there. I suspect for ages to come sentients will find it amusing that we dared to think humanity could be alone in such a vast universe. John grigg ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ From seienchan at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 02:59:43 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:59:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> On 04/12/2007, John wrote: > > i apologize in advance for my non-blackberry internet cell phone > connection which does not format well here. why must we think that > intelligent alien races would either self -destruct from civil war or if not > that, give up expansionism to become virtual lotus eaters? Lol The great > powers out there may frown on macro-engineering projects as being a scar on > the natural beauty of the universe and that is why we don't see it. Or they > may have technology so advanced that they simply do not need dyson sphere > sized solar collectors, etc.. Perhaps they have gone post-singularity and > have bored into other planes of existance so young races like ours have room > to develop. They may be cosmic ecologists at heart. I believe intelligent > alien life is out there and may even be aware of us and have our location > marked down on their maps as being off limits for now. Humanity may be > voracious in its appetite to devour and reshape nature but that may not be > the > case out there. I suspect for ages to come sentients will find it amusing > that we dared to think humanity could be alone in such a vast > universe. John grigg What is your reason for believing this? All I see is a typical vein of anti-human insinuations running through an otherwise entirely speculative assertion. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Wed Dec 5 02:32:42 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:32:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Robert Bussard Message-ID: <200712050232.lB52WPj61257@unreasonable.com> Robert Bussard died October 6. -- David. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Dec 5 06:21:37 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:21:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Foregoing Pleasure References: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion><018301c835f5$27694850$95074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <00f701c83707$4abd5540$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > If anything, drug addiction occurs in our culture due to having too > little control over one's mind. Some drug addicts wish they had never > been tempted to use the drug in the first place, Hmm, but some are all right with it---or is it that they just don't fantasize? Some have no regrets at all? > and most drug addicts > wish they could easily switch off their addiction, or that there was > something else they could do that was as least as enjoyable as the > drug but more productive. If they had complete control over their > minds, it would be a simple matter to arrange for these things to be > the case. Yes. > If you thought that the denial of all pleasures was > important, you could simply make yourself content to deny yourself all > pleasures. Yes. > This would involve making pleasure-denial more pleasant > than the anticipation of pleasure indulgence. That sounds distinctly odd. When I deny myself the possibility of pigging out on a large bag of junk food, I would not call my resultant state more "pleasant". I just sigh and reconcile myself to having foregone a certain pleasure. Also, experiencing fear of consequences, which keeps, say, some men from immediately raping any nearby female, also does not seem to qualify for "pleasant" in any way. Lee From seienchan at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 09:23:50 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:23:50 +0000 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Books for the holidays? In-Reply-To: <33325.72.236.103.45.1196785053.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <200712021339.04840.kanzure@gmail.com> <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD280390637A800@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> <7d6322030712021310y13ec53a4q4e408dd786ae87e9@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712040238l34b21714vdf191e181f30b20f@mail.gmail.com> <33325.72.236.103.45.1196785053.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <7d6322030712050123x60405fbx337d8996e66953a4@mail.gmail.com> > > > Should we assume that it is also translated in British English? :-) > > > > IIUC, the author *is* British. :) yeah, Philip Pullman lives in Oxford. Also, of course, books by Neal Stephenson. Snow Crash in my opinion was by far the best, but he also wrote The Diamond Age and Cryptonomicon. Very Transhumanist, anarcho-capitalistic books. Snow Crash is wonderfully anti-religious. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 11:28:46 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:28:46 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Foregoing Pleasure In-Reply-To: <00f701c83707$4abd5540$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002601c83525$b77ddbc0$e7893cd1@pavilion> <018301c835f5$27694850$95074e0c@MyComputer> <00f701c83707$4abd5540$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 05/12/2007, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > > > If anything, drug addiction occurs in our culture due to having too > > little control over one's mind. Some drug addicts wish they had never > > been tempted to use the drug in the first place, > > Hmm, but some are all right with it---or is it that they just > don't fantasize? Some have no regrets at all? They mostly wish that they could enjoy their drug without the associated problems: that the drug was cheaper and not illegal, that it didn't impair their work performance, that their family weren't so upset about their drug use, and so on. If that isn't possible, they wish that they could limit their drug use, and if that isn't possible either, they might wish they had never used the drug in the first place. It is quite rare to encounter someone who really doesn't care if their drug use destroys them. > > If you thought that the denial of all pleasures was > > important, you could simply make yourself content to deny yourself all > > pleasures. > > Yes. > > > This would involve making pleasure-denial more pleasant > > than the anticipation of pleasure indulgence. > > That sounds distinctly odd. When I deny myself the possibility of pigging > out on a large bag of junk food, I would not call my resultant state more > "pleasant". I just sigh and reconcile myself to having foregone a certain > pleasure. Also, experiencing fear of consequences, which keeps, say, > some men from immediately raping any nearby female, also does not > seem to qualify for "pleasant" in any way. We could consider a sort of hedonic point system, where pleasure yields positive points and pain negative points. At each juncture where a decision is required, the decision is made that maximises the expected number of points. Anticipation of the pleasure of rape is outweighed by anticipation of the pain of rape, so rape does not occur. A disinhibiting substance like alcohol reduces the relative weighting of the negative side of this equation, so rape occurs. -- Stathis Papaioannou From neptune at superlink.net Wed Dec 5 12:54:03 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:54:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Robert Bussard References: <200712050232.lB52WPj61257@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <008401c8373d$ea824dc0$ad893cd1@pavilion> On Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:32 PM David Lubkin extropy at unreasonable.com wrote: > Robert Bussard died October 6. > > > > > > > -- David. Yeah, sad. I found this out a few days ago because _Analog_ ran a piece in their latest issue on electrodynamic fusion -- something Bussard was working on at E/MCC before he died. Regards, Dan See the always/never imitated "Free Banking FAQ" at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/BankFAQ.html From max at maxmore.com Wed Dec 5 18:12:30 2007 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:12:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Article: Realizing the Promise of Personalized Medicine Message-ID: <20071205181155.DUIC2457.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@MaxDesk.maxmore.com> I recently wrote this commentary on/review on a Harvard Business Review article that will be of interest to many on the list: Realizing the Promise of Personalized Medicine Mara G. Aspinall, Richard G. Hamermesh Thalidomide, a drug sold and prescribed during the late 1950s and early 1960s, became perhaps the most reviled medical drug ever. Primarily prescribed to pregnant women, between 1956 and 1962, around 1,000 children were born with severe malformities to mothers who had taken thalidomide during pregnancy. Despite its horrible reputation, subsequent research has indicated significant potential benefits of the drug as an anti-inflammatory that provides relief to leprosy sufferers, as a treatment for multiple myeloma, and perhaps for arachnoiditis, Crohn?s disease, and several cancers. About the only people who should not take Thalidomide, it appears, are pregnant women. The Thalidomide experience underscores the vital importance of carefully targeting treatments based on individuals? particular physiologies or?as this article considers?their particular genome. Not so very long ago in human history, for almost all medical conditions and all people, doctors would prescribe a course of blood-letting. Now, more than ever, doctors are able to customize therapy for individuals. Mara Aspinall, the president of Genzyme Genetics, and Richard Hamermesh, chair of a Harvard Business School initiative to improve leadership in health care organizations, argue that explain that adoption of personalized medicine has been painfully slow, being held back by the trial-and-error treatment model. That dominant model governs how the health care system develops, regulates, pays for, and delivers therapies. In this article, they detail the four main barriers to personalized medicine and suggest ways to overcome them. If we could accelerate the adoption of personalized medicine, we would save both lives and money in abundance. Several scientific advances seem to make the eventual triumph of personalized medicine inevitable. The inevitable could be far too slow in arriving since the transition from trial-and-error medicine to personalized medicine is being held back by four barriers: The pharmaceutical industry?s historically successful blockbuster model; a problematic regulatory environment; a dysfunctional payment system; and physician behavior that is firmly attached to trial-and-error medicine. The authors point to several signs that the industry?s blockbuster model is failing. They recommend that big pharmaceutical companies abandon the blockbuster business model in favor of one based on a larger portfolio of targeted?and therefore more effective and profitable?treatments; forge alliances with diagnostic companies; and step up efforts to communicate the safety and efficacy advantages of targeted therapies. They cite several reasons to believe that the targeted model would increase sales and profits in the intermediate and long terms. The current regulatory environment also needs overhauling. It overemphasizes large-scale clinical trials of broad-based therapies and neglects monitoring and assessment after approval is won. The authors recommend fast-tracking the review of all new drugs that include a diagnostic test as part of the patient-selection process and urge the FDA to craft appropriate standards to ensure the accuracy and integrity of diagnostic tests. To improve the economics of the payment system (which currently rewards physicians for activity rather than for early diagnosis and prevention), regulation and reimbursement must be coordinated to create the right incentives for the right outcomes. The authors make some specific suggestions for achieving this. Medical schools can help overcome the final barrier of physician behavior rooted in trial-and-error medicine, such as through education about genomics, diagnostic testing, and targeted therapies. Employers in the United States can do their part to hasten the triumph of personalized medicine by pushing insurers to cover targeted therapies, including diagnostics and insisting that providers routinely offer them to their employees; and by demanding that cost-conscious insurers focus on the overall expense of treatment during the entire course of a disease, not just the cost of the initial procedures. Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Dec 5 22:26:25 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> I suspect that the problem with the Fermi Paradox is simply a misunderstanding that will be solved in time and is not a true paradox. For example, Reno's Paradox that was left unsolved for roughly 1400 years was finally solved by Cantor. By comparison, Fermi's Paradox has been unsolved for only about 57 years. I am sure that in time the answer will reveal itself. I don't think John's point was that any of his ideas was to be a suitable solution, but instead a method of pointing out just how many other possibilities there are besides the so-called paradox. Any one of them may be right, or none of them. I think John's point was that it's not a true paradox. It's just an unanswered question with many possible answers that simply can't be tested yet. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. The evidence we're looking for may just as well be right there in the crust of the moon or even the ice in our own poles for all we know of our own planet let alone the rest of the universe. Seien wrote: > > > On 04/12/2007, *John* > wrote: > > i apologize in advance for my non-blackberry internet cell phone > connection which does not format well here. why must we think that > intelligent alien races would either self -destruct from civil war > or if not that, give up expansionism to become virtual lotus > eaters? Lol The great powers out there may frown on > macro-engineering projects as being a scar on the natural beauty > of the universe and that is why we don't see it. Or they may have > technology so advanced that they simply do not need dyson sphere > sized solar collectors, etc.. Perhaps they have gone > post-singularity and have bored into other planes of existance so > young races like ours have room to develop. They may be cosmic > ecologists at heart. I believe intelligent alien life is out > there and may even be aware of us and have our location marked > down on their maps as being off limits for now. Humanity may be > voracious in its appetite to devour and reshape nature but that > may not be the > case out there. I suspect for ages to come sentients will find it > amusing that we dared to think humanity could be alone in such a > vast universe. John grigg > > > > > What is your reason for believing this? All I see is a typical vein of > anti-human insinuations running through an otherwise entirely > speculative assertion. > > > > > -- > ~Seien > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pjmanney at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 04:34:17 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:34:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] TED - Phillipe Starck Message-ID: <29666bf30712052034g1cd372dfj1ce9669e6e30d6bd@mail.gmail.com> Phillipe Starck thinks deeply about design... and it turns out he's an H+er! It's a charming, inspirational lecture from one of our greatest living designers. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/197 PJ From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 6 07:14:21 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:14:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] xmas songs again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712060741.lB67f2qn015484@andromeda.ziaspace.com> As I pointed out last year, if one were to list the songs to which one knows all the words, many if not most of that list would be christmas songs. We already know why: every country and pop singer cuts a christmas album, for these are a sure money maker. Then of course the merchants grind them into our brains against our will for at least two if not three solid months in a desperate attempt to break even and turn profit for the year by influencing us to buy quickly in order to escape the maddeningly repetitive melodies. Try not to think of the words of an random christmas song, right now. Try to forget all the words. OK impossible, never mind. With that admission, I was trying not to think of the words of the little drummer boy, finding it impossible to not imagine some waif rumpa pum pumming, when I ran across the lyric that explains "...the ox and lamb kept time..." Wouldn't that totally freak you out to see that? I would be totally like that shower scene in Psycho. How did they keep time? Did they tap their hoofs? Did they sway to the beat? I can imagine the mother snatching the babies and fleeing in stark terror into the silent night, wise guys running in all directions at once, tripping over the christmas ornaments in their hasty egress from the stable, the shrieking drummer boy hurling his instrument at the apparently demon-possessed beasts tapping their hoofs in rhythm before attempting a desperate escape. Hey its that time of year. You knew the silliness would start any time now, ja? Do let us be as happy as the circumstances allow. We all have much for which to be thankful, even those of us who have very recently experienced personal tragedy, such as our own Dr. Graps (for which we all feel deepest sympathy). We are alive, we are (I sincerely hope) healthy, we were born late enough in history to be doing what you are doing right now, and do ponder for just a moment the wonder of that activity. We are not at immediate risk of violence or life threatening disease, unlike nearly all our ancestors since humans diverged from chimps. Because of the analemma, after tomorrow the sunset will stop getting earlier and will start to swing later once more, so that we can begin to anticipate the coming glorious new life of spring and summer, full of new opportunities and fun times, recovery from this year's setbacks and progress towards the ever promising future. Onward! spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Dec 6 12:03:06 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:03:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] xmas songs again In-Reply-To: <200712060741.lB67f2qn015484@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712060741.lB67f2qn015484@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <33754.72.236.102.94.1196942586.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > Hey its that time of year. You knew the silliness would start any time now, > ja? Do let us be as happy as the circumstances allow. We all have much for > which to be thankful, even those of us who have very recently experienced > personal tragedy, such as our own Dr. Graps (for which we all feel deepest > sympathy). We are alive, we are (I sincerely hope) healthy, we were born > late enough in history to be doing what you are doing right now, and do > ponder for just a moment the wonder of that activity. We are not at > immediate risk of violence or life threatening disease, unlike nearly all > our ancestors since humans diverged from chimps. Because of the analemma, > after tomorrow the sunset will stop getting earlier and will start to swing > later once more, so that we can begin to anticipate the coming glorious new > life of spring and summer, full of new opportunities and fun times, recovery > from this year's setbacks and progress towards the ever promising future. > Onward! Thanks spike! :) And may this holiday season be gracious to you and yours as well. My home seems filled withthe smells of sweet baking and I find I'm humgry *all the time* because of it! :))) Putting on a little extra layer of fat against the cold of winter... Best regards to all. MB ps. Didn't you mark out in stone in your back garden the analemma - especially for Isaac to see when he's older? From neptune at superlink.net Thu Dec 6 12:34:49 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:34:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Newsweek: The Future of Reading References: <29666bf30711271149oe68467dp9b2a4b2d735fcfb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00ba01c83804$65311800$0d893cd1@pavilion> On Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:49 PM PJ Manney pjmanney at gmail.com wrote: > I'm sure you all know about Amazon's release of > the Kindle, but this article is a better than usual > puff piece that uses the Kindle to re-examine > e-publishing. I was actually involved with the device for about a year before it was released. :) Regards, Dan From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 13:32:53 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:32:53 +0000 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: On Dec 5, 2007 10:26 PM, Kevin Freels wrote: > I suspect that the problem with the Fermi Paradox is simply a > misunderstanding that will be solved in time and is not a true paradox. No paradox. That's just the way the Universe is. Seth Shostak has just written a piece about this subject. Aliens Apart By Seth Shostak Senior Astronomer, SETI posted: 06 December 2007 For years scientists have wrestled with a puzzling fact: The universe appears to be remarkably suited for life. Its physical properties are finely tuned to permit our existence. Stars, planets and the kind of sticky chemistry that produces fish, ferns and folks wouldn't be possible if some of the cosmic constants were only slightly different. Well, there's another property of the universe that's equally noteworthy: It's set up in a way that keeps everyone isolated. The distances between adjacent stars are measured in tens of trillions of miles. The distances between adjacent civilizations, even assuming that there are lots of them out there, are measured in thousands of trillions of miles ? hundreds of light-years, to use a more tractable unit. Note that this number doesn't change much no matter how many planets you believe are studded with sentients ? the separation distance is pretty much the same whether you think there are ten thousand galactic societies or a million. So, the time scales for travel and communication are too long for easy interaction with beings whose lifetimes are, like us, only a century or less. So while the cosmos could easily be rife with intelligent life ? the architecture of the universe, and not some Starfleet Prime Directive, has ensured precious little interference of one culture with another. ----------------------- BillK From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 6 13:45:16 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:45:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <20071206134516.GA10128@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 01:32:53PM +0000, BillK wrote: > No paradox. That's just the way the Universe is. That's the way Shostak thinks it is. > The distances between adjacent stars are measured in tens of trillions At 0.9 c, the distances are very, very short. > of miles. The distances between adjacent civilizations, even assuming > that there are lots of them out there, are measured in thousands of > trillions of miles ? hundreds of light-years, to use a more tractable Any culture slightly beyond us is expanding in a sphere at almost c. Such a thing is both impossible to miss, and almost impossible to observe. > So, the time scales for travel and communication are too long for easy > interaction with beings whose lifetimes are, like us, only a century A circular void millions to billions of lightyears is impossible to miss, but almost impossible to observe. You'd have to be it, or you'd have to be just on cusp of being it, while being hit by it. That's not so very likely. > or less. So while the cosmos could easily be rife with intelligent > life ? the architecture of the universe, and not some Starfleet Prime > Directive, has ensured precious little interference of one culture > with another. That view was quaint even for 1960s. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 14:36:15 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:36:15 +0000 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: <20071206134516.GA10128@leitl.org> References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> <20071206134516.GA10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2007 1:45 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > At 0.9 c, the distances are very, very short. > If you allow unknown technology, anything is possible. (Or, at least no presently available technology, or speculative technologies that may never become feasible). Seth (and you) know that 0.9c travel requires huge energy use and tremendous radiation shielding. (And you need wild speculation to permit this). He even provides a link to such speculations for you. > > Any culture slightly beyond us is expanding in a sphere at almost c. > Such a thing is both impossible to miss, and almost impossible to observe. > If you assume insane advanced cultures will do this. I don't. > > A circular void millions to billions of lightyears is impossible to miss, > but almost impossible to observe. You'd have to be it, or you'd have to > be just on cusp of being it, while being hit by it. That's not so very > likely. > Yea, I guess the Universe could be being eaten by something that we can't detect. I'll start digging my shelter tomorrow. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 6 14:57:16 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 15:57:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> <20071206134516.GA10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20071206145716.GB10128@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 02:36:15PM +0000, BillK wrote: > If you allow unknown technology, anything is possible. Self-replicating technology, phased array radiators with lightminute aperture and gray sail probes are not exactly off-the wall. > (Or, at least no presently available technology, or speculative Why would any culture be limited to presently available technology? > technologies that may never become feasible). Any self-rep systems will become visible over astronomical distances, given a mere few megayears. > Seth (and you) know that 0.9c travel requires huge energy use and Huge? Energy density less than a fusion weapon. And of course you leave the drive at home. > tremendous radiation shielding. (And you need wild speculation to Why would you need radiation shielding at mere 0.9 c? Why would you not rather self-heal all the time? > permit this). He even provides a link to such speculations for you. > I don't think I need links for speculations, thanks. > If you assume insane advanced cultures will do this. If you think darwinian systems are insane, welcome to the loony bin. > I don't. You should write a paper on what you think. I'm less interested in opinions. > Yea, I guess the Universe could be being eaten by something that we > can't detect. You can -- look in the mirror. But anybody else can't see us, because of anthropic effect. > I'll start digging my shelter tomorrow. Shelters only buy you very little time. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 16:24:32 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:24:32 +0000 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: <20071206145716.GB10128@leitl.org> References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> <20071206134516.GA10128@leitl.org> <20071206145716.GB10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2007 2:57 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 02:36:15PM +0000, BillK wrote: > > Self-replicating technology, phased array radiators with lightminute > aperture and gray sail probes are not exactly off-the wall. > > Why would any culture be limited to presently available technology? > But these technologies only exist in speculation. They *may* be possible in the future, if society decides to spend resources in those directions and no insurmountable problems (technical or sociological) occur. If you are relying on unknown technology, then you can speculate all you like, but that doesn't make it a likely possibility. > > Any self-rep systems will become visible over astronomical > distances, given a mere few megayears. Well we can't see them, so we might as well assume they probably don't exist. > > Huge? Energy density less than a fusion weapon. And of course > you leave the drive at home. > You need the equivalent to stop at the other end. And you are assuming that a civilization will want to build these useless devices in the first place. (Useless, because at vast expense the civilisation gets no benefit). > Why would you need radiation shielding at mere 0.9 c? Why would > you not rather self-heal all the time? > Self-heal? Against continual near-lightspeed cosmic radiation and dust? I think not. I thought you were all in favour of robot space exploration anyway, because of these and other problems. > > If you think darwinian systems are insane, welcome to the loony bin. > You well know that humans have finished with darwinian evolution already and we're not particularly advanced yet. Our first world peoples have already stopped breeding and are dying out and extending the life span of remaining members. They may, for a short period, be replaced by faster breeding nations, but they in turn will follow the same path. Advanced intelligence (or advanced civilisation) means very low reproductive rates. (Sure, it's only evidence of one intelligent species as an example, but that's one more than you have as evidence for the alternative). There are speculations about grey goo eating everything, nano-robots expanding at lightspeed eating the universe, etc. But we don't see any of that, so why give much credence to such ideas? It's far more likely that advanced civilisations don't breed much, don't expand, and keep themselves to themselves. For many reasons, including Seth's latest article. BillK From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 6 19:52:13 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:52:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is Evolution Random? Message-ID: <8CA0658A1439285-CBC-51D7@webmail-md16.sysops.aol.com> Random Relative to What? To understand the randomness claimed for evolution by scientists, as opposed to that feared by theologians and moral philosophers, it's important to ask "random relative to what?" In any model of a process as described by a scientific theory, there are many things taken for granted. Philosophers of science refer to these as ancillary assumptions or hypotheses. Some of these are assumed from ignorance: science might not yet have any workable and tested theory or model to deal with that class of phenomena. Others are assumed because they are well worked out in another scientific theory or discipline. For example, Darwin knew that there was heredity, but he did not have a good theory of heredity to work by. His selection theory (the version he and Wallace published) had to assume that traits were heritable. He did propose a theory of heredity (pangenesis) based on a now discredited view of the influence of the use of traits on reproduction, but it was never essential to the theory of natural selection. So far as his theory of evolution by selection was concerned, heredity was an area to be filled out later. Once Mendel's principles of heredity were rediscovered, permitting mathematical models of genetic change at the level of populations to be formulated by Haldane, Fisher and Wright and others in the 1930s and 1940s, the so-called Neo-Darwinian ("synthetic") theory of natural selection used these results as ancillary hypotheses. Added to this Weissman's germ plasm theory that the sex cells (the "germ plasm") were not "reverse programmed' by the phenotypic organism (the "soma"), and natural selection of genetic content became a one-way causal process. Genes cause the ecologically active phenotype, but the phenotype does not program the information content of the genes. Hence, relative to natural selection, genetic content changes are "random". Let's call this the Black Box Conception of Randomness [See Bowler 1983 on the history of post-Darwinian theory and Dawkins 1996 for a fuller development of this.] Another way to say this is just that the changes that get encoded in genes occur with no forethought to the eventual needs of the organism (or the species) that carries those genes. A gene change (for instance, a point mutation -- a mistake at a single locus of the genetic structure) may change in any way permitted by the laws of molecular biology, according to the specific causes at the time. This may result in a phenotypic change that may be better suited to current conditions than the others about at the time. However, it probably won't. So far as the local environment is concerned, the change is the result of a random process, a black box that isn't driven with reference to things going on at the level of the environment. It's not really random, of course, because it is the result of causal processes, but so far as natural selection is concerned, it may as well be." _____________ Is it safe to say then that Evolution can both be random in some ways as in genetic mutation and deterministic in the molecular level? ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003 From pjmanney at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 21:22:56 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:22:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Newsweek: The Future of Reading In-Reply-To: <00ba01c83804$65311800$0d893cd1@pavilion> References: <29666bf30711271149oe68467dp9b2a4b2d735fcfb5@mail.gmail.com> <00ba01c83804$65311800$0d893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <29666bf30712061322k3cd3e851hf4b126c686ce7b97@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 6, 2007 4:34 AM, Technotranscendence wrote: > On Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:49 PM PJ Manney pjmanney at gmail.com > wrote: > > I'm sure you all know about Amazon's release of > > the Kindle, but this article is a better than usual > > puff piece that uses the Kindle to re-examine > > e-publishing. > > I was actually involved with the device for about a year before it was > released. :) And...??? PJ From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 6 21:35:34 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:35:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> <20071206134516.GA10128@leitl.org> <20071206145716.GB10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20071206213534.GI10128@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 04:24:32PM +0000, BillK wrote: > But these technologies only exist in speculation. They *may* be If we go back 40 kYrs all technologies existed in speculation. Postulating our current level is somehow special is arbitrary. > possible in the future, if society decides to spend resources in those I can easily go to visit America. Not so long ago it took whole national powers to launch such an expedition. Space launches are being funded by single individuals now. > directions and no insurmountable problems (technical or sociological) > occur. If you are relying on unknown technology, then you can > speculate all you like, but that doesn't make it a likely possibility. Heavier than air flight is not a likely possibility. I can easily draw you a plan to launch an interstellar probe at >0.1 c, using known technologies. It will be expensive, but only because we're pathetically primitive primates. Wait a bit, and things will get better. > Well we can't see them, so we might as well assume they probably don't exist. I agree! I also argue that anthropic principle prevents you from observing them, but for the special case where them is us. > You need the equivalent to stop at the other end. Multiple answers to that. It's a bootstrap issue. You could launch the first probe with is heavy enough for braking. You could use a sacrifical sail, which outsources the complexity and the power. > And you are assuming that a civilization will want to build these I'm assuming individuals and small groups will. Probabilistically, the probability is almost unity. > useless devices in the first place. > (Useless, because at vast expense the civilisation gets no benefit). Few ten grams of energy is not a vast expense, even now. > Self-heal? Against continual near-lightspeed cosmic radiation and > dust? I think not. I noticed. > I thought you were all in favour of robot space exploration anyway, > because of these and other problems. What makes you think I'm talking about suited monkeys? These won't go anywhere. "Robots" are just a figure of speech. > You well know that humans have finished with darwinian evolution "humans have finished with darwinian evolution". Where do you take these howlers? http://www.physorg.com/news116169889.html > already and we're not particularly advanced yet. Our first world Most of current progress occured within a couple centuries, on which scale evolution doesn't happen. Even if primates don't evolve, autonomous artifacts will. > peoples have already stopped breeding and are dying out and extending > the life span of remaining members. They may, for a short period, be Fitness function shape changes, yet it still remains a selective force. > replaced by faster breeding nations, but they in turn will follow the > same path. Advanced intelligence (or advanced civilisation) means very > low reproductive rates. Anything with a low reproductive rate self-selects into invisibility on short temporal nevermind spatial scales. You'll only see the other kind. > (Sure, it's only evidence of one intelligent species as an example, > but that's one more than you have as evidence for the alternative). Evolution is not only limited to intelligent species. Evolution happens at self-replication of any kind, since limited-resource and limited-fidelity come in for free. > There are speculations about grey goo eating everything, nano-robots > expanding at lightspeed eating the universe, etc. But we don't see > any of that, so why give much credence to such ideas? You've been on this mailing list for years. I presume you've read the traffic. In case you haven't, there are the archives. Go out and reread it. You might also reread mainstream literature starting with 1900s, or before. > It's far more likely that advanced civilisations don't breed much, > don't expand, and keep themselves to themselves. For many reasons, > including Seth's latest article. I'm sorry, but the article is crap, and we've done much, much better on this list even few years ago. Things were better even a scant decade ago. I don't know when they peaked, since I wasn't there at the time. No, I definitely do not like the current state of affairs. I do not see why I should write posts like that, we're not in kindergarden, after all. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 kanzure at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 23:02:13 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:02:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interstellar probes (was Re: fermi paradox- weighted summary) In-Reply-To: <20071206213534.GI10128@leitl.org> References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20071206213534.GI10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712061702.13811.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 06 December 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Heavier than air flight is not a likely possibility. I can easily > draw you a plan to launch an interstellar probe at >0.1 c, using > known technologies. I hope you are not joking, because that would be very useful. Please go ahead and draw up the plans. - Bryan From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 6 23:01:39 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:01:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Entropy/randomness and Extropic view Message-ID: <8CA067317E38080-F70-541@webmail-de06.sysops.aol.com> Evolution is random in relation to genetic mutation however the determinists view of evolution is analogous to the Exropic view. The causes of aging and illness can be determined using hi-tech diagnostic devices in line with the extropian principle of scientific method of investigation. Without entropy, what would drive humans towards the path of extropy? Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003 From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 23:11:54 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:11:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is Evolution Random? In-Reply-To: <8CA0658A1439285-CBC-51D7@webmail-md16.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0658A1439285-CBC-51D7@webmail-md16.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200712061711.54144.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 06 December 2007, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > Is evolution random? I am no statistician, but how could anything be truly random? I once sat down to think about this, to try to prove to my father that nothing can be random: if something was random, then my random number generator on my box (which I know is pseudo, yes) would output an entire (mutant) cow instead of a number, for it is random, or a mass of computronium. But this would be in violation of cause-and-effect, thermodynamics, and other particularly important laws that we have so far held to be true. There is a finite set of 'choices' (whether or not they are truly 'choices' in a deterministic universe is another matter) from which a process can select. This doesn't allow selection from an infinitey of choices. "All consumers must be specialized to some degree." > To understand the randomness claimed for evolution by scientists, as What scientists claim that evolution is random? > Another way to say this is just that the changes that get encoded in > genes occur with no forethought to the eventual needs of the organism > (or the species) that carries those genes. A gene change (for > instance, a point mutation -- a mistake at a single locus of the > genetic structure) may change in any way permitted by the laws of > molecular biology, according to the specific causes at the time. This > may result in a phenotypic change that may be better suited to > current conditions than the others about at the time. However, it > probably won't. So far as the local environment is concerned, the > change is the result of a random process, a black box that isn't > driven with reference to things going on at the level of the > environment. It's not really random, of course, because it is the > result of causal processes, but so far as natural selection is > concerned, it may as well be." Just how useful is it to say that something is random in one context, but in the greater context it is indeed not random? I am interested in exploring the results of this idea of the contextualization of randomness. > Is it safe to say then that Evolution can both be random in some ways > as in genetic mutation and deterministic in the molecular level? Perhaps, when considering evolution in terms of only biology, one can ignore the underlying physics of why various stray photons may be causing particular mutations, or why the one-in-a-billion transcription error due to faulty diffusion gradients makes another such mutation, and then call *that* random. Hasn't this, then, been the aim of the astrologers for a long, long time? To be able to connect all that happens in the skies to the world down below. Astrophysicists probably have a better chance at this, yes. - Bryan From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 23:40:23 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:40:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> <20071206134516.GA10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60712061540q402350d3i85f450e5e161acff@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 6, 2007 9:36 AM, BillK wrote: > On Dec 6, 2007 1:45 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > At 0.9 c, the distances are very, very short. > > > > If you allow unknown technology, anything is possible. > (Or, at least no presently available technology, or speculative > technologies that may never become feasible). > > Seth (and you) know that 0.9c travel requires huge energy use and > tremendous radiation shielding. (And you need wild speculation to > permit this). He even provides a link to such speculations for you. > > ### Huge radiation shielding is not really necessary, except at high-sublight speeds, unlikely to be achieved anytime soon. Otherwise, all you need is appropriate body modifications. We know that it's easy to achieve survival at doses 15000 Gy and higher, without nanotechnology. The radiation fluxes in LEO are in the range of 0.02 mGy/day. You would need to travel for a bit more than 2 million years to accumulate this kind of dose. If you need 2 million years to travel to the nearest star, don't bother to go: somebody else will be there before you. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 23:53:38 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:53:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: <20071206213534.GI10128@leitl.org> References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> <20071206134516.GA10128@leitl.org> <20071206145716.GB10128@leitl.org> <20071206213534.GI10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60712061553r7ab3ba4flc6aff8f1d5b3ed95@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 6, 2007 4:35 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > You need the equivalent to stop at the other end. > > Multiple answers to that. It's a bootstrap issue. You could > launch the first probe with is heavy enough for braking. You > could use a sacrifical sail, which outsources the complexity > and the power. > ### The sail is the answer. If you have the capability to digest your black sail (which is likely to be mostly carbon), and reform it into reaction mass for an ion drive, you should be able to brake from 0.1 c to orbital in a few years. Of course, assuming that you at first have multiple drives, and as your reaction mass gets used up, more and more drives get converted to reaction mass, until you glide into orbit on your last few kg of carbon. To the best of my knowledge, this is strictly an engineering problem, in the sense that no new science, no new physical phenomena have to be discovered to allow this technology to exist. All you need is a design for good ion drives (already here), a fusion energy source (in development), and robotic or nanotech devices (ETA - 30 to 50 years from now) to digest the black sail, and transform it into reaction mass and ion drives. Rafal From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 7 00:46:37 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:46:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] xmas songs again In-Reply-To: <200712060741.lB67f2qn015484@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712060741.lB67f2qn015484@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <475897ED.5020004@kevinfreels.com> > , if one were to list the songs to which one knows > all the words, many if not most of that list would be christmas songs. You really should get out more. My list of songs is around 5000 and about 20 are christmas. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 7 00:49:20 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:49:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> <20071206134516.GA10128@leitl.org> <20071206145716.GB10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <47589890.3000509@kevinfreels.com> Whether interstellar travel is practical in the future or for other beings, it doesn't change the fact that the paradox is due to a lack of any real information rather than do to facts that conflict. So it's not a paradox. The discussion of isolation, travel, time, space, evolution and beings destroying each other is simply pointless without more facts. BillK wrote: > On Dec 6, 2007 2:57 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 02:36:15PM +0000, BillK wrote: >> >> Self-replicating technology, phased array radiators with lightminute >> aperture and gray sail probes are not exactly off-the wall. >> >> Why would any culture be limited to presently available technology? >> >> > > But these technologies only exist in speculation. They *may* be > possible in the future, if society decides to spend resources in those > directions and no insurmountable problems (technical or sociological) > occur. If you are relying on unknown technology, then you can > speculate all you like, but that doesn't make it a likely possibility. > > > >> Any self-rep systems will become visible over astronomical >> distances, given a mere few megayears. >> > > Well we can't see them, so we might as well assume they probably don't exist. > > >> Huge? Energy density less than a fusion weapon. And of course >> you leave the drive at home. >> >> > > You need the equivalent to stop at the other end. > And you are assuming that a civilization will want to build these > useless devices in the first place. > (Useless, because at vast expense the civilisation gets no benefit). > > >> Why would you need radiation shielding at mere 0.9 c? Why would >> you not rather self-heal all the time? >> >> > > Self-heal? Against continual near-lightspeed cosmic radiation and > dust? I think not. > I thought you were all in favour of robot space exploration anyway, > because of these and other problems. > > > >> If you think darwinian systems are insane, welcome to the loony bin. >> >> > > You well know that humans have finished with darwinian evolution > already and we're not particularly advanced yet. Our first world > peoples have already stopped breeding and are dying out and extending > the life span of remaining members. They may, for a short period, be > replaced by faster breeding nations, but they in turn will follow the > same path. Advanced intelligence (or advanced civilisation) means very > low reproductive rates. > (Sure, it's only evidence of one intelligent species as an example, > but that's one more than you have as evidence for the alternative). > > There are speculations about grey goo eating everything, nano-robots > expanding at lightspeed eating the universe, etc. But we don't see > any of that, so why give much credence to such ideas? > > It's far more likely that advanced civilisations don't breed much, > don't expand, and keep themselves to themselves. For many reasons, > including Seth's latest article. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Fri Dec 7 03:06:13 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:06:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World Message-ID: This could be useful.. if anything, to learn what works and what does not work. All of the results and data is available for free, online, with quite alot of it in spreadsheet form, and with technical details given for the analysis in the appendices. Amara Assessing science understanding worldwide ----------------------- PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World presents the results from the most recent PISA survey, which focused on science and also assessed mathematics and reading. It is divided into two volumes. Volume 1: Analysis gives the most comprehensive international picture of science learning today, exploring not only how well students perform, but also their interests in science and their awareness of the opportunities that scientific competencies bring as well as the environment that schools offer for science learning. It places the performance of students, schools and countries in the context of their social background and identifies important educational policies and practices that are associated with educational success. By showing that some countries succeed in providing both high quality education and equitable learning outcomes, PISA sets ambitious goals for others. Volume 2: Data/Donn?es presents the PISA 2006 full data set underlying Volume 1. Together with the PISA 2000 and PISA 2003 surveys, PISA 2006 completes the first cycle of assessment in the three key subject areas. PISA is now conducting a second cycle of surveys, beginning in 2009 with reading as the major subject and continuing in 2012 (mathematics) and 2015 (science). ----------------------- -- ********************************************************** Amara Graps, Ph.D. | Department of Space Studies | amara at boulder.swri.edu Southwest Research Institute | tel: (720) 240-0128 1050 Walnut St., Suite 300 | fax: (303) 546-9687 Boulder, Colorado 80302 USA | www.amara.com ********************************************************** I'M SIGNIFICANT!...screamed the dust speck. -- Calvin From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 04:47:11 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 23:47:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Entropy/randomness and Extropic view In-Reply-To: <8CA067317E38080-F70-541@webmail-de06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA067317E38080-F70-541@webmail-de06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712062047l64f5c347k1d297c92e51f7ada@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 6, 2007 6:01 PM, wrote: > > Evolution is random in relation to genetic mutation however the > determinists view of evolution is analogous to the Exropic view. > > The causes of aging and illness can be determined using hi-tech > diagnostic devices in line with the extropian principle of scientific > method of investigation. > > Without entropy, what would drive humans towards the path of extropy? > If negentropy opposes entropy, then I propose negextropy is a semi-facetious answer to your semi-rhetorical question. :) I would further venture that the net effect of extropian efforts in equal opposition to your own extropian efforts result in overall stasis. It seems to be the nature of this system that any fluctuation in global direction generates a normalizing force which seeks equilibrium. I believe the goal of this list is to agree on a direction long enough to establish a 'better' baseline around which to settle upon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 7 04:21:16 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:21:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] xmas songs again In-Reply-To: <33754.72.236.102.94.1196942586.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200712070447.lB74lv9L005494@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of MB ... > > ... Because of the analemma, > > after tomorrow the sunset will stop getting earlier ... spike > > Best regards to all. > MB > ps. Didn't you mark out in stone in your back garden the analemma - > especially for Isaac to see when he's older? MB I did a few BOTECs before starting to mark the spots and realized the projection would be far larger than I originally anticipated, especially from top to bottom (over six meters). This would cause it to run off the end of the paved area and onto the integral wall. I decided to wait on it for now. Isaac and I will project the analemma in the back yard when he starts getting old enough to understand how profoundly cool is this simple figure 8, and how it may have helped the ancients figure out the orbits of the planets. If one is running low on cool things to ponder, try to think of ways the old timers could figure out orbit mechanics with these kinds of measurements. The old ones were smart. spike From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 04:57:17 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:57:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Entropy/randomness and Extropic view In-Reply-To: <62c14240712062047l64f5c347k1d297c92e51f7ada@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA067317E38080-F70-541@webmail-de06.sysops.aol.com> <62c14240712062047l64f5c347k1d297c92e51f7ada@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712062257.17704.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 06 December 2007, Mike Dougherty wrote: > generates a normalizing force which seeks equilibrium. ?I believe the > goal of this list is to agree on a direction long enough to establish > a 'better' baseline around which to settle upon. Only to agree? - Bryan From pjmanney at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 04:58:57 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:58:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] TED -- Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity? Message-ID: <29666bf30712062058x7e9caeb8h72f343fd2be5dec1@mail.gmail.com> Another great TED lecture, by Sir Ken Robinson -- Do schools kill creativity? Beyond his accurate assessment of our failure to educate our children for their future, his plea for encouraging neurodiversity at the end is powerful and important. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/66 PJ From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 05:03:56 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 00:03:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is Evolution Random? In-Reply-To: <8CA0658A1439285-CBC-51D7@webmail-md16.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0658A1439285-CBC-51D7@webmail-md16.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712062103n282464eav3e90b4eca0bfcd3c@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 6, 2007 2:52 PM, wrote: > > Random Relative to What? > > To understand the randomness claimed for evolution by scientists, as > opposed to that feared by theologians and moral philosophers, it's > important to ask "random relative to what?" In any model of a process > Randomness has a specific definition that is not 'relative' http://www.random.org/randomness/ has a good introduction. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 05:11:21 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 00:11:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Entropy/randomness and Extropic view In-Reply-To: <200712062257.17704.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <8CA067317E38080-F70-541@webmail-de06.sysops.aol.com> <62c14240712062047l64f5c347k1d297c92e51f7ada@mail.gmail.com> <200712062257.17704.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712062111u1924740ejcc6df9bbea5c3df2@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 6, 2007 11:57 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Thursday 06 December 2007, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > generates a normalizing force which seeks equilibrium. I believe the > > goal of this list is to agree on a direction long enough to establish > > a 'better' baseline around which to settle upon. > > Only to agree? > haha - well, I started to get to the F=ma and W=Fd equations to determine how much "fer real" work it would take - but it started to sound really nutty. So I left it at just agreeing. It might be interesting to see what happened if we accomplished that much. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 7 04:53:53 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:53:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60712061540q402350d3i85f450e5e161acff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712070520.lB75KYp5016369@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki > ... > > If you need 2 million years to travel to the nearest star, don't > bother to go: somebody else will be there before you... Rafal That isn't clear Rafal, but even if so, why is that necessarily a problem? If some intelligent space traveling life form had arrived on this planet any time before about 50 kiloyears before present, they would have had little conflict with the life forms that were already here. A sufficiently advanced life form could perhaps coexist peacefully and even undetected among current life on earth. Regarding the Fermi Paradox, one could speculate thus: until very recently, intelligent life on this planet had not even a foggy concept of the technology required or the barriers involved in interstellar travel and communications. It could be that we are not quite there in imagining the reasons why it apparently isn't done. Another explanation for the FP is that advanced civilizations do communicate with each other, but do not broadcast signals radially. Rather they would beam the signals via laser, which would not be detected by unintended recipients unless two stars were nearby and almost perfectly aligned with our star. I know of no such cases. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 07:11:18 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:11:18 +1100 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: <20071206213534.GI10128@leitl.org> References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> <20071206134516.GA10128@leitl.org> <20071206145716.GB10128@leitl.org> <20071206213534.GI10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 07/12/2007, Eugen Leitl wrote (quoting BillK): > > You well know that humans have finished with darwinian evolution > > "humans have finished with darwinian evolution". Where do you take > these howlers? http://www.physorg.com/news116169889.html That study does not deal with the effects technology would have on human evolution. -- Stathis Papaioannou From scerir at libero.it Fri Dec 7 07:23:34 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:23:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Entropy/randomness and Extropic view References: <8CA067317E38080-F70-541@webmail-de06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <002d01c838a2$149a19c0$a2961f97@archimede> citta437: > Evolution is random in relation to genetic mutation however the > determinists view of evolution is analogous to the Extropic view. See the paper below http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1751 and especially the plots 'brain size vs time' and 'nose size vs time' :-) From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 13:17:20 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:17:20 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Free open-source Maths software Message-ID: Physorg has an article about the Sage software package. Until recently, a student solving a calculus problem, a physicist modeling a galaxy or a mathematician studying a complex equation had to use powerful computer programs that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars. But an open-source tool based at the University of Washington won first prize in the scientific software division of Les Troph?es du Libre, an international competition for free software. Sage can take the place of commercial software commonly used in mathematics education, in large government laboratories and in math-intensive research. The program can do anything from mapping a 12-dimensional object to calculating rainfall patterns under global warming. Download here: General and Advanced Pure and Applied Mathematics Use SAGE for studying a huge range of mathematics, including algebra, calculus, elementary to very advanced number theory, cryptography, numerical computation, commutative algebra, group theory, combinatorics, graph theory, and exact linear algebra. BillK From citta437 at aol.com Fri Dec 7 13:52:02 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:52:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Timeless Universe Message-ID: <8CA06EF7A9B027A-C00-1E2F@webmail-de19.sysops.aol.com> "Starting in 1983, Stephen Hawking said the universe doesn't go back to this abstract limit called the singularity. He said the universe goes back to a timeless 4-dimensional space that's uncreated. So we have a timeless 4-dimensional space that's uncreated on Hawking's theory. There's no need to create it, it has no beginning. A timeless space, since it's not in time, doesn't begin to exist and needs no cause. Does time begin by being a fourth dimension of a timeless space, Hawking's imaginary time, "becoming" real time, i.e. having a metric described by real numbers rather than imaginary numbers on different regions of the manifold? "Imaginary time is a new dimension, at right angles to ordinary, real time," Stephen explained. "Along this axis, if the universe satisfies the 'no boundary' condition, we can do our calculations. This condition says that the universe has no singularities or boundaries in the imaginary direction of time. With the 'no boundary' condition, there will be no beginning or end to imaginary time, just as there is no beginning or end to a path on the surface of the Earth." "If the path goes all the way around the Earth," I said. "But of course, we don't know that in imaginary time there won't be a boundary." "My intuition says there will be no blocking in that (SPECIAL COORDINATE) ie timeless space , so our calculations make sense." Hawking, however, provides this context, yet as his theories stretch beyond matter and into the unfathomable realm of quarks and quantum forces, the fundamental ??parts?? he uncovers fold again into the undifferentiated plane of the whole; all difference, he says, is composed of the same thing---energy. In his ultimate splitting of hairs, Hawking wanders into the sameness of Being. It is in this sameness (mass = energy and particle = wave) that the physicist?s oblique references to Being are most apparent. As a metaphorical disclosure of Being, Hawking introduces imaginary time, a reified reconstruction of the early Greek?s permanent presence. Imaginary time is timeless time---time that does not progress in any particular direction. According to Hawking: Imaginary time is indistinguishable from directions in space. If one can go north, one can turn around and head south; equally, if one can go forward in imaginary time, one ought to be able to turn around and go backward. This means that there can be no important difference between the forward and backward directions of imaginary time.Imaginary time is the undeveloped time in which the laws of physics, of gravitation, electricity and magnetism, nuclear interaction and beta-decay operate. In this undeveloped time, the most basic particles of the universe---the atoms, molecules and quarks that compose all mass---behave as if there were no tomorrow or yesterday12. The wave/particles of the universe are indifferent to time, for in their duality, no pole is privileged. Mass mutates into energy and energy into mass within a whole that remains constant---zero energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. In post-quantum physics, the timelessness of imaginary time both co-exists with and supersedes the temporality recorded in human experience. Human time, the time derived from the privileging of mass/positive energy/order over quantum forces/negative energy/disorder, explodes from the field of oppositions. Thus, time emerges out of oppositional thinking, out of the privileging of being over non-being and positive energy over negative energy. Because oppositional thinking requires the relational center of being human, the measurement of time requires beings to break up Being by standing out of it as judge. In one?s confrontation with the appearance of Being in what is, one breaks apart the essential unity of all difference, the belonging together of the poles. Using quantum theory, physicists interpret this unity of opposites as the equivalence of mass and energy and wave/particle duality, which recalls the polemos, the conflict between and belonging together of difference. This interpretation of primary opposition highlights the physicist?s participation in the ongoing mythology of Being. Hawking writes:In quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy from particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to spend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.13 From a ??holistic?? perspective, oppositional thinking (positive/negative, presence/absence) cancels out in the total zero of the whole. However, even as one says it, one cannot fathom this zero. Because of the unfamiliar ??reality?? proposed by the ??zero energy?? metaphor, one can come closer to understanding the perceptual limitations and the inescapable weight of one?s relationship to the universe. As a participant in the universe, one cannot gather it before oneself except in empty concepts like everything and nothing. In thinking, the universe can never be whole; it is a part composed by the sum of its parts. From this perspective, the universe is unity and not whole. One is limited by one?s standing relationship in the whole. In its quantum state, the universe has no beginning or end, which means that it has no edges or boundaries in space-time. In this state, the universe is finite, yet without an outside. The universe is totality. From the perspective of matter-energy, however, the universe maintains its boundaries in that it has a beginning and end at the big bang and big crunch. From the conceptual vantagepoint of humanity, one may conceive of the universe as beginning and ending, as having edges and boundaries, and a creator. But in imaginary time, the universe is eternity and eternity is the constant always of the universe. The universe has no beginning, no end and no creator; in imaginary time, the universe is Being." ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003 From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 7 16:06:30 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:06:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712041859g67b83e1fl8492592d34753489@mail.gmail.com> <47572591.3030804@kevinfreels.com> <20071206134516.GA10128@leitl.org> <20071206145716.GB10128@leitl.org> <47589890.3000509@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <002101c838eb$68cbb5f0$27074e0c@MyComputer> Kevin Freels Wrote: > the paradox is due to a lack of any real information rather than do to > facts that conflict. That is just not true, the facts do conflict with the ET theory. It is a fact that the universe does not appear to be engineered and it is also a fact that even in the very unlikely event that it is imposable to send space probes faster than we can right now a civilization could still send Von Neumann probes to every star in the Galaxy in just 50 million years, a blink of the eye in other words. And if that had happened you wouldn't need sophisticated experiments to detect ET, a blind man in a fog bank would know. So either we are the first or mind always runs into some sort of impenetrable wall if it tries to advance beyond a certain point. John K Clark From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 19:07:31 2007 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:07:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Elegant 3D fluidic nano(almost) manufacturing method Message-ID: Magnificent new fluidic manufacturing technology. http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/19786/page1/ I just love the photo of the widgets. Note the full-3D advance on the lithographic 2D "legacy" technique. If this is first generation, what does the future hold?!! I'm particularly excited by the possibility of making a full inventory of microcapsules for each of the 200(still don't have a firm number for this) cell types in the body, each filled with its cell-specific cryoprotectant cocktail, and cell-specific "label"/latch and membrane penetrator. But that's just my first thought. The "design space" boggles. Is this a terrific time to be alive or what?!!! Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 7 19:18:05 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:18:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox Message-ID: <20071207121805.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.e7b722b6c4.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 7 20:37:34 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:37:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <20071207121805.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.e7b722b6c4.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20071207121805.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.e7b722b6c4.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <20071207203734.GU10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 12:18:05PM -0700, kevin at kevinfreels.com wrote: > "the universe does not appear to be engineered" - this is not a > statement of fact. It is opinion based on very little observation. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This is so ridiculous to be best left standing as is. > "The universe is not engineered" would be a fact if you could prove > it, but you can't. Yes, I know we have tons and tons of images from "Images", huh? Don't let a gang of astrophysicists and particle physicists gang up on you in a dark alley. They both got so many nasty tricks you'd never knew what hit you. > telescopes. But in comparison to what is out there we know close to What do you think is out there we haven't seen yet? Does it interact with photons? Does it have mass? Is it observable, even in principle? Does it largely consist of invisible, pink unicorns, and girls with cups? > nothing. We don't even know what's under our own ice caps or deep > within our own oceans. We have no clue about some of what has been Precisely -- we know a lot more about what is out there than what we've got a few 10 km below our feet -- though you would be surprised what we do know about that. > churned back into the earth over the 4.5 billion years it's been Um, atoms? Those things in the PSE? > here. We are just now starting to grasp some of our own history. We A star is a much simpler object than a cell. So is history of stellar objects. > don't even know for sure if Neanderthals bred with ancient H. sapiens. > Your "fact" is similar to stating that it is not raining in my country > because I see sunshine coming through the cracks in my blinds. Your facts don't even exist. All you've uttered so far is mythical bullshit, and opinions. You have to do much, much better than that. > As to the second fact, "could" does not equal "would". Otherwise it > would not require it's own word. "Would" is an assumption based on > what little we know of life on our own planet. Going back to the first We're not talking about life on this planet. We're talking about large-scale signatures of engineered objects, or, rather, remarkable absence thereof. > point, we know so little about our own solar system we can't even > safely say that ETs haven't been on our planet. It's entirely possible Because you're being able to write this message and because there are stars in the night sky we're in nobody's smart lightcone. Unlike Hollywood or anime, aliens don't come in cute little starships out of nowhere, and then leave. > that we are the result of genetic mingling. We're so early in the > stages of our intelligence that we barely even know what to look for. Do you think that thermodynamics is just window-dressing, or optional? Or that you can arbitrarily relabel observables to fit your crazy-moon theory, which is a rehash of tired old animism? > Heck, it was just in the last few decades that we even thought life > could survive around volcanic vents. Of course, we are out on the > fringes of the galaxy. Assuming that any other mind would think like > us - which is a stretch considering that most of us don't even think > alike - it may simply not be worth the energy to come way out here > where we are. Life is about atoms and entropy gradients. There's plenty of atoms and entropy gradients where you sit. Any inoculated petri dish will grow radial colonies (temporal snapshots stacked on top of each other are their light cones), which only stop when they run out of substrate. You are substrate. > To say the only choices are that we're first or that there is ALWAYS > an impenetratable wall is a large and unnecessary leap. I've seen Absolutely not, anthropic effect doubly applies. You will always observe yourself with the probability of unity, regardless how rare you are, and you can't observe very well if you never happened, by virtue of my ancestors eating the primeval muck that would have become your ancestors. > dozens of explanations from minds that have become so efficient that > they hardly use any energy and can survive off star light alone to Even reversible logic is not completely reversible. It's also slow, and 10^23 beings would still need a great many photons, which need to be reradiated in deep infrared. Where are these photons? Where is the dark mass, at least? > post singularity beings who have slowed their clocks to 1 cycle every > million years to get a better view of the universe. But all that If you slow your clock cycle too much to keep up with those joneses who haven't, you're crunchy, and good with ketchup. In general, the joneses are glowing-red hot, and are between one million to one billion times faster than you. > speculation isn't necessary when the entire argument can be shut down > by a single possibility: Mind is uncommon. That's something what we've been saying the whole time. Fermi's paradoxon isn't. > "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, > mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down > the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space." - Man, what a lousy book. I never understood why so many consider it scripture. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 max at maxmore.com Fri Dec 7 21:05:17 2007 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:05:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The ultimate miserabilist Message-ID: <20071207210518.NLGC16876.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@MaxDesk.maxmore.com> Why bother trying to improve yourself and the world? It would have been better never to have been born. So says David Benatar. See the review of his book, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, in Spiked: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/4162/ Onward! Max Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 22:53:11 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:53:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <002101c838eb$68cbb5f0$27074e0c@MyComputer> References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <47589890.3000509@kevinfreels.com> <002101c838eb$68cbb5f0$27074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200712071653.12008.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 07 December 2007, John K Clark wrote: > probes faster than we can right now a civilization could still send > Von Neumann probes to every star in the Galaxy in just 50 million > years, I'm on it (the design/implementation): http://heybryan.org/projects/atoms/ - Bryan From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 7 23:22:47 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:22:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox Message-ID: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 7 23:24:22 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:24:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712071653.12008.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <47589890.3000509@kevinfreels.com> <002101c838eb$68cbb5f0$27074e0c@MyComputer> <200712071653.12008.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071207172251.0217aab0@satx.rr.com> Bryan Bishop writes: >I'm on it (the design/implementation): >http://heybryan.org/projects/atoms/ Uh huh: "Many nuts think that the best way to go is molecular nanotechnology." From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 23:43:09 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:43:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071207172251.0217aab0@satx.rr.com> References: <700872.95299.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200712071653.12008.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071207172251.0217aab0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200712071743.09209.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 07 December 2007, Damien Broderick wrote: > Uh huh: "Many nuts think that the best way to go is molecular > nanotechnology." ? Hah. Please excuse me. :) This was from before my interest in transhumanism. And ... with today's publication of the nanotechnology roadmap, I can't validly make that statement any more until I read the entire document: http://heybryan.org/transhuman/nanotech/NanotechRoadmap2007.zip - Bryan From x at extropica.org Sat Dec 8 04:11:55 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:11:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [Phil. Sci] Beauty and truth in physics: Murray Gell-Mann on TED Message-ID: Apropos much of the discussion in this forum. > Wielding laypeople's terms and a sense of humor, Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann drops some knowledge about particle physics, asking questions like, Are elegant equations more likely to be right than inelegant ones? Can the fundamental law, the so-called "theory of everything," really explain everything? His answers will surprise you. (Recorded March 2007 in Monterey, California. Duration: 17:07.) > From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 8 07:01:33 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 23:01:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071207172251.0217aab0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200712080728.lB87SBkm005375@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) > > Bryan Bishop writes: > > >I'm on it (the design/implementation): > >http://heybryan.org/projects/atoms/ > > Uh huh: "Many nuts think that the best way to go is molecular > nanotechnology." Count me among these nuts. Nanotechnology can perhaps be defined as matter arranged in such a way as to maximize the ratio of information to matter. (Hey, I kinda like that. I donate the meme to the public domain. {8^D) We already know that space travel is not impossible but is difficult. For that reason it seems a waste of both information and energy to carry matter across vast stretches of emptiness without first having maximized the information content of the matter being hurled. spike From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 8 11:22:10 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:22:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <20071208112210.GC10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 04:22:47PM -0700, kevin at kevinfreels.com wrote: > > You spent so much time trying to show off your brains that you forgot Is that what you think I was trying to do? > to think. I didn't claim that the universe is engineered. I said that > there is no evidence showing that it hasn't been. They are not the Do you understand how science works? Does negative proof ring a bell? > same. The evidence does not need to be some huge structure that is > obviously "built". Simply nudging some things around a few billion > years ago so that they arrive in the right spots a hundred billion > years from now would be quite enough and hardly noticeable to us. If it't not observable, even in principle, we don't have to spend any thought on it. There is an infinity of such things, and our resources are very finite. > Your responses are absurd. You do nothing to argue the point. You Maybe you missed quite a few of them. > attack as if I am the enemy with name calling, and talk of unicorns, > starships, and girls with cups? I wonder what drugs you may be on. No None, unfortunately. > one thinks of Douglas Adams as scripture. It's just humor. I don't > suppose you know what that is? He is funny. Just not very funny. > > > Your enemy is not me - it's your own lack of knowledge. As long as you > prance around and think you know everything that is out there and > assume that advanced civilizations will fit the molds we place them > into, you will be confounded by the Fermi Bifurcation just as Zeno was > stuck on his dichotomies. You only allow two choices - we are all > there ever was, or the universe would be full. I'm sorry, but it's > just not that neat. Any particular reason you top-posted this, without trimming citations? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 15:18:43 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 09:18:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712080728.lB87SBkm005375@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712080728.lB87SBkm005375@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712080918.43739.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 08 December 2007, spike wrote: > ?For that reason it seems a waste of both information and energy to > carry matter across vast stretches of emptiness without first having > maximized the information content of the matter being hurled. Yes, which also brings us back to some other ideas, i.e. interstellar lasers for pure information transfer. We already have lasers that operate on our bodies (laser eye surgery is a popular one)- and in the future, why not on distant planetary bodies? Then you've maximized information content while *eliminating* matter. I have not done any calculations on how much energy this would require. - Bryan From robotact at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 15:23:36 2007 From: robotact at gmail.com (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 18:23:36 +0300 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712080918.43739.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712080728.lB87SBkm005375@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712080918.43739.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 8, 2007 6:18 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Saturday 08 December 2007, spike wrote: > > For that reason it seems a waste of both information and energy to > > carry matter across vast stretches of emptiness without first having > > maximized the information content of the matter being hurled. > > Yes, which also brings us back to some other ideas, i.e. interstellar > lasers for pure information transfer. We already have lasers that > operate on our bodies (laser eye surgery is a popular one)- and in the > future, why not on distant planetary bodies? Then you've maximized > information content while *eliminating* matter. I have not done any > calculations on how much energy this would require. > > - Bryan Interesting: has anyone thought about feasibility of 'burning' functional devices across interstellar distances? You send a signal that travels at speed of light, which somehow causes formation of nanodevices far away that then can do whatever you program them to... -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:robotact at gmail.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Dec 8 15:53:25 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:53:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] OpenOffice + math Message-ID: <200712081553.lB8Fr2j65950@unreasonable.com> Does anyone here use OpenOffice heavily, especially for stuff that involves equations? If so, can I pester you with questions off-list? I'd like to use it instead of Microsoft Office for my new business, but am running into rough edges, particularly with getting math to look right. The equation editor doesn't seem to be able to do what I want it to. For instance, the newline feature hiccups, and doesn't either "do the right thing" or let me manually control the indentation of successive lines in a multiple-line equation. More importantly, I can't control the alignment of multiple equations so that all the equal signs will be at the same offset from the left margin. When the equations are very different, this isn't noticeable. But when the left-hand side is very similar, the slight difference in offset looks tacky. And is there a similar way to get a programmer's pretty-printing for document content that happens to be code? -- David. From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 8 16:11:45 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 08:11:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712080918.43739.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712081638.lB8GcNIM020726@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Bishop > Subject: Re: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) > > On Saturday 08 December 2007, spike wrote: > > ?For that reason it seems a waste of both information and energy to > > carry matter across vast stretches of emptiness without first having > > maximized the information content of the matter being hurled. > > Yes, which also brings us back to some other ideas, i.e. interstellar > lasers for pure information transfer. We already have lasers that > operate on our bodies (laser eye surgery is a popular one)- and in the > future, why not on distant planetary bodies? Then you've maximized > information content while *eliminating* matter. I have not done any > calculations on how much energy this would require. > > - Bryan I can see a big advantage in sending at least *some* matter, some minimal amount, rather than just information. I can imagine a nanoprobe or virus-like machine making copies of itself at the destination somehow. But with just laser-carried information, I don't easily see how it could be done, especially if the sender knew not what conditions exist at the far end. spike From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 17:52:50 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:52:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712081638.lB8GcNIM020726@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712081638.lB8GcNIM020726@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712081152.50571.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 08 December 2007, spike wrote: > I can see a big advantage in sending at least *some* matter, some > minimal amount, rather than just information. ?I can imagine a > nanoprobe or virus-like machine making copies of itself at the > destination somehow. ?But with just laser-carried information, I > don't easily see how it could be done, especially if the sender knew > not what conditions exist at the far end. That's where the cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers would come in, followed by the friendly biochemists and synbio experts. You'd have to be able to predict where a planet will be, dozens of ly away (or more). You might have to play with planetary atmospheres, which is dangerous because you have the potential destruction of already established lifeforms. - Bryan From jonkc at att.net Sat Dec 8 17:51:37 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:51:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> kevin at kevinfreels.com > I didn't claim that the universe is engineered. > I said that there is no evidence showing that > it hasn't been. If the fact that virtually all photons of electromagnet energy are radiated uselessly into infinite space is not evidence that the universe has not been engineered then please give us an example of something that would convince you. If a theory can not be disproved then it is religion not science. > You only allow two choices - we are all there ever was, or the universe > would be full. My two choices were that we are the first or there is something waiting in the wings to sabotage mind when it gets too big for its britches, probably drug addiction. > I'm sorry Yes, you are very sorry. However Eugen is wrong about one thing, Douglas Adams has indeed written a holy book and to say otherwise is blasphemous. Infidel! John K Clark From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 17:57:05 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:57:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: References: <200712080728.lB87SBkm005375@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712080918.43739.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712081157.05728.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 08 December 2007, Vladimir Nesov wrote: > Interesting: has anyone thought about feasibility of 'burning' > functional devices across interstellar distances? You send a signal > that travels at speed of light, which somehow causes formation of > nanodevices far away that then can do whatever you program them to... We'd start off trying to encourage the development of biologies on distant planets, setting the environmental conditions just right, but eventually "burning" may be possible. An obvious first step is developing machinery locally with lasers. In lab BEC machines, we already use lasers to (nearly completely) stop the movement of atoms and then move them via magnetic fields, but that's not laser-only construction, is it? - Bryan From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 17:59:09 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:59:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] OpenOffice + math In-Reply-To: <200712081553.lB8Fr2j65950@unreasonable.com> References: <200712081553.lB8Fr2j65950@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200712081159.09383.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 08 December 2007, David Lubkin wrote: > I'd like to use it instead of Microsoft Office for my new business, > but am running into rough edges, particularly with getting math to > look right. The equation editor doesn't seem to be able to do what I > want it to. You may want to also try: http://www.lyx.org/ - a GUI front-end for LaTeX math, was once recommended to me There's also an (x)emacs module somewhere. - Bryan From scerir at tiscali.it Sat Dec 8 19:05:41 2007 From: scerir at tiscali.it (scerir at tiscali.it) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:05:41 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] abandon all services Message-ID: <6181223.1197140741844.JavaMail.root@ps5> Censis (serious institute) issued its 2007 Report. It seems interesting. Found this page in english http://ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2007-12-07_107150381. html The paper should be here (Italian only) http://www.censis.it/ ____________________________________________________________ Tiscali.Fax: il tuo fax online in promo fino al 31 dicembre, paghi 15? e ricarichi 20? http://vas.tiscali.it/fax// From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 8 18:50:24 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:50:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712081152.50571.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712081917.lB8JH1Vn010043@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Bishop > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 9:53 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) > > On Saturday 08 December 2007, spike wrote: > > I can see a big advantage in sending at least *some* matter, some > > minimal amount, rather than just information. ?I can imagine a > > nanoprobe or virus-like machine making copies of itself at the > > destination somehow. ?But with just laser-carried information, I > > don't easily see how it could be done, especially if the sender knew > > not what conditions exist at the far end. > > That's where the cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers would > come in, followed by the friendly biochemists and synbio experts. You'd > have to be able to predict where a planet will be, dozens of ly away > (or more). You might have to play with planetary atmospheres, which is > dangerous because you have the potential destruction of already > established lifeforms. > > - Bryan Hmmm, not necessarily Bryan perhaps, on several of these contentions. If the nanoprobes are inactive at low temperatures and thus travel for arbitrarily long time spans, then the dozens of light years does not apply. If they are as expendable as a handful of dust, then we need not predict the existence of planets. If there is potential destruction of extant life forms at the destination, that scarcely represents any risk for the sender. spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 19:44:59 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:44:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Dec 8, 2007 5:51 PM, John K Clark wrote: > My two choices were that we are the first or there is something waiting in > the wings to sabotage mind when it gets too big for its britches, probably > drug addiction. > I have to mostly go along with John's choices. 1) We are either the first, or space-faring minds are incredibly rare. Given the huge size and age of the visible universe, there could be other minds that we can't see, during the tiny time we have been looking around. There has been plenty of time for many civs to have come and gone in past aeons, but they have left no evidence of their presence. 2) There could be many reasons for minds not going into space and reshaping the visible universe. Obviously, they haven't in past millennia. Nothing we see seems unnatural. John's suggestion of 'Second Life' (but much, much more) addiction is reasonable. Maybe minds do destroy themselves when they get too clever for their own good. (We seem to be on track to put more and more power in the hands of those who want to cause destruction). But there is no need for just one reason. There are probably many reasons which combine together to make minds stop short of rebuilding the universe. Maybe they don't have any need to do that. Maybe they think it is a silly idea. Maybe it is too difficult and not worth the effort. Maybe they destroy themselves in the attempt. Whatever..... No space-faring civs is the picture we see at present, anyway. 3) There is a third alternative, that minds keep growing and transcend to somewhere else, leaving our universe unchanged. We can always hope. BillK From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 19:56:01 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:56:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712081917.lB8JH1Vn010043@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712081917.lB8JH1Vn010043@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712081356.01288.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 08 December 2007, spike wrote: > Hmmm, not necessarily Bryan perhaps, on several of these contentions. > ?If the nanoprobes are inactive at low temperatures and thus travel > for arbitrarily long time spans, then the dozens of light years does > not apply. But I thought we were talking about lasers for the moment? I understand that with a von Neumann probe with MNT on-board could just be fitted with planet-scoping/scouting techniques so that it may function where ever it may find itself in the galaxy. But we were talking about lasers, yes? - Bryan From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 20:12:38 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:12:38 +0000 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Dec 8, 2007 5:51 PM, John K Clark wrote: > My two choices were that we are the first or there is something waiting in > the wings to sabotage mind when it gets too big for its britches, probably > drug addiction. > George Dvorsky has just posted an interesting piece about the fermi paradox on his blog. Transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom refers to this as the strong convergence hypothesis -- the idea that all sufficiently advanced civilizations converge towards the same optimal state (or go extinct). This is a hypothesized developmental tendency akin to a Dawkinsian fitness peak -- the suggestion that identical environmental stressors, limitations and attractors will compel intelligences to settle around optimal existential modes. This theory does not favour the diversification of intelligence ? at least not outside of a very strict set of living parameters. The question thus becomes, what is the space of all possible post-Singularity machine minds that result in a civilization's (or a singleton's) ongoing existence? ------------------ BillK From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 22:54:26 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:54:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200712081654.26705.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 08 December 2007, BillK wrote: > The question thus becomes, what is the space of all possible > post-Singularity machine minds that result in a civilization's (or a > singleton's) ongoing existence? More simply, start asking that question for cells in a human body. Once we can eliminate cancer and aging at that level, which is arguably much simpler since we *have* cells and we do not have ai, then we can start theorizing on likewise tactics for civilizations-as-bodies. - Bryan From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Dec 9 01:32:10 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:32:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] OpenOffice + math In-Reply-To: <200712081159.09383.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712081553.lB8Fr2j65950@unreasonable.com> <200712081159.09383.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712090131.lB91Vkj01023@unreasonable.com> Bryan wrote: >You may want to also try: >http://www.lyx.org/ >- a GUI front-end for LaTeX math, was once recommended to me Thanks. I guess I'll look at that later. Someone else told me that LaTeX can be integrated into OpenOffice. But equations are just today's annoyance; they represent at most 1% of what I'm doing. >There's also an (x)emacs module somewhere. Well, that's always a treat (seriously). For UNIX development, I do nearly everything within emacs. -- David. From amara at amara.com Sun Dec 9 03:54:38 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:54:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Simulators and the Theoreticians (was: [Ethics] Better Never to Have Been) Message-ID: Anne Corwin : >Here's an analogy that might make sense if there are any other engineers >on this list (something I imagine is quite likely). As an electrical >engineer, I've worked a bit with modeling and simulation software. >Simulations can help you predict circuit behavior for *particular >parameters*, or within a particular range of accuracy, but NO smart >engineer would rely solely on simulation to verify the functionality of >every one of his or her circuits. Simulations have always attracted me, because, with those, I am a goddess of my own universe. If I incorporate reality in the form of physics equations, and which the computer can understand, then my simulation guides me to a perspective that I would not have gained if I had approached my universe in analog, that is, with straight math. However, I have always given the benefit of the doubt to the theoreticians, that _their_ reality is probably more true than _my_ reality. Or at least their theory should always be able to support anything that my simulations might reveal. Now I'm seeing in the planetary sciences a very interesting dichotomy between the simulators and the theoreticians. The simulators are less dependent or less trusting of the theoreticians' reality and more willing and happy to make large claims about their simulated results without the support of the theoreticians. Moreover, if a theoretical result perplexes them, their natural response is to simulate the theory and try to prove the theoretician wrong. Another way of saying this is that the insights, that the simulators gain, do not need to be supported with analog theory; they even think the theoreticians could easily miss such a result. I find this confidence for simulated results very interesting... and surprising. For a person who built some part of her education and toolset in the simulation world, I should have been expecting it, but I was not. Now in 2007, this simple perspective could indicate the direction of our technical successes as well as a kind of proof of our modern age. Still wondering and pondering, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 9 03:30:06 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:30:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712081356.01288.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712090356.lB93uhiB010862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Bishop > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:56 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) > > On Saturday 08 December 2007, spike wrote: > > Hmmm, not necessarily Bryan perhaps, on several of these contentions. > > ?If the nanoprobes are inactive at low temperatures and thus travel > > for arbitrarily long time spans, then the dozens of light years does > > not apply. > > But I thought we were talking about lasers for the moment? I understand > that with a von Neumann probe with MNT on-board could just be fitted > with planet-scoping/scouting techniques so that it may function where > ever it may find itself in the galaxy. But we were talking about > lasers, yes? > > - Bryan Oh OK ja. I am back to trying to imagine it. I can see viral information, where a civilization tries to convince another civilization to remake itself in the image of the sender. spike From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 04:12:07 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:12:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712090356.lB93uhiB010862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712090356.lB93uhiB010862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712082212.07495.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 08 December 2007, spike wrote: > Oh OK ja. ?I am back to trying to imagine it. ?I can see viral > information, where a civilization tries to convince another > civilization to remake itself in the image of the sender. That'd be more suitable to radio communication. - Bryan From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 06:04:59 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:04:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712090356.lB93uhiB010862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712081356.01288.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712090356.lB93uhiB010862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712082204q138341adx3407519abf17d768@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 8, 2007 10:30 PM, spike wrote: > Oh OK ja. I am back to trying to imagine it. I can see viral > information, > where a civilization tries to convince another civilization to remake > itself > in the image of the sender. > This conversation has me thinking of Rucky Rucker's "FreeWare" [1] and the movie "Contact" [2] If information begin propagation through space in a wave that does not cost energy to maintain, if/when a civilization capable of detecting and decoding that message acts upon it - there exists some likelihood that there is some compatibility to make interaction possible. This likelihood is pretty small though. Consider the EM radiation from radio/TV/phones/satellite/wifi/etc - now imagine what creative leaps it would take to make one of those devices meaningfully detect let alone decode a signal intended for a different device. (your best chance is to make a TV play the audio from a radio signal, but your radio is nearly useless understanding packet-encoded data in the wifi frequency) Given the increased challenge of spread-spectrum communications, you can imagine how much "data" may be completely undetected in "white noise" (earthly or CMB) [1] http://www.challengingdestiny.com/reviews/moldies&meatbops.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(film) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 06:21:57 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 00:21:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712090356.lB93uhiB010862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712090356.lB93uhiB010862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712090021.57613.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 08 December 2007, spike wrote: > Oh OK ja. ?I am back to trying to imagine it. ?I can see viral > information, where a civilization tries to convince another > civilization to remake itself in the image of the sender. Which reminds me to link to: Communication with alien intelligence (Marvin Minsky) http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/AlienIntelligence.html Open source contact message (from Paul Fitzpatrick, another MIT fellow): http://cosmicos.sourceforge.net/ - Bryan From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sun Dec 9 06:04:27 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:04:27 -0600 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <20071208112210.GC10128@leitl.org> References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <20071208112210.GC10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <475B856B.5070200@kevinfreels.com> > Do you understand how science works? Yes. And science does something really neat. Over time, we learn new and exciting things. We learn to do things that were previously thought impossible. And the last I checked, it was not a regular practice to totally disregard the improbable as if it were impossible. Saying that ALL civilizations destroy themselves because we can't see ANY is just too big of a leap. Saying that there we are ALONE based on such a small amount of data (relatively) is a big leap as well. Especially this early in the game. I don't pretend to know the answer. But I am not confounded by the paradox either. I simply think we have much more to learn before we can draw that line. If we don't blow ourselves up and we run into other civilizations in the the future I will be proven right. If humanity dies, I may have been wrong. But even then it wouldn't be certain. > Does negative proof ring a bell? > That was my point. Negative proof doesn't work. But just because I can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It may mean that I lack the tools or the knowledge to prove it. But again, I am not stating that I can prove the paradox is wrong right at this moment. I am looking at this from a historical perspective and seeing that the paradox may only a problem because we make too many assumptions. Our technology is still young. > If it't not observable, even in principle, we don't have to spend any thought on it. > There is an infinity of such things, and our resources are very finite. > Again, not true. I didn't say it was not observable at all. Only very difficult to observe with our current tools. Again, there is a difference. Why all the black and white reasoning? If no one spent thought on anything except what they could readily observe with the tools they already had, where would we be? > None, unfortunately. > lol. You do have a sense of humor. I apologize. > > Any particular reason you top-posted this, without trimming citations? > > Yes. I was accessing from work though a webmail account and it was giving me all sorts of formatting trouble and would error forcing me to start over. After a few attempts I just top-posted to get the brief version of what I wanted to say out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sun Dec 9 06:27:14 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:27:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <475B8AC2.5000607@kevinfreels.com> > If the fact that virtually all photons of electromagnet energy are > radiated uselessly into infinite space is not evidence that the universe > has not been engineered then please give us an example of something > that would convince you. If a theory can not be disproved then it is > religion not science. > > Then you and I agree. The paradox is a religion, not science. It is built on the mediocrity principal and the Drake equations both use lots of assumptions and very few facts. The numbers used cannot be disproved. Therefore it is a religion using your own definition. So you have assumption+assumption=paradox. When you use so many assumptions it's no wonder the solution doesn't make any sense. From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 9 06:54:55 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:54:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Simulators and the Theoreticians (was: [Ethics] Better Never to Have Been) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712090654.lB96so4i029377@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps ... > > I find this confidence for simulated results very interesting... and > surprising. For a person who built some part of her education and > toolset in the simulation world, I should have been expecting it, but > I was not. Now in 2007, this simple perspective could indicate the > direction of our technical successes as well as a kind of proof > of our modern age. > > > Still wondering and pondering, > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Thanks Amara, for these very useful and thought-provoking insights. Euclid's proverbial "there is no royal road to geometry" causes me to look for applicability here. We seek a royal road to astronomy in the form of simulations. A traditional formal doctorate in astronomy is out of reach for most, but many of us can develop simulations. What you are seeing in your field may be a sign of things to come. In the future, we may come to trust simulations more than we trust our own eyes. Computer simulations may provide occasional breakthrough insights, but then become widely accepted as a substitute for thinking and reasoning. spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sun Dec 9 06:31:38 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:31:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <475B8BCA.5030808@kevinfreels.com> > I have to mostly go along with John's choices. > > 1) We are either the first, *or space-faring minds are incredibly rare.* > My point exactly. But the only two choices given were that we are the first, or everyone was snuffed out. > Given the huge size and age of the visible universe, there could be > other minds that we can't see, during the tiny time we have been > looking around. My point exactly. Thanks. > There has been plenty of time for many civs to have > come and gone in past aeons, but they have left no evidence of their > presence. > Or we haven't come across it yet. > 2) There could be many reasons for minds not going into space and > reshaping the visible universe. Obviously, they haven't in past > millennia. Nothing we see seems unnatural. John's suggestion of > 'Second Life' (but much, much more) addiction is reasonable. Maybe > minds do destroy themselves when they get too clever for their own > good. (We seem to be on track to put more and more power in the hands > of those who want to cause destruction). > But there is no need for just one reason. There are probably many > reasons which combine together to make minds stop short of rebuilding > the universe. Maybe they don't have any need to do that. Maybe they > think it is a silly idea. Maybe it is too difficult and not worth the > effort. Maybe they destroy themselves in the attempt. Whatever..... > No space-faring civs is the picture we see at present, anyway. > > 3) There is a third alternative, that minds keep growing and transcend > to somewhere else, leaving our universe unchanged. We can always hope. > But that's not a reasonable hypothesis according to some since it can't be proven - as if the Drake equations are any better. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 07:04:03 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:04:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Simulators and the Theoreticians (was: [Ethics] Better Never to Have Been) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200712090104.03213.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 08 December 2007, Amara Graps wrote: > Simulations have always attracted me, because, with those, I am a > goddess of my own universe. I am reminded of: > And it was Maralah who had tried to infect Ai and Pure Mind with > various ohrworms and informational viruses that would cark their > master programs and drive them mad. Maralah was the first god to > discover how vulnerable artificial intelligence is to surrealities, > those almost infinitely detailed simulations of reality that can > wholly take over a computer's neurologics and cause the most powerful > of gods to confuse the illusory for what is real. But it was the > Silicon God himself who had refined this weapon. In a way almost > impossible for Danlo to understand, the Silicon God had forged > mysterious philosophical and psychic weapons, terrible weapons of > consciousness that threatened the sanity of the galaxy, perhaps even > the universe itself. Danlo immediately dreaded this ancient god who > would destroy the minds of all others. s/was the first god/was the first goddess/ - Bryan From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 9 07:18:35 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:18:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Simulators and the Theoreticians In-Reply-To: <200712090104.03213.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712090104.03213.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071209011659.022788d8@satx.rr.com> At 01:04 AM 12/9/2007 -0600, Bryan wrote: >I am reminded of: > > And it was Maralah who had tried to infect Ai and Pure Mind with > > various ohrworms and informational viruses that would cark their > > master programs and drive them mad. In case anyone is baffled ("Wtf?"), here's a review by Nick Gevers, Ph.D., Cape Town, South Africa With War in Heaven (1998), David Zindell has concluded one of the most extraordinary narratives in SF history. What makes the Neverness Quartet (as one might dub War in Heaven and its three predecessors) so remarkable is that it is, simultaneously, an admirably ambitious, luminously poetic work of philosophical space opera and an interminable religiose wallow. When Zindell is creatively inspired, he is one of SF?s paragons; when his attention preachily wanders, the result is a shambles. Rarely has a major SF series been so rewarding ? or so dismaying. The explanation for this paradox may lie in Zindell?s ultimate source of inspiration. But first, in introduction: Neverness (1988) initiated a future history of intense complexity: thousands of years from now, the mystical Academy in the city Neverness supplies starship pilots and ingenious savants to a galaxy populous with humanity; the narrator, Mallory Ringess, is a great pilot whose quest for the secret of godhood leads him among cosmic deities and serene primitives. Neverness is an expansive, shrewd, colourful reworking of earlier genre material, boasting gnomic chapter epigraphs out of Frank Herbert, aliens a la Silverberg, stylistic exuberance after Delany, exoticism according to Vance. This alluring and allusive formula continues in the ?A Requiem for Homo Sapiens?, the successor trilogy composed of The Broken God (1993), The Wild (1995), and War in Heaven; here, Mallory?s son, Danlo, must solve the enigmas of life and transcendence as he trains as a pilot in Neverness, journeys countless light years to persuade star-killing fanatics to see reason, and finally returns to Neverness to prevent his soul brother from corrupting all life and destroying the universe. Concerns of genuine import are at stake; the narrative delivers a rich succession of densely told confrontations, trials, and epiphanies. Characterizations are strong; settings resonate with history and with myth. This is all to the good; but the bad must also be acknowledged; and both can, as indicated earlier, be seen as resulting from Zindell?s chief influence. This is Gene Wolfe. In his The Book of the New Sun (1980-3), Wolfe succeeded in many purposes; among other things, he told a quest tale that summed up all previous SF and, in so doing, proclaimed, subtly but emphatically, Wolfe?s religious Belief. Zindell, whose work often reads like an homage to Wolfe, has attempted, with absolute dedication, to repeat this feat. This helps explain Zindell?s commendable traits of thematic seriousness and sensitivity to SF?s genre nuances. But where Wolfe implies his creed, Zindell asserts his; where Wolfe?s theology is almost subliminal, Zindell blares forth sermons. Danlo Ringess undergoes interminable sequences of Significant Visions, rendered, often incoherently, in a tangled symbolic language, whose peculiarly impoverished vocabulary often seems to consist of little more than invocations of fire, stars, wind, sky, birds, and worms. So confident is Zindell that his advocacy of a kind of transcendent pantheistic vitalism is a necessary gospel to his readers that his judgement as a writer is undermined. His text becomes bloated, lazily repetitious. His message ? the persistence and evolving continuity of life ? is hardly profound, yet it hectoringly pervades four volumes totalling over two thousand pages. Zindell?s good writing is so good that he must be read; but the bad that comes with the good is often very bad indeed. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 9 07:30:11 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:30:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] more on Zindell and sims Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071209012828.022630b0@satx.rr.com> Storms of Numbers, Chalices of Light an interview with David Zindell by Nick Gevers Ho hum. From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Dec 9 08:39:30 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:39:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) In-Reply-To: <200712082212.07495.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712090356.lB93uhiB010862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712082212.07495.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004201c83a3f$048cdbf0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> That was the basic plot from the movie Species. Alien DNA sequence is received from deep space transmission and combined by Earth with human DNA to create a human/alien hybrid bent on world conquest. I hope to think the folks at Nasa will watch that movie first in case we ever do get such a message from deep space. :D -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Bishop Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:12 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] von Neumann probes (was Re: fermi paradox) On Saturday 08 December 2007, spike wrote: > Oh OK ja. ?I am back to trying to imagine it. ?I can see viral > information, where a civilization tries to convince another > civilization to remake itself in the image of the sender. That'd be more suitable to radio communication. - Bryan _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 14:18:48 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:18:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] more on Zindell and sims In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071209012828.022630b0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071209012828.022630b0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200712090818.48382.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 09 December 2007, Damien Broderick quoted: > territory that it describes, a virtual reality can only ever be a > pale shadow of the real thing. Such constructs might prove amusing, > or even useful and illuminating, but how could they ever take the > place of the essential reality that they represent? Maybe the subjective biases of whatever processes/beings are within the vr could choose to it over True reality? After all, even in the True reality we are unable to completely see the territory and our brains _must_ make maps. Damien, is this the first time you've heard of Zindell? - Bryan From citta437 at aol.com Sun Dec 9 15:34:28 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:34:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Miserabilist Message-ID: <8CA08901F043AC2-998-527D@webmail-db18.sysops.aol.com> The nihilists cling to a relative world of relationships or the appearances of reality. Both nihilists and eternalists deny the quantum interactions of energy where energy is neither created nor destroyed. In a time dominated universe, we cannot see beyond time. Physicists see theoretical time as the fourth dimension of our unverse. There are other universes according to Hawkings where time does not exist but we have no technology to travel inside dark holes where gravity, light and spacetime disappear. Julian Barbour a Brithish physicist claimed if we do away time in the equation, we might be able to find the technology to unite gravity and quantum physics along the line of the unification theory of everything {synergy}? Ancient philosophers see time as a mind construct and said that in reality nothing is born and hence nothing dies as energy is neither created nor destroyed. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003 From amara at amara.com Sun Dec 9 16:49:42 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:49:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] abandon all services Message-ID: scerir: >Censis (serious institute) issued its 2007 Report. It seems interesting. >Found this page in english >http://ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2007-12-07_107150381.html With such a trend, I can't imagine what the 2009 report will say. :-( The Dalai Lama recently visited Italy. The most public and prominent Italians who were interested in meeting and talking with him was a political comedian activist (Beppe Grillo) and a mayor (Letizia Moratti). (http://beppegrillo.it/english.php ) That indicates to me that some serious effort is underway in the country of focusing on one's belly button. These recent events seem to support the above report. If I was more Buddhist than I am, the combination of the experiences of my Italian years plus the final months left me on November 17 with almost nothing that I once valued when I entered the Italy in January 2003, but instead, a pure being, which would have been perfect for entering a monastery. :-/ But all of that isn't really even important, at the end. I still have my good health, which is more important than everything, so that is the biggest lesson to my ~5 Italian years. Ciao, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 9 18:20:10 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:20:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] more on Zindell and sims In-Reply-To: <200712090818.48382.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071209012828.022630b0@satx.rr.com> <200712090818.48382.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071209121439.023f0d48@satx.rr.com> At 08:18 AM 12/9/2007 -0600, Bryan wrote: >Damien, is this the first time you've heard of Zindell? Er , no. See, for example, Anders Sandberg's essay "The Vastening: The posthuman far future of David Zindell," in my book EARTH IS BUT A STAR (2001). Damien Broderick From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Dec 9 17:56:59 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:56:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] abandon all services In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> Amara wrote: >If I was more Buddhist than I am, the combination of the experiences of >my Italian years plus the final months left me on November 17 with >almost nothing that I once valued when I entered the Italy in January >2003, but instead, a pure being, which would have been perfect for >entering a monastery. :-/ Not a nunnery....? >But all of that isn't really even important, at the end. I still have >my good health, which is more important than everything, so that is >the biggest lesson to my ~5 Italian years. Four thoughts come to mind -- cliches admittedly, but I believe in them. Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich st?rker. *Nothing* in life is entirely good or entirely bad. You should write more -- they say nothing bad can ever happen to a writer. Whenever something does, you can say, "Hey, I can use that." Besides your health, you have your friends. And you *are* someone abounding with people who give a damn what happens to you. -- David. From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 18:41:56 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 12:41:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] more on Zindell and sims In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071209121439.023f0d48@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071209012828.022630b0@satx.rr.com> <200712090818.48382.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071209121439.023f0d48@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200712091241.56433.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 09 December 2007, Damien Broderick wrote: > Er , no. See, for example, Anders Sandberg's essay "The > Vastening: The posthuman far future of David Zindell," in my book > EARTH IS BUT A STAR (2001). My mistake. I think I remember seeing that essay, too, on a Google Book hunt. - Bryan From jonkc at att.net Sun Dec 9 18:41:33 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:41:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net><006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> <475B8AC2.5000607@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <001101c83a93$2c5c2920$2b064e0c@MyComputer> "Kevin Freels" > Then you and I agree. The paradox is a religion, not science. We will agree when you tell me, as I have already done, what evidence would convince you that the Universe has not been engineered. John K Clark From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 03:31:34 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:31:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: A donor egg gives life -- and a death sentence Message-ID: <29666bf30712091931y30c952c8ua480e39937d18f17@mail.gmail.com> I've previously written about the testing for Tay-Sachs as a positive form reprogenetics (See? I'm learning) and this story from today's front page has it all: egg donation, surrogacy, gay parenthood, but a very unhappy ending. A young woman egg donor and surrogate was an unknowing Tay-Sachs carrier, but she wasn't tested because she did not reveal her background was partially French Canadian and at least one of her offspring now suffers from this fatal disease. The potential fathers were not even asked the genealogical questions and one of turned out to be a carrier as well. And there seems to be no system in place to contact the other families the surrogate worked with, or prevent her from donating again if she chose to. Because Tay-Sachs screening is one of the most extraordinary success stories in genetic testing, the shoddy testing in the egg/sperm donation world revealed in this story really surprised me. PJ http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-me-eggs8dec08,1,2901966.story >From the Los Angeles Times Special report A donor egg gives life -- and a death sentence By William Heisel Los Angeles Times Staff Writer December 8, 2007 The particulars of Alexandra Gammelgard's egg donations are a bit of a blur to her. Between the ages 18 and 21, she donated to at least four infertile couples, using two, maybe three, agencies that paid her from $5,000 to $15,000 for each donation. She was trying to pay for her education at UC San Diego and didn't keep track of the details. "The college years of your life go by so fast, and you do so many crazy, random things that it's hard to remember it all," Gammelgard, now 23, says. She believes at least four children were conceived from her eggs, results she was proud of. In recent months, however, she got grim news: One has Tay-Sachs, a neurological disease that usually kills its victims before age 5. A child can develop the disease only if both parents carry a relatively rare genetic mutation. Gammelgard said she had no clue she was a carrier; she hadn't been tested because she wasn't in the groups at highest risk. She knows now. The couple raising the sick child contacted the agency that arranged Gammelgard's egg donation. The agency told her. But neither she nor the agency has made any effort to inform the other families who used Gammelgard as a donor. In the United States, nothing ensures that recipients of donated eggs or sperm are warned about defects later discovered in the donor's family tree. In contrast to blood donations, no one tracks donors and their products. The system is founded largely on a pledge of confidentiality -- the promise that the donor and recipients will remain strangers, linked only through third parties. Donors typically sign contracts severing parental rights and most obligations. But genetic ties endure. When flaws in DNA slip through the screening process, they may fan out over generations, undetected until it is too late. Even if Gammelgard's other children do not have Tay-Sachs, they have a 50% chance of carrying the mutation. And these children, if they grow up to conceive babies with other Tay-Sachs carriers, have a 25% chance of passing along the disease. For all Gammelgard knows, couples may have embryos made from her eggs in storage, awaiting implantation. Others may have conceived children she hasn't heard about. "It's awful that in the United States right now, the buck stops with this young lady who donated," said Elizabeth Stephen, an associate professor of demography at Georgetown University who has studied the fertility industry. "There is no tracking system and no enforcement." 'A big family' Bruce Steiger recalls telling Rick Karl on one of their first dates: "I want to have a family -- a big family." Karl, raised as a conservative Catholic, had never considered the possibility. Over the years, Steiger convinced him that their well-paying jobs in the high-tech industry were going to get them only so far down the path to happiness. "I've always considered having children to be pretty much out of the question, and that saddens me," Karl remembers telling Steiger one day in 2002 during a walk along the ocean in Long Beach. "So, if we can do this, let's go do it." Through a gay parents group, they found an agency, Surrogate Alternatives in Chula Vista, that specialized in finding women to provide eggs and surrogates to carry the child, for a fee. Such agencies typically are small, for-profit operations, drawing donors and surrogates through ads and clients via the Internet or word of mouth. Operated by a surrogate mother from her home, Surrogate Alternatives is essentially a matchmaker. Although the 9-year-old agency has a website highlighting its links with fertility doctors, it has no medical staff. Outside doctors, recommended by the agency or chosen by the client, handle genetic testing as well as egg harvesting, fertilization and implantation. Steiger and Karl had a rough start. After they selected a donor, a surrogate and a clinic, embryos were created in the lab using the donor's eggs and both men's sperm. But two efforts to impregnate the surrogate failed. They intended to try a third time, but the donor failed a drug test. A second egg donor didn't work out either. At that point, "we wanted an egg donor and a surrogate who had a track record," said Steiger, now 42. "We didn't want to take any more chances." Gammelgard seemed a good bet. She'd already helped at least one other couple conceive, through a different agency. As a freshman, she'd noticed an ad in her college paper. "It was like 'Be an angel,' she recalled. " 'Make money for college. A family is looking for a donor.' " She got in touch with several agencies, fielding offers from one, then another. "I feel like I look good on paper," she said, noting that she was a high school valedictorian with interests in art and sports. After examining Surrogate Alternatives' Web catalog of donors, Karl and Steiger thought so too. She was tall, athletic and blond. She cited no serious family health problems. The couple picked her based mostly on a picture and questionnaire. She had written: "I feel like egg-donating is my gift to give to the world." Growing numbers The number of American children born from donated eggs grows each year, reaching about 6,500 in 2005. Donated sperm accounts for an estimated tens of thousands of births annually. Many recipients and donors contact broker agencies with the assumption that screening and testing will be as thorough as the field of genetic science allows. After all, clients are spending a lot of money. Karl and Steiger estimate they spent about $250,000 on conception alone, with about 10% of that going to Surrogate Alternatives.In reality, scrutiny of donors varies widely. Tay-Sachs testing can be done for between $100 and $250, but fertility doctors say testing everyone for every known genetic disorder would be prohibitively expensive and is unnecessary. Testing generally is limited to certain diseases linked to known high-risk groups. In the case of Tay-Sachs, that would be Jews and French Canadians. There are no governmental regulations, only guidelines set by medical societies. In recent years, some parents have alleged that inadequate screening has led to tragic results. In 2003, a Santa Barbara family received a confidential settlement from a Los Angeles sperm bank that allegedly overlooked a prolific donor's family history of kidney disease. Their daughter inherited the illness, which could cut short her life. Even if industry guidelines are followed to the letter, rare genetic conditions sometimes slip through. Because there is neither a tracking system to catch problems nor a limit on how many families can use the same donor, the effects can multiply before anyone notices. A Michigan sperm donor unwittingly carried a rare mutation that put his progeny at risk for leukemia and serious infection. He fathered at least 11 children, five with the disease. The pattern was noticed and reported in a medical journal last year -- only because of a coincidence: The same medical specialist treated the children. Britain does things differently. Sixteen years ago, the government created a registry for egg and sperm donors, mostly to prevent offspring from inadvertently marrying relatives. Included are names, contact information and detailed personal histories. Donors and recipients have access to the registry, as do children once they turn 18. Britain also limits the number of families that can use a single donor. An approach like Britain's would be a departure from the American tradition, which relies heavily on anonymous donation with no strings attached. But some U.S. fertility experts favor a voluntary registry that would include disease histories and pregnancy outcomes. "The beauty of it is that the information helps everybody," said Andrea Braverman, a Pennsylvania psychologist who is on a task force preparing a proposal. "If you are having a child, you'd like to know that there were no problems with children born from that egg donor. And if you're the donor, when it comes time to have children of your own, it might be nice to know there were no genetic disorders related to your donated eggs." Screening promised Steiger said Surrogate Alternatives promised him and Karl that their egg donor would undergo a thorough screening. What they didn't know is that few rules guide this process. Genetic screening is a loose term that encompasses everything from a few questions on paper to an in-person interview with a certified counselor trained to find inherited diseases lurking in the family tree. Even if all the right questions are asked, donors may not know all the answers, and some downplay the risks in pursuit of money. Testing, performed by doctors, is generally based on what the screening yields. Gammelgard recalled meeting "at some point" with a genetic counselor, although she said she did not know if it was for Karl and Steiger's case. "You go through all the family members you can remember, where they came from, any health problems," she recalled. She said she reported what she had been told since she was 5 years old: that she was mostly Scandinavian. Although she didn't say so on her Surrogate Alternatives questionnaire, she told The Times she had some "Irish French Catholic" lineage on her mother's side. The risk of carrying a Tay-Sachs mutation for most Caucasians is about 1 in 300. It is about 10 times greater for Jews of European heritage and French Canadians, for whom medical experts recommend testing. But Gammelgard said she was a member of neither group. Irish Americans have a risk as high as 1 in 50, but testing is not recommended. Karl and Steiger said they were not screened or tested for genetic abnormalities. They said they weren't asked. After the initial setbacks, the couple wanted a fresh start. They selected a new doctor, a well-known Westwood reproductive endocrinologist named Vicken Sahakian, to handle the fertility treatments and implantation. "She was pure Scandinavian background, so there was no reason to test for Tay-Sachs," Sahakian said of Gammelgard. "I still to this day wish there was something I could have done to prevent this, but there wasn't." Legally, Karl and Steiger were on notice about the risks. They signed a contract with Surrogate Alternatives stating that the baby's health was not guaranteed. But they now believe someone -- the agency or the doctor or both -- dropped the ball. Gammelgard agrees. "Why weren't we offered this test?" Steiger asked. "It would have totally prevented this from happening." Pregnancy at last After several attempts, the surrogate hired by Karl and Steiger got pregnant in May 2005. The initial ultrasound exam showed twins. "We were excited. After so many tries, we thought that maybe it just made sense that we would end up with two children instead of one," said Karl, now 47. After 15 weeks, though, the surrogate miscarried one fetus. Karl and Steiger recalled that their obstetrician assured them that the other was healthy. So it seemed when Krystie was born in January 2006, on Karl's birthday. For the first few months, she hit all the milestones. At 10 months, though, her development stalled. She wasn't interacting as much. She couldn't crawl. She had trouble focusing her gaze. Karl and Steiger took her to neurologists and occupational therapists, but it was an ophthalmologist who noticed the telltale cherry-red spots on her retina. Krystie was diagnosed the day before her first birthday. The couple had intended to keep paternity a mystery. Both men's sperm was mixed with Gammelgard's eggs. When they found out Krystie was sick, though, doctors said identifying the mutation that caused the disease might help treat it. Karl was found to be the Tay-Sachs carrier and, by inference, Krystie's father. He is of Irish American heritage but had no Tay-Sachs in his family that he knew of. The test results suggested a mutation typical of French Canadians. "I will always have this incredible amount of guilt because I'm the one who did this to our daughter," Karl said. The couple resolved to make sure it didn't happen again, at least with this donor. The problem was in getting everyone down the line to communicate and cooperate. Steiger and Karl knew little more than Gammelgard's birth date and first name. So they asked Surrogate Alternatives to tell Gammelgard what had happened and arrange for a genetic test. They wanted to determine the mutation she carried, in hopes of helping Krystie. This would also confirm that Gammelgard was the donor. Surrogate Alternatives' owner said she reached Gammelgard once and asked her to be tested but said she was unable to contact her again to follow up. "Her phone number has changed," owner Diane Van De Voort-Perez told The Times. The newspaper found Gammelgard in the San Francisco Bay Area by using public records and Internet message boards. She contradicted Van De Voort-Perez's account, saying she has had the same cellphone number since college and was in continual e-mail contact with Surrogate Alternatives in the months after Krystie's diagnosis. Several e-mails she provided appeared to support her assertion. She said she gladly would have been tested if Surrogate Alternatives had arranged for it and paid the costs in advance. The agency wanted Gammelgard to do the legwork and then ask for reimbursement, according to her account, which is supported by e-mails she furnished. "That just pissed me off," Gammelgard said. "I said, 'Look, this is not my fault.' " As for the other recipients of Gammelgard's eggs, Van De Voort-Perez said Surrogate Alternatives has no way of contacting them. Different agencies handled all of her other donations, she said, and her agency never asked which they were. Sahakian said he treated one of the other women who conceived using Gammelgard's eggs but gave conflicting accounts of what transpired. In an initial interview, he told The Times that he had not warned the woman about the Tay-Sachs risk. He also said he had treated the woman before Krystie's conception, citing that successful birth as a reason why he thought Gammelgard was a safe choice as a donor for Karl and Steiger. Asked for details weeks later, he said he had been mistaken: He had treated the woman after Krystie's conception. Once he knew about Krystie's Tay-Sachs mutation, he said, he had warned the woman about the risk. The woman's baby is healthy, he said, although he would not say whether the baby had been tested for the Tay-Sachs mutation. "I can't go out and tell every agency in the country to watch out for this donor," Sahakian said. "I would be totally breaking the law because I would be revealing her [Gammelgard's] private information. "The really scary thing is that nothing would stop her from donating again," he said. "She could simply go to another agency, another doctor, and not say anything about what happened." Gammelgard said she assumes she carries the mutation and that she is through with egg donation. But she said she is not inclined to try to contact the other agencies she worked with. She does not recall their names, she said. "I kind of washed my hands of it," she said, "and walked away." A fragile child Krystie is now nearly 2, still fragile after an experimental stem cell transplant aimed at prolonging her life. She was recently fitted with foot braces, in case she is ever able to walk. Mostly, she sleeps. "Knowing what this disease is and what it does to kids, it's beyond my understanding how someone can play the dice by not telling other parents," said Dr. Lawrence Charnas, a neurologist treating Krystie at the University of Minnesota Children's Hospital in Fairview, Minn. Steiger and Karl have all but moved from their Rancho Mirage home to be near the hospital. Their careers are mostly on hold. They keep a blog, detailing Krystie's hemoglobin levels, her steroid regimen, her days of vomiting and pain, her nights of crankiness and crying. They rejoice over small improvements, grateful she is still alive. They have helped launch the Cure Tay-Sachs Foundation, curetay-sachs.org, to raise money for research. They wish they could do more. "Those other parents have a right to know what might happen to their children or that their children might be carriers of this disease," Karl said. "But there's nothing we can do about it. We don't even know who they are." william.heisel at latimes.com Times editorial assistant Nardine Saad contributed to this report. From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 10 04:50:11 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:50:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] xmas songs again 2 In-Reply-To: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200712100450.lBA4o6AW015048@andromeda.ziaspace.com> It isn't just the seasonal songs, but also the long stale traditional stories that invite ridicule. For instance, consider the Dickens classic that I need not even name. Marley is sent to warn Scrooge of his evil ways. But when one thinks about it, the wrong lesson is easily inferred. Marley's accent gets transformed to proper Oxfordian (otherwise it he would have been all: Eh mon, eets Chreestmaahss!) and loses the dreadlocks, but a worse fate could be easily imagined. Marley can float around apparently weightlessly like something out of second life, pass thru walls, he gets to haunt stingy old bastards who are still alive, likely all his buddies from down at the Tory club. The warning would be ineffective. It just doesn't sound like half bad duty to me. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 10 04:27:31 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:27:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] abandon all services In-Reply-To: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > >But all of that isn't really even important, at the end. I still have > >my good health, which is more important than everything, so that is > >the biggest lesson to my ~5 Italian years... Amara Amara your comment demonstrates the wisdom and courage that makes us proud to be in the same online gang with you. Surely all that bicycle riding has served you well. > Besides your health, you have your friends. And > you *are* someone abounding with people who give a damn what happens to > you. -- David. True words indeed. Both of our members who have experienced recent personal tragedy, Amara and Keith, have shown an admirable resilience. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 05:40:01 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:40:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] xmas songs again 2 In-Reply-To: <200712100450.lBA4o6AW015048@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> <200712100450.lBA4o6AW015048@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712092140s6ec32c1id1db5a01ecb147a6@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 9, 2007 11:50 PM, spike wrote: > It isn't just the seasonal songs, but also the long stale traditional > stories that invite ridicule. For instance, consider the Dickens classic > that I need not even name. Marley is sent to warn Scrooge of his evil > ways. > I'd like to know who still thinks it's a good idea to teach children that they need to be like everyone else or they're not allowed to play reindeer games. In our modern world if the elf applied to dental school and was discriminated by race he'd be entitled to the kind of settlement money that precludes ever needing to work again. I can't even begin to imagine the kind of protests on behalf of the "abominable snow beast" that has his teeth ripped out and forced into a life of dependent servitude inside the toy factory. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 10 05:16:12 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:16:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1197263759_14546@S3.cableone.net> I post to other places sometimes. Here is one from an EP group Subject: [EP_group] Evolutionary psychology and religion Reply-To: EP_group at yahoogroups.com Attempting to inject more light than heat into this. Evolutionary psychology makes the claim that *every* human psychological trait is either the result of direct selection for the trait in the EEA or a side effect of some trait that was selected. (Plus a few corner cases that might have been fixed by random effects.) That being the case, any wide spread psychological trait for speech, religion, war, status seeking, drug addiction, etc. will almost always be the result of direct selection for the trait or a side effect. Sometimes you can make a clear case. For example, drug addition just about has to be a side effect since lying under a bush stoned on plant sap was a poor approach to passing on your genes in the EEA. Since a substantial fraction of the human population has the psychological traits for religions, we have a choice of this trait being a direct or side effect of some trait that was selected. I make the case for what we see as religions being a side effect of directly selected psychological traits conducive to wars--which in the EEA were a major mode of mortality. (See Azar Gat on this subject.) But I don't hold that case so strongly that a better argument could not convince me there was some other directly or indirectly selected trait that lies behind the common psychological trait we refer to as "religion." *Some* trait leading to present day religions was selected directly or indirectly in the stone age. Whatever it was, it had to have fairly severe selection pressures, i.e., genes for the trait did better on average. As an example, the selection for the ability to adjust to being captured was applied (with dire consequences if it failed) to a substantial fraction of women in each generation. What we see today as Stockholm syndrome is fairly clearly the outcome of women being captured (abducted) from one little group to another. The result is that most of the present population can be affected by Stockholm syndrome with the right trigger conditions. I might add that religion as the outcome of evolved psychological mechanisms leads to some predictions that seem to be true. Of course any *specific* religion is a meme (or complex of memes) so there is certainly a cultural element (memes *are* elements of culture) to the particulars of any religion. But the general human ability to "have" religions is virtually certain to be rooted in genetics. The twin studies strongly support this view, showing strong heritability for "religiosity." I can support any part of this post with references if anyone is interested. Keith Henson From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 12:20:48 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:20:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <1197263759_14546@S3.cableone.net> References: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1197263759_14546@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20712100420l6e08ba44n56297d4927ef7fd5@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 10, 2007 6:16 AM, hkhenson wrote: > Subject: [EP_group] Evolutionary psychology and religion > Reply-To: EP_group at yahoogroups.com > > Attempting to inject more light than heat into this. > > Evolutionary psychology makes the claim that *every* human > psychological trait is either the result of direct selection for the > trait in the EEA or a side effect of some trait that was selected. > (Plus a few corner cases that might have been fixed by random effects.) Do you imply that evolutionary psychology underestimate by definition the effect of genetic drift? Why should it be the case? Stefano Vaj From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 10 14:21:27 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:21:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <580930c20712100420l6e08ba44n56297d4927ef7fd5@mail.gmail.co m> References: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1197263759_14546@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20712100420l6e08ba44n56297d4927ef7fd5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197296474_20712@S3.cableone.net> At 05:20 AM 12/10/2007, you wrote: >On Dec 10, 2007 6:16 AM, hkhenson wrote: > > Subject: [EP_group] Evolutionary psychology and religion > > Reply-To: EP_group at yahoogroups.com > > > > Attempting to inject more light than heat into this. > > > > Evolutionary psychology makes the claim that *every* human > > psychological trait is either the result of direct selection for the > > trait in the EEA or a side effect of some trait that was selected. > > (Plus a few corner cases that might have been fixed by random effects.) > >Do you imply that evolutionary psychology underestimate by definition >the effect of genetic drift? Why should it be the case? It's just mentioned for completeness. I don't know of any psychological traits discovered to date where they are ascribed to drift. Keith From amara at amara.com Mon Dec 10 15:53:43 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:53:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: A donor egg gives life -- and a death sentence Message-ID: PJ: >genetic testing, the shoddy testing in the egg/sperm >donation world revealed in this story really surprised me. Dear PJ, In the one country I know (Estonia), genetic testing is not part of the tests that anonymous donors undergo. After they are screened for HIV, the clinics give the following information for their anonymous donors: information on anonymous sperm donors: Age Height Weight Hair Eyes Glasses Education Nationality Married Children Bloodgroup Rh factor the same as above for anonymous oocyte donors plus: cytomegalovirus (CMV) immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM herpessimplexvirus (HSV) I, II immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM I don't know how expensive are the genetic tests, and how much they would increase the costs in fertility clinics. Anyone have an idea? Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From amara at amara.com Mon Dec 10 16:28:31 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:28:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] abandon all services Message-ID: spike: >Amara your comment demonstrates the wisdom and courage that makes us proud >to be in the same online gang with you. Well thank you, but I think that's just from experience. We, at this age, have a high probability of parents and or other friends/family members with serious illnesses like cancer. I've three, one whose cancer is in remission, and the other two are still fighting. I consider myself lucky that the most that has gone physically wrong are unreproductive genes and a fainting spell and childhood/teenage bumps and sprains and breaks. >Surely all that bicycle riding has served you well. More distant past, maybe, but recent past, Oh, I wish. In fact it's a big sign for how out-of-kilter my life has been when I see years go past without a bicycle tour. I stopped riding daily in Rome/Frascati because I almost got hit by a car a couple of times. However, with this move, I've made big changes along with the dumping my car (at least I hope it was dumped, I'm still waiting for the certificato di demolizione). Last week I had 10-12 hours of exercise for just going to/from work and getting around town by bicycle and walking and bus. The bicycle routes and lanes in Boulder are glorious, they are better than those in Heidelberg, which I thought were already dreamy. And these days too, I'm shoveling snow off of sidewalks.. so my life has taken a strong physical turn. With my pasta consumption down 90%, and my fresh salad consumption up 90%, I should see changes in my appearance in the not too distant future. Ciao, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From seienchan at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 16:33:59 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:33:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <1197296474_20712@S3.cableone.net> References: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1197263759_14546@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20712100420l6e08ba44n56297d4927ef7fd5@mail.gmail.com> <1197296474_20712@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7d6322030712100833o1994d8e0x5631d18f69bc013b@mail.gmail.com> Two points I would make on this email. Firstly, I would have said that religion was a combination of two phenomena: antirational memes, and the use of best available explanations. In a time when people had barely any knowledge about How Things Work, the best use it seemed they could put their creativity to was inventing mythologies to explain the things they saw. In the absence of any real knowledge, this *was* the best available explanation for the natural phenomena they experienced. However, due to its obviously irrational qualities, religion/mythology very quickly became an antirational meme, resisting criticism through stubbornness rather than any kind of deep truth. >Of course any *specific* religion is a meme (or complex of memes) so >there is certainly a cultural element (memes *are* elements of >culture) to the particulars of any religion. But the general human >ability to "have" religions is virtually certain to be rooted in genetics Secondly, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/14/ngod14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/14/ixnewstop.html "*Growing up in a religious environment was said to have little effect on belief. Dr Hamer, who in 1993 claimed to have identified a DNA sequence linked to male homosexuality, said the existence of the "god gene" explained why some people had more aptitude for spirituality than others."* * * Like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for instance. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Dec 10 18:01:42 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:01:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <001101c83a93$2c5c2920$2b064e0c@MyComputer> References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net><006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> <475B8AC2.5000607@kevinfreels.com> <001101c83a93$2c5c2920$2b064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <475D7F06.8040707@kevinfreels.com> It can't be done. Because of that, it will always be possible. The probability can be reduced over time with more observations but it will never be zero. I'm well aware that at some point things become so improbable that they may as well be considered impossible because otherwise we go down the road where anything and everything is possible and that is just too difficult to manage. But our inability to comprehend a something does not mean it isn't real. I would at least wait to draw that line until we at least observed a single Earth-like planet in a different region towards the center of the galaxy and found life, no intelligence, and no evidence of tampering. At least we will have doubled the sample size. But I don't need that crutch. For the sake of ending this thread quickly, I will give it up and say that I agree - the universe is for a fact not engineered. So now your job just became much easier. I dropped half of my argument. You no longer have to prove a negative. Now all you have to do is prove to me through observation that the Drake equations are an accurate representation of reality. That we have viewed enough of our galaxy to determine how many stars have planets. (the equations only apply to our galaxy and there is no reason to assume that they would apply elsewhere) That we have found enough planets that support life to accurately estimate how many are life supporting. That we can accurately estimate the number of planets that will support life that actually do (Drake used 100% - all planets that can have life will have life) Prove to me that we have viewed enough of the galaxy to know that 1% is the odds that intelligence will develop on a planet. Show me that 1% is also an accurate measurement of the number that can communicate through long range, and then show me that the average communication period where something other than encrypted communication is used is 10,000 years. That is ALL speculation. Any one of those numbers being wrong really messes things up. The sample size is just too small at the moment. You might as well believe in Jesus and the second coming since at least there's multiple sources verifying that the guy actually lived. It's not gospel, it's guess work. If each part of the Drake equation is off by a factor of 10, then the average number of aliens that should be out there would be reduced by 10^7. And to say that the only answer to the Fermi paradox is that either ALL die before consuming the galaxy, or that we are first and there are no other possibilities shows a lack of understanding of life. It's just not that neat. Life doesn't fit into nice little boxes like that. To get where you are you have to make even more assumptions. You assume intelligent life will think like us. (You assume you know how we will think in the future as well), you assume that intelligent life will progress at a rate similar to ours, you assume that life always fills it's container and expands out of it. Assumption upon assumption upon assumption. Life is analog, not binary. I know there are some brilliant minds here and I just hate to see them box themselves in like evangelists. Belief in the absence of proof is called faith. John K Clark wrote: > "Kevin Freels" > > >> Then you and I agree. The paradox is a religion, not science. >> > > We will agree when you tell me, as I have already done, what evidence would > convince you that the Universe has not been engineered. > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 10 18:26:34 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:26:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712100833o1994d8e0x5631d18f69bc013b@mail.gmail.co m> References: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1197263759_14546@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20712100420l6e08ba44n56297d4927ef7fd5@mail.gmail.com> <1197296474_20712@S3.cableone.net> <7d6322030712100833o1994d8e0x5631d18f69bc013b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197311186_28587@S4.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon Dec 10 20:20:41 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:20:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Simulators and the Theoreticians Message-ID: spike: >Computer simulations may provide occasional breakthrough insights, but >then become widely accepted as a substitute for thinking and reasoning. Ideally, the simulated results and the analytical results should give you the same answer. However solving a complicated problem analytically usually requires some simplifying assumptions. Those assumptions are carried through the problem on a macroscale. In simulations, one has the same physics equations, but not the same macroscale assumptions that would be needed to analytically solve the problem. In the results, then, one sees a global behavior and the microscales are included, as well. Simulations shouldn't exclude thinking and reasoning, but simulations can give unexpected results. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Dec 10 20:11:20 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:11:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712100833o1994d8e0x5631d18f69bc013b@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1197263759_14546@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20712100420l6e08ba44n56297d4927ef7fd5@mail.gmail.com> <1197296474_20712@S3.cableone.net> <7d6322030712100833o1994d8e0x5631d18f69bc013b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <475D9D68.9070106@kevinfreels.com> Seien wrote: > Two points I would make on this email. Firstly, I would have said that > religion was a combination of two phenomena: antirational memes, and > the use of best available explanations. In a time when people had > barely any knowledge about How Things Work, the best use it seemed > they could put their creativity to was inventing mythologies to > explain the things they saw. In the absence of any real knowledge, > this /was/ the best available explanation for the natural phenomena > they experienced. However, due to its obviously irrational qualities, > religion/mythology very quickly became an antirational meme, resisting > criticism through stubbornness rather than any kind of deep truth. > This would work if religion were only about irrational and unreasonable explanations for the world around you. But it is much deeper. Deeply religious people will put the religion before everything else - including their own lives and the lives of others. Faith is more important than fact. There has to be some underlying benefit to this behaviour or it wouldn;t have made it out of the first few people into the general population. Maybe it's a side-effect - as an overdeveloped sense of hope and there just happens to be a net benefit. > Secondly, > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/14/ngod14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/14/ixnewstop.html > > > "/Growing up in a religious environment was said to have little effect > on belief. Dr Hamer, who in 1993 claimed to have identified a DNA > sequence linked to male homosexuality, said the existence of the "god > gene" explained why some people had more aptitude for spirituality > than others." / > / > / > Like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for instance. > > -- > ~Seien > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Mon Dec 10 20:48:42 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:48:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox vs. religion Message-ID: <8CA09852F39AD4F-4C0-86@WEBMAIL-MA10.sysops.aol.com> >"The paradox is a religion, not science." Fermi's Paradox is not a religion but a working hypothesis not a dogma of belief as in religion that appeals to irrationality. It is being tested continously by scientific method of investigation. Religion depend on emotional rather than rational solutions to discover the nature of reality. >" We will agree when you tell me, as I have already done, what evidence would > convince you that the Universe has not been engineered." The term engineered sounds much like intelligent design. But the evolution of life is random wherein speciation and variety appears to be the norm but extinction and mutations are evident of random processes in all levels of organic systems. ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003 From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 10 21:23:54 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:23:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <475D9D68.9070106@kevinfreels.com> References: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1197263759_14546@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20712100420l6e08ba44n56297d4927ef7fd5@mail.gmail.com> <1197296474_20712@S3.cableone.net> <7d6322030712100833o1994d8e0x5631d18f69bc013b@mail.gmail.com> <475D9D68.9070106@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <1197321833_33793@S3.cableone.net> At 01:11 PM 12/10/2007, you wrote: >Seien wrote: >>Two points I would make on this email. Firstly, I would have said >>that religion was a combination of two phenomena: antirational >>memes, and the use of best available explanations. In a time when >>people had barely any knowledge about How Things Work, the best use >>it seemed they could put their creativity to was inventing >>mythologies to explain the things they saw. In the absence of any >>real knowledge, this was the best available explanation for the >>natural phenomena they experienced. However, due to its obviously >>irrational qualities, religion/mythology very quickly became an >>antirational meme, resisting criticism through stubbornness rather >>than any kind of deep truth. >This would work if religion were only about irrational and >unreasonable explanations for the world around you. But it is much >deeper. Deeply religious people will put the religion before >everything else - including their own lives and the lives of others. >Faith is more important than fact. There has to be some underlying >benefit to this behaviour or it wouldn;t have made it out of the >first few people into the general population. Maybe it's a >side-effect - as an overdeveloped sense of hope and there just >happens to be a net benefit. You put your finger right on it. "Before everything else - including their own lives and the lives of others." So what reoccurring situation in the EEA could have led to conditions where this trait would promote genetic survival? Keith From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 21:40:09 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:40:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 Message-ID: <197663.42304.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> spike, i personally love "a christmas carol" because it is such a classic tale of moral redemption. This story will be with us for ages to come. "ebenezer, oh, great sysop ai, please grant my mind "family" more power for our primary functions! And ebenezer replied, "are there no matter/energy reclamation plants to make a donation of yourself?" lol I could kick myself for missing patrick stewart's one man play, which passed through alaska over a decade ago and may never return. John grigg ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 21:40:23 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:40:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 Message-ID: <356331.93690.qm@web35603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> spike, i personally love "a christmas carol" because it is such a classic tale of moral redemption. This story will be with us for ages to come. "ebenezer, oh, great sysop ai, please grant my mind "family" more power for our primary functions! And ebenezer replied, "are there no matter/energy reclamation plants to make a donation of yourself?" lol I could kick myself for missing patrick stewart's one man play, which passed through alaska over a decade ago and may never return. John grigg ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 21:41:07 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:41:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 Message-ID: <214197.91007.qm@web35603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> spike, i personally love "a christmas carol" because it is such a classic tale of moral redemption. This story will be with us for ages to come. "ebenezer, oh, great sysop ai, please grant my mind "family" more power for our primary functions! And ebenezer replied, "are there no matter/energy reclamation plants to make a donation of yourself?" lol I could kick myself for missing patrick stewart's one man play, which passed through alaska over a decade ago and may never return. John grigg ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 21:41:58 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:41:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 Message-ID: <45294.82219.qm@web35614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> spike, i personally love "a christmas carol" because it is such a classic tale of moral redemption. This story will be with us for ages to come. "ebenezer, oh, great sysop ai, please grant my mind "family" more power for our primary functions! And ebenezer replied, "are there no matter/energy reclamation plants to make a donation of yourself?" lol I could kick myself for missing patrick stewart's one man play, which passed through alaska over a decade ago and may never return. John grigg ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From jonkc at att.net Mon Dec 10 22:11:36 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:11:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net><006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> <475B8AC2.5000607@kevinfreels.com><001101c83a93$2c5c2920$2b064e0c@MyComputer> <475D7F06.8040707@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <03df01c83b79$c09e71b0$2c0a4e0c@MyComputer> Kevin Freels Wrote: > Life doesn't fit into nice little boxes like that. Life is not the issue, intelligence is. Life came to the Earth almost as soon as the planet was born but during most of its history all it had was bacteria; and if you visited the place just a million years ago, which is nothing in its 4.5 billion year history, you would find no intelligent species. > To get where you are you have to make even more assumptions. I am assuming nothing I am just making an observation, I observe that the universe has not been engineered and I find that puzzling if intelligence is common. If we are not the first then I can only conclude that something puts a lid on brain power and prevents it from erecting large scale structures. I can speculate but I make no claim to know what that something is, it could be that no human mind could understand it. John K Clark From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Dec 10 23:01:55 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:01:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fermi Paradox vs. religion In-Reply-To: <8CA09852F39AD4F-4C0-86@WEBMAIL-MA10.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA09852F39AD4F-4C0-86@WEBMAIL-MA10.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <475DC563.2090400@kevinfreels.com> > > Fermi's Paradox is not a religion but a working hypothesis not a dogma > of belief as in religion that appeals to irrationality. It is being > tested continously by scientific method of investigation. Religion > depend on emotional rather than rational solutions to discover the > nature of reality. > > OK. I give on this one partially. It is not a religion. But some seem to treat it as gospel when they reason that there are only two solutions rather than looking at the hypothesis itself as flawed and in need of work. I seem to be one of the very few who actually view it as a working hypothesis. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 23:14:11 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:14:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox- weighted summary In-Reply-To: <200712070520.lB75KYp5016369@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7641ddc60712061540q402350d3i85f450e5e161acff@mail.gmail.com> <200712070520.lB75KYp5016369@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60712101514s2d17b178y42d57f29923d82cf@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 6, 2007 11:53 PM, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki > > ... > > > > If you need 2 million years to travel to the nearest star, don't > > bother to go: somebody else will be there before you... Rafal > > > That isn't clear Rafal, but even if so, why is that necessarily a problem? > If some intelligent space traveling life form had arrived on this planet any > time before about 50 kiloyears before present, they would have had little > conflict with the life forms that were already here. ### Well, releasing nanotech to alien-form the planet (after putting some stuffed trophies of local bipeds over the mantelpiece) might not be seen by the aliens as conflict.....and actually the bipeds wouldn't see the black clouds dissolving the world as a form of conflict, either, so in a way you could be right :) A sufficiently > advanced life form could perhaps coexist peacefully and even undetected > among current life on earth. ### Indeed, this could be the case, but only if we depended on totally different resources for our survival. This is of course possible - humans and most archaea are doing splendid sharing this planet. The "undetected" part is harder to swallow but not totally inconceivable, especially if you like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers kind of sci-fi. But even if we don't need the same resources, the implications of advanced aliens on Earth could be unfavorable - our attempts at transcending our human condition and becoming advanced could be as problematic as the chances of bonobos developing human-level intelligence and carving out a place for themselves, against the background of our civilization. Imagine an alien presence infecting all our Friendly AI designs, and either sabotaging them, or worse, triggering extermination. In general, I do expect that beings that are somewhat similar will consume the same resources and therefore compete intensely. This is why if you have two species of Paramecium eating the same species of bacteria in an experimental setup (artificially reducing the number of ecological niches), after some time only one survives. Aliens will be either like us, likely to turn nasty at the drop of a hat, or superior, and therefore possibly benevolently indifferent - but only until we develop to the level where we start consuming their resources. Rafal From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 10 22:54:29 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:54:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <03df01c83b79$c09e71b0$2c0a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> <475B8AC2.5000607@kevinfreels.com> <001101c83a93$2c5c2920$2b064e0c@MyComputer> <475D7F06.8040707@kevinfreels.com> <03df01c83b79$c09e71b0$2c0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <1197327257_39498@S1.cableone.net> At 03:11 PM 12/10/2007, John K Clark wrote: snip >I am assuming nothing I am just making an observation, I observe that the >universe has not been engineered and I find that puzzling if intelligence is >common. If we are not the first then I can only conclude that something >puts a lid on brain power and prevents it from erecting large scale >structures. I can speculate but I make no claim to know what that >something is, it could be that no human mind could understand it. Clearly stated. I have been saying similar things for at least a decade. If we are not the first (which the principle of mediocrity would support) then we face a dire future, or at least one where our dreams of reshaping galaxies isn't likely to happen. If we are the first then we face a completely unknown future. Keith From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Dec 10 23:15:22 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:15:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <03df01c83b79$c09e71b0$2c0a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net><006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> <475B8AC2.5000607@kevinfreels.com><001101c83a93$2c5c2920$2b064e0c@MyComputer> <475D7F06.8040707@kevinfreels.com> <03df01c83b79$c09e71b0$2c0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <475DC88A.1030209@kevinfreels.com> > > Life is not the issue, intelligence is. But the intelligence (intelligent life) is just a subset of life. It is still ife we are talking about and it is a solid part of the Drake equations. > Life came to the Earth almost as > soon as the planet was born but during most of its history all it had was > bacteria; and if you visited the place just a million years ago, which is > nothing in its 4.5 billion year history, you would find no intelligent > species. > Right. So you agree. Intelligence may indeed be more rare than the Drake equations assume. > >> To get where you are you have to make even more assumptions. >> > > I am assuming nothing I am just making an observation, I observe that the > universe has not been engineered and I find that puzzling if intelligence is > common. Correct again. So we are both on the same page. Intelligent life is very uncommon. > If we are not the first then I can only conclude that something > puts a lid on brain power and prevents it from erecting large scale > structures. I can speculate but I make no claim to know what that > something is, it could be that no human mind could understand it. > > And here is where you lose me. If we are not the first, we could be second. Or 3rd. Or 4th. And they may have been out there for only a short time. And maybe the first killed itself off. And maybe the second is somewhere near the galaxy's middle and hasn't been around enough to really put a dent in it. These aren't specific proofs I am trying to make. They are simply illustrations to show that there are countless alternatives other than "we are first" and "something puts a lid on it". But that's just my opinion. I think this thread has gone on long enough. I don't think we're going to come up with anything new that hasn't been debated here before. So unless you feel a strong desire to contest my points, we can simply agree to disagree and move on. Cheers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seienchan at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 23:51:17 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:51:17 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <1197321833_33793@S3.cableone.net> References: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1197263759_14546@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20712100420l6e08ba44n56297d4927ef7fd5@mail.gmail.com> <1197296474_20712@S3.cableone.net> <7d6322030712100833o1994d8e0x5631d18f69bc013b@mail.gmail.com> <475D9D68.9070106@kevinfreels.com> <1197321833_33793@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7d6322030712101551m59772765h8c42a14b4dc1a52@mail.gmail.com> On 10/12/2007, Kevin Freels wrote: This would work if religion were only about irrational and unreasonable > explanations for the world around you. But it is much deeper. Deeply > religious people will put the religion before everything else - including > their own lives and the lives of others. Faith is more important than fact. > There has to be some underlying benefit to this behaviour or it wouldn;t > have made it out of the first few people into the general population. Maybe > it's a side-effect - as an overdeveloped sense of hope and there just > happens to be a net benefit. > Well, *now* faith is more important than fact, because of the self-preserving nature of memes (like genes). At the time, if it was the best available explanation, then, well, that was the benefit: it was the best available explanation. Also, as you rightly say, it gave a sense of hope and possibly even made people psychosomatically do better and be more productive and confident if they felt the gods were with them. (This might be bad for them in the case of rushing into battle, or good in terms of, say, engineering new and potentially dangerous technology or something, but that doesn't matter to the meme of course). On 10/12/2007, hkhenson wrote: > > At 01:11 PM 12/10/2007, you wrote: > > You put your finger right on it. "Before everything else - including > their own lives and the lives of others." So what reoccurring > situation in the EEA could have led to conditions where this trait > would promote genetic survival? > > why should it promote genetic survival? If Religion is an antirational meme, it will behave in ways that promote its *memetic* survival. If there's a gene that makes people more likely to be fanatics, well, okay. I don't see necessarily why this gene can't behave in a self-promoting way anyway, although my knowledge of genetics is pretty poor compared to my understanding of meme theory. But WRT the meme, Religion is one of the strongest antirational memeplexes next to parenting and romance, so we're likely to see a lot of self-preservation behaviour from this meme. Memes are not dependent on genes to explain the ways they behave. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Dec 10 23:27:44 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:27:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <1197321833_33793@S3.cableone.net> References: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1197263759_14546@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20712100420l6e08ba44n56297d4927ef7fd5@mail.gmail.com> <1197296474_20712@S3.cableone.net> <7d6322030712100833o1994d8e0x5631d18f69bc013b@mail.gmail.com> <475D9D68.9070106@kevinfreels.com> <1197321833_33793@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <475DCB70.6030408@kevinfreels.com> > > You put your finger right on it. "Before everything else - including > their own lives and the lives of others." So what reoccurring > situation in the EEA could have led to conditions where this trait > would promote genetic survival? > > Keith > > > War for one. But maybe it's smaller than that. Maybe it's just a matter of fighting over mates. It could be sexually selected. "He who has the biggest balls makes offspring." I had a thought about imagination being tied to it - thinking that the ability to imagine a way to win would give a person greater hope. But then I dismissed that since most overly religious people I know seem to lack imagination which may contribute to their belief of religious dogma. (But that is not based on any real observation - just speculation. ) I can imagine a scenario where hope despite being able to readily imagine a way to win could be used to overcome someone who has greater imagination but lacks the conviction. You could end up with a positive feedback loop which would reinforce both behaviors. You get strongly religious people and a great deal of improved imagination. Of course with the gene swapping going on you would still get a great deal of people with both traits. I really haven't given it much thought but I think I'm going to go home tonight and ponder it a bit. > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seienchan at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 00:02:06 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:02:06 +0000 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <197663.42304.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <197663.42304.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712101602p7faac255oaa72a56619075b87@mail.gmail.com> You quadrupleposted, btw. On 10/12/2007, John wrote: > > spike, i personally love "a christmas carol" because it is such a classic > tale of moral redemption. Moral..? I thought it was a horrible, immoral tale. It advocated blind charity to the poor instead of Scrooge figuring out what he was doing madly and making himself better. That's a crappy message. It's not moral at all. This story will be with us for ages to come. "ebenezer, oh, great sysop > ai, please grant my mind "family" more power for our primary functions! And > ebenezer replied, "are there no matter/energy reclamation plants to make a > donation of yourself?" lol I could kick myself for missing patrick > stewart's one man play, which passed through alaska over a decade ago and > may never return. John grigg I think I like Tom Lehrer's *Christmas Carol* better than Dickens': http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/xmas.htm -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Tue Dec 11 00:08:27 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:08:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Selfish Gene Message-ID: <8CA09A116C6AD8F-CB0-3309@mblk-d22.sysops.aol.com> "The Rev Dr Walter Houston, the chaplain of Mansfield College, Oxford, and a fellow in theology, said: "Religious belief is not just related to a person's constitution; it's related to society, tradition, character - everything's involved. Having a gene that could do all that seems pretty unlikely to me." _______________ There is no religious gene. Religious meme evolved as a side effect of the selfish gene. Richard Dawkins coined the term meme similar to a gene that can mutate or get infected by society's traditions. Read his book "The Selfish Gene." Rocks and minerals cannot react as living things do for survival in a changing environment. Humans inherited this gene during evolution. This sense of "self" or instinct for survival is called the "Selfish Gene." ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003 From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 00:02:31 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:02:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <1197327257_39498@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <971074.81651.qm@web35609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Keith wrote: I have been saying similar things for at least a decade. If we are not the first (which the principle of mediocrity would support) then we face a dire future, or at least one where our dreams of reshaping galaxies isn't likely to happen. >> Ahh..., perhaps there is an "Elder God" race of die hard cosmic conservationists who lay in wait to pounce on us once we start trying to muck up their beautiful celestial view. I hate how "old people/immortal alien sentients" are sometimes so damn conservative! he continued: If we are the first then we face a completely unknown future. >> Alright!..., then *we* get to be the high and mighty "Elder race," which guides along/bullies (for their own good, of course) all the other intelligences that come along later. John : ) --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 00:50:04 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:50:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712101602p7faac255oaa72a56619075b87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <501765.60977.qm@web35614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >You quadrupleposted, btw. I know. I have had it with my Yahoo account! I think I will be switching to Google. On 10/12/2007, John wrote: spike, i personally love "a christmas carol" because it is such a classic tale of moral redemption. Seien wrote: Moral..? I thought it was a horrible, immoral tale. It advocated blind charity to the poor instead of Scrooge figuring out what he was doing madly and making himself better. That's a crappy message. It's not moral at all. >> Please explain exactly what you mean by Scrooge figuring out what he was doing "madly?" I don't understand. How would you rewrite the story to make you happy with it? lol I cannot grasp how you consider this classic story "horrible" and "immoral." When Scrooge made a financial commitment at the end of the story to some charity workers does that make him foolish? Perhaps, but it was in his moment of transformative elation! I would suspect Scrooge later on looked very carefully at how his charity dollars were used. Dickens was trying to make a statement about social injustice and poverty, which was a huge problem in the England of his time (and these problems are still overwhelmingly with us, if you havn't noticed...). you wrote: I think I like Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol better than Dickens': http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/xmas.htm >> The Tom Lehrer piece is very funny with some definite elements of truth. John Grigg : ) --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 00:23:25 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:23:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712101551m59772765h8c42a14b4dc1a52@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <357817.79057.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Seien wrote: why should it promote genetic survival? If Religion is an antirational meme, it will behave in ways that promote its memetic survival. If there's a gene that makes people more likely to be fanatics, well, okay. I don't see necessarily why this gene can't behave in a self-promoting way anyway, although my knowledge of genetics is pretty poor compared to my understanding of meme theory. But WRT the meme, Religion is one of the strongest antirational memeplexes next to parenting and romance, so we're likely to see a lot of self-preservation behaviour from this meme. Memes are not dependent on genes to explain the ways they behave. >> I think a successful meme would promote genetic survival or even better reproductive "prosperity (lots of offspring who survive long enough to have offspring of their own)" so it has lots of guaranteed new recruits in the upcoming generation. And keep in mind that the early years of childhood are a time of mental filters not being in place so the mind is like a sponge that will soak up just about any teaching/meme set. In Islam, Mormonism, Fundamentalist Christianity, etc. you will often see the having of large families very encouraged (even in the developed world). I don't see how parenting or romance is an anti-rational memeplex. Parenting is crucial to successfully raising up offspring (got to get my genes into the next generation!) who are very vulnerable for quite a number of years. And that big brain we homo sapiens have from the very beginning contributes to a very helpless and top heavy baby being born that will need lots of parental devotion. Parental memes and biological drives *drive* reproductive success. Romantic memeplexes are coupled with biological instincts to seek out the highest quality mate possible, again for reproductive success. Memes and genes have a very fascinating interplay. John Grigg : ) --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seienchan at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 01:23:46 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:23:46 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <357817.79057.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7d6322030712101551m59772765h8c42a14b4dc1a52@mail.gmail.com> <357817.79057.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712101723y68b94e30ke13be6e3a4c2eef0@mail.gmail.com> On 11/12/2007, John wrote: > > > > > I think a successful meme would promote genetic survival or even better > reproductive "prosperity (lots of offspring who survive long enough to have > offspring of their own)" so it has lots of guaranteed new recruits in the > upcoming generation. And keep in mind that the early years of childhood are > a time of mental filters not being in place so the mind is like a sponge > that will soak up just about any teaching/meme set. In Islam, > Mormonism, Fundamentalist Christianity, etc. you will often see the having > of large families very encouraged (even in the developed world). > That's true, but I don't see how "encouraging big families" helps pick a mate. It just means that the person you go off with, you should have a lot of kids with. However, more importantly, Islam, Mormonism and Christianity are all static memes. These are memes we *shouldn't* have. We're not like other animals, and our biggest priority is no longer reproduction. It's morality (or should be). And note that memes frequently override genes in this respect. It's almost pointless to be talking about genetic reproductive drives as anything more than a fleeting and parochial interest - it's more important as a human being to act morally than animalistically. I don't see how parenting or romance is an anti-rational memeplex. > Parenting is crucial to successfully raising up offspring (got to get my > genes into the next generation!) who are very vulnerable for quite a number > of years. And that big brain we homo sapiens have from the very > beginning contributes to a very helpless and top heavy baby being born that > will need lots of parental devotion. Parental memes and biological drives > *drive* reproductive success. Romantic memeplexes are coupled with > biological instincts to seek out the highest quality mate possible, again > for reproductive success. Memes and genes have a very fascinating > interplay. > > The concept of looking after your children or having a parter themselves, stated as that and that ONLY with no connotations, are not themselves antirational. The current idea of what makes for a good parent is HORRIBLY antirational. This guy, Elliot Temple, says why - it's a complex subject and so the dialogues are quite long, but simply apply some reasoning to any aspect of parenting you like, and it will almost certainly turn out to be very antirational. Same for the romance memeplex. It's not useful. It's full of delusions. The "dating game", the cliches of true love/love at first sight (I mean, what the hell?), monogamy, the idea that one ought to share one's life with someone... I mean, these are horrible ideas if you think about what they actually mean. And look at the way people time and time again get hurt badly by mistakes they make WRT romance, and go back and follow the same patterns again. That's not good, that's not dynamic at all. It doesn't employ any reason. And it gets in the way of people making good ideas and being creative, because they're so concerned with getting a partner. *Mating isn't the most important function of a human being. *We're better than that. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seienchan at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 01:36:14 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:36:14 +0000 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <501765.60977.qm@web35614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7d6322030712101602p7faac255oaa72a56619075b87@mail.gmail.com> <501765.60977.qm@web35614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712101736g682f55e0w3720a56304e2ab92@mail.gmail.com> On 11/12/2007, John wrote: > > >You quadrupleposted, btw. > > I know. I have had it with my Yahoo account! I think I will be switching > to Google. > > Ahh, Okay. > > Please explain exactly what you mean by Scrooge figuring out what he was > doing "madly?" I don't understand. > Whoops! I meant badly, sorry. How would you rewrite the story to make you happy with it? lol I cannot > grasp how you consider this classic story "horrible" and "immoral." When > Scrooge made a financial commitment at the end of the story to some charity > workers does that make him foolish? Perhaps, but it was in his moment of > transformative elation! I would suspect Scrooge later on looked very > carefully at how his charity dollars were used. Dickens was trying to make > a statement about social injustice and poverty, which was a huge problem in > the England of his time (and these problems are still overwhelmingly with > us, if you havn't noticed...). > Okay, well. The story assumes that charity is a good thing. This is just plain wrong. If I give my money to a poor guy to buy food, well, he'll use it to buy food. Or drink. Or cigarettes. That's what that amount of money can be used for - not things like education or books or things that would promote the poor guy learning stuff/bettering himself, because food would come first. I'm more rational than he is, I know better how to make other people happy. It's better that I use the money I have to make myself happy and help me learn more and better myself, because then I can make things better in general for people by coming up with better philosophy and ideas. So, in light of that, I guess I'd write the ghosts out of the story - the supernatural is boring compared to human achievement. I'd replace them with real people, philosophers and the like, who are rational and know things. They would explain their good ideas to Scrooge, who would then implement them and infer more rational things from them. He would then spread his good philosophy to everyone he knew/met/could get to listen, to replace their bad antirational memes. I'm half joking, of course. The story as a piece of fiction is, as you say, a classic, and a fascinating insight into nineteenth century attitudes and culture. But it's not a story to be adulated for the ideas it contains, which are actually bad ideas. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 11 03:33:41 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:33:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <03df01c83b79$c09e71b0$2c0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200712110400.lBB40FJF029503@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark ... > > I am assuming nothing I am just making an observation, I observe that the > universe has not been engineered and I find that puzzling if intelligence > is > common. If we are not the first then I can only conclude that something > puts a lid on brain power and prevents it from erecting large scale > structures. I can speculate but I make no claim to know what that > something is, it could be that no human mind could understand it. > > John K Clark We have discussed scenarios here that would allow for the existence of large scale structures that are not easily detectable from earth. An example would be an S-brain, which is similar to an M-brain. The S-brain consists of jillions of tiny individual nodes, but instead of an enormous diaphanous sphere enveloping a star, they would form a smaller (but still diaphanous) sphere that orbits some distance from the star. Imagine a metal-poor star system in which the only large object is an earth-sized rocky planet at one AU. An intelligent species could transform that one object into a cloud of nodes still orbiting at 1AU but not in one enormous sphere enveloping the star but rather a sphere perhaps couple light seconds in radius. So it is a thousand times the diameter of the original planet and one billionth the original density, so some of the star's light would pass thru the object. It would still be tiny with respect to the star of course. Unless earth happened to be on the orbital plane of the original planet, we could detect its presence only by the small gravitational wobble of the star. But for an earth sized planet at one AU, that would be exceedingly difficult to detect. All of the exo-planets currently known are too far away to verify that they are not already S-brains. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 11 03:43:30 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:43:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <475DCB70.6030408@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <200712110410.lBB4A4Tb012647@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Subject: Re: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion >... So what reoccurring situation in the EEA could have led to conditions where this trait would promote genetic survival? Keith War for one. .. Kevin Freels ... Both men ponder, when the solution is deceptively simple: religion encourages breeding. One can imagine the reasons, but I would contribute that the feelings associated with a deep religious experience contribute to female libido. I cannot explain why. Ask the guys who come from a fundamentalist religious background, when is the best time to go out on a date. Universally they answer, Sunday night, right after the revival meeting. In my own experience the answer was Saturday night, right after vespers. If you were ever to get any sweet loving, that was your best chance. spike (Im not kidding this time.) {8-] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 11 04:10:42 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:10:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <971074.81651.qm@web35609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1197327257_39498@S1.cableone.net> <971074.81651.qm@web35609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1197346230_4954@S1.cableone.net> At 05:02 PM 12/10/2007, you wrote: >Keith wrote: >I have been saying similar things for at least a decade. If we are >not the first (which the principle of mediocrity would support) then >we face a dire future, or at least one where our dreams of reshaping >galaxies isn't likely to happen. > >> > >Ahh..., perhaps there is an "Elder God" race of die hard cosmic >conservationists who lay in wait to pounce on us once we start >trying to muck up their beautiful celestial view. I hate how "old >people/immortal alien sentients" are sometimes so damn conservative! Heh. Not likely. Whatever is going to get us ate them long ago. >he continued: >If we are the first then we face a completely unknown future. > >> > >Alright!..., then *we* get to be the high and mighty "Elder race," >which guides along/bullies (for their own good, of course) all the >other intelligences that come along later. >John : ) Unless they are out of our light cone until some time in the future. In which case you might have two elder races duking it out. I actually don't know what to think. Keith From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 11 03:54:10 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:54:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712101723y68b94e30ke13be6e3a4c2eef0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712110420.lBB4Ki8H013604@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Seien Subject: Re: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion >... We're not like other animals, and our biggest priority is no longer reproduction ~Seien Seien, you may find yourself competing against humans who firmly believe to the contrary. You and your few offspring will be wildly outnumbered. It is likely your memes will not survive or propagate in the brains of those who believe the opposite of your theory stated above. Such a tragedy is this. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 04:30:43 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:30:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <200712110420.lBB4Ki8H013604@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7d6322030712101723y68b94e30ke13be6e3a4c2eef0@mail.gmail.com> <200712110420.lBB4Ki8H013604@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712102030h47f8687an9888d67893b7b48@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 10, 2007 10:54 PM, spike wrote: > >... We're not like other animals, and our biggest priority is no longer > reproduction ~Seien > > Seien, you may find yourself competing against humans who firmly believe > to > the contrary. You and your few offspring will be wildly outnumbered. It > is > likely your memes will not survive or propagate in the brains of those who > believe the opposite of your theory stated above. Such a tragedy is this. > if he can start a church with morality as a goal, maybe the powerful god representation can trump the larger numbers if they believe themselves subject to his desire. (of course it's easier if you start programming them as early as possible to accept the doctrine before they have any experience with logic and rational thinking) But if you take it all away, what are you left with? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 11 04:37:05 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:37:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Selfish Gene In-Reply-To: <8CA09A116C6AD8F-CB0-3309@mblk-d22.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA09A116C6AD8F-CB0-3309@mblk-d22.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1197347813_5264@S4.cableone.net> At 05:08 PM 12/10/2007, citta437 wrote: >"The Rev Dr Walter Houston, the chaplain of Mansfield College, Oxford, >and a fellow in theology, said: "Religious belief is not just related >to a person's constitution; it's related to society, tradition, >character - everything's involved. Having a gene that could do all that >seems pretty unlikely to me." >_______________ > >There is no religious gene. Consider the source. >Religious meme evolved as a side effect of >the selfish gene. Richard Dawkins coined the term meme similar to a >gene that can mutate or get infected by society's traditions. Read his >book "The Selfish Gene." > >Rocks and minerals cannot react as living things do for survival in a >changing environment. Humans inherited this gene during evolution. This >sense of "self" or instinct for survival is called the "Selfish Gene." "Selfish gene" is a metaphor. I know Dawkins slightly (he has quoted me) and read this book back in the late 70 or early 80s. I think I read Eric Drexler's copy. I think you should try for a deeper level of understanding of this background material. Best wishes, Keith Henson From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Dec 11 04:53:49 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:53:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 Message-ID: <776999.59218.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> seienchan at gmail.com wrote Tue Dec 11 01:36:14 UTC 2007: >Okay, well. The story assumes that charity is a good >thing. This is just plain wrong. If I give my money >to a poor guy to buy food, well, he'll use it to buy >food. Or drink. Or cigarettes. That's what that >amount of money can be used for - not things like >education or books or things that would promote the >poor guy learning stuff/bettering himself, because >food would come first. I'm more rational than he is, >I know better how to make other people happy. It's >better that I use the money I have to make myself >happy and help me learn more and better myself, >because then I can make things better in general for >people by coming up with better philosophy and ideas. What's the point of having better philosophies when people are starving to death? How can you be positive that you know what makes other people happy?Philosophies are understood by people that have lived and experienced and wish to educate. Some ideas are good and some are bad. The idea is to set memes that are beneficial for all, not for the chosen few. Charity is a good thing! Obviously you have never been in any circumstance that required you to yield to charity otherwise you would understand that not all people that need a helping hand are those that are drug addicts or are going to buy cigarettes. The idea behind the Scrooge idea was to show how all the money in the world doesn't bring you happiness and at most brings you closer to solitude because one fears the lose of something that appears so relevant. Once Scrooge discovers the idea of giving he no longer holds close the idea of possession. I still think it's a great story. >So, in light of that, I guess I'd write the ghosts >out of the story - the supernatural is boring >compared to human achievement. I'd replace them with >real people, philosophers and the like, who are >rational and know things. They would explain their >good ideas to Scrooge, who would then implement >them and infer more rational things from them. He >would then spread his good philosophy to everyone he >knew/met/could get to listen, to replace their bad >anti rational memes. It really had nothing to do with the ghosts:) Scrooge was created by someone that wrote that story. I wonder if that person was aware that his story would be used as an example on the Extropy list some X amount of years later? Memes are ideas. The Scrooge idea is a story brought forth to give example of maybe something that the writer dealt with personally based on his experience and wanted to set an example as of what not to do. What is wrong with that? It depends on what you believe the story is about. Those that have been in need of help will recognize the story, others that haven't, won't! It's nice to meet you Seienchan, I do hope you continue to post some of your thoughts, you've given me some things to think about tonight, thanks. Anna Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 11 05:26:57 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:26:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <200712110410.lBB4A4Tb012647@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <475DCB70.6030408@kevinfreels.com> <200712110410.lBB4A4Tb012647@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> At 08:43 PM 12/10/2007, spike wrote: >Subject: Re: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion > > > >... So what reoccurring >situation in the EEA could have led to conditions where this trait >would promote genetic survival? >Keith >War for one. .. Kevin Freels > >... > >Both men ponder, when the solution is deceptively simple: religion >encourages breeding. > >One can imagine the reasons, but I would contribute that the >feelings associated with a deep religious experience contribute to >female libido. I cannot explain why. Ask the guys who come from a >fundamentalist religious background, when is the best time to go out >on a date. Universally they answer, Sunday night, right after the >revival meeting. In my own experience the answer was Saturday >night, right after vespers. If you were ever to get any sweet >loving, that was your best chance. I can't see that breeding--in a pre contraceptive era--needed any religious support. Generally humans populated whatever space they had to the maximum extent possible. Keith > >(Im not kidding this time.) > >{8-] > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 11 05:58:34 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:58:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200712110558.lBB5wRpV026136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson ... > >Both men ponder, when the solution is deceptively simple: religion > >encourages breeding. ... > > I can't see that breeding--in a pre contraceptive era--needed any > religious support. Generally humans populated whatever space they > had to the maximum extent possible. Keith Ja Keith, I mostly agree, but I was referring to the modern post contraceptive era. In most of human history, reproduction was surely a side effect of the satisfaction of sexual urges, which represented the most intense pleasure available to humans. Now we know of multiple of paths to personal fulfillment that does not involve sexual activity or reproduction. One example is what we are doing right now, interacting with like-minded people on the internet, daily feeding our brains to a most gratifying satiety. This is not to say that you, my good friends, are better than sex, quite on the contrary. But I can say with honest and heartfelt sincerity that for all of you I am grateful, for both your existence and the fact that technology lets us reach one another. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 11 05:41:39 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:41:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <776999.59218.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anna Taylor > Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 > > seienchan at gmail.com wrote Tue Dec 11 01:36:14 UTC > 2007: > > >Okay, well. The story assumes that charity is a good > >thing. This is just plain wrong... seien > ...The idea behind the Scrooge idea was to show how all the money > in the world doesn't bring you happiness... ...assuming the level of technology available in 1843. In those grim days, having a ton of money meant only that one had a relatively comfortable house with an arbitrarily large army of personal servants and plenty of food. Beyond that, money couldn't buy much. The best medical care money could buy in those days was more likely to kill you than cure you, for instance. > ...and at most brings you closer to solitude... There is a lot to be said for solitude. In 1843, one gave up privacy to hire household servants to take care of the grinding labor of daily survival. Could you imagine having a dozen people hanging around, in your home, at all times? I would not like that. > ...Once Scrooge discovers the idea of giving he no longer > holds close the idea of possession... The idea I take away is that without the appropriate technology, wealth alone is of little value. The poorest among us would surely be unwilling to give up their modern destitution in exchange for being the richest person on the planet a mere thousand years ago. What say ye, highly intelligent but capital challenged friends? Any takers? spike From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Dec 11 06:37:36 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:37:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: >...assuming the level of technology available in >1843. In those grim days, having a ton of money >meant only that one had a relatively comfortable >house with an arbitrarily large army of personal >servants and plenty of food. Beyond that, money >couldn't buy much. The best medical care money >could buy in those days was more likely to kill you >than cure you, for instance. What does the year 1843 and technology have to do with the moral of the story and what about the people in 1843 that never had personal servants and didn't have plenty of food, what are they? I agree that being comfortable is good but I'm not convinced that money can buy me anything I want. Without those grim days nobody would be convinced of anything better. >There is a lot to be said for solitude. In 1843, >one gave up privacy to hire household servants to >take care of the grinding labour of daily survival. >Could you imagine having a dozen people hanging >around, in your home, at all times? I would not >like that. I agree, it sucks but being surrounded by numerous amount of people gives you better insights of how people really are face to face. In 1843 you could visit the neighbour and get to know them in 2007 you can look them up but never really know them. There is no difference. >The idea I take away is that without the appropriate >technology, wealth alone is of little value. The >poorest among us would surely be unwilling to >give up their modern destitution in exchange for >being the richest person on the planet a mere >thousand years ago. What say ye, highly intelligent >but capital challenged friends? Any takers? Wealth is value to many as I have recently come to discover with or without technology, I assume it is a need for many? The poorest don't care about whether their modern views are relevant or not, they care about how to feed their children. The Scrooge story is a perfect example. Happy Holidays Spike Anna Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php From seienchan at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 06:44:39 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:44:39 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <200712110558.lBB5wRpV026136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> <200712110558.lBB5wRpV026136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712102244s63a4d475j2f51f7ce1ee4a802@mail.gmail.com> > > >... We're not like other animals, and our biggest priority is no longer > reproduction ~Seien > > Seien, you may find yourself competing against humans who firmly believe > to > the contrary. You and your few offspring will be wildly outnumbered. It > is > likely your memes will not survive or propagate in the brains of those who > believe the opposite of your theory stated above. Such a tragedy is this. --Spike >if he can start a church with morality as a goal, maybe the powerful god representation can trump the larger numbers if they believe themselves subject to his desire. (of course it's easier if you start programming them as early as possible to accept the doctrine before they have any experience with logic and rational thinking) >But if you take it all away, what are you left with?--Mike Dougherty Firstly, Spike: you presume that memes can be passed only from parents to children. Not even genes are this limited, and memes are far more dynamic than genes. I can persuade people of my ideas and propagate my memes that way. Many philosophers had no children and yet their ideas more or less survive. If anything they are improved upon, which one can only be glad about. As I said, reproduction isn't the most important thing for humans any more. Making rational and useful ideas is far more important than that. And Mike: Morality IS rationality. It would be quite abhorrent to follow an idea with no rational justification. Morality is about ideas and theories on the best way to live. This is arrived at rationally. Again, persuasion over coercion. There's no need to speak like a savage when you have the mind of a human being. :) Also, if you're going to use a gender pronoun, you may as well use the right one: I am female. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 11 06:26:23 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:26:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] gay bomb again In-Reply-To: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200712110652.lBB6qwoc006075@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Hey check this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html The generals were ridiculed a few months ago for proposing a gay bomb, which would temporarily make the opposing soldiers gay, thus perhaps causing them to lose interest in the attack. Now scientists claim they did exactly this to fruit flies (no pun intended). This leads to a question especially for the heterosexuals among us, but others are welcome to comment too: Should the scientists eventually develop a pill that would cause one to be temporarily homosexual, would you eat it? Assume plenty of reliable people try it and assure us that the gay-for-a-day pill is non-addictive, wears off quickly and causes no permanent damage or change of any kind. Assume that you will not actually participate in any sexual activity, and will recruit a local non-pill-gulping buddy to spot you the whole time just to make sure. (This is not hard to imagine. Like many of us, I was a raging hetero for years during my misspent youth without actually participating in any sexual activity, hetero or otherwise. }8-[ Dammit. {8^D) But just to gain some insight into how that all works, in order to have more informed and meaningful discussions with those so oriented, to gain understanding into how gay men and (one would suppose) women view the world, I think I would swallow that pill. Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again Monday, December 10, 2007 By Robert Roy Britt While several studies find homosexuality in humans and other animals is biological rather than learned, a question remains over whether it's a hard-wired phenomenon or one that can be altered. A new study finds that both drugs and genetic manipulation can turn the homosexual behavior of fruit flies on and off within a matter of hours. While the genetic finding supports the thinking that homosexuality is hard-wired, the drug finding surprisingly suggests it's not that simple. In fact, homosexuality in the fruit flies seems to be regulated by how they interpret the scent of another. Dramatic result Homosexuality is widespread in the animal world. But scientists have long debated whether, in humans a "gay gene" exists. Previous research in humans has suggested that how we interpret scents given off by another person might impact our sexuality. In the new work, University of Illinois at Chicago researcher David Featherstone and coworkers discovered a gene in fruit flies they call "genderblind," or GB. A mutation in GB turns flies bisexual. Post-doctoral researcher Yael Grosjean found that all male fruit flies with a mutation in their GB gene courted other males. "It was very dramatic," Featherstone said. "The GB mutant males treated other males exactly the same way normal male flies would treat a female. They even attempted copulation." Overreaction Other genes are known to alter sexual orientation, but most just control whether the brain develops as genetically male or female. It's not known why a male brain does male things and a female brain acts in female ways, Featherstone and his colleagues say. "Based on our previous work, we reasoned that GB mutants might show homosexual behavior because their glutamatergic synapses were altered in some way," Featherstone said. "Homosexual courtship might be sort of an 'overreaction' to sexual stimuli." To test this, the researchers genetically altered synapse strength, independent of GB. They also gave flies drugs to alter synapse strength. As predicted, they were able to turn fly homosexuality on and off, within hours. "It was amazing. I never thought we'd be able to do that sort of thing, because sexual orientation is supposed to be hard-wired," Featherstone said. "This fundamentally changes how we think about this behavior." Sense of smell The team figured fly brains maintain two sensory circuits: one to trigger heterosexual behavior and one for homosexual. When GB suppresses glutamatergic synapses, the homosexual circuit is blocked, the thinking goes. So they did more tests. As expected, without GB to suppress synapse strength, the flies no longer interpreted smells the same way. The smells in question come in the form of pheromones, chemicals that affect sexual behavior in much of the animal kingdom. It is not known, however, to what extent human attraction is affected by pheromones. A study in 2005 found that when smelling a chemical from testosterone, portions of the human brains active in sexual activity were turned on in gay men and straight women, but not in straight men. But at least among fruit flies, "pheromones are powerful sexual stimuli," Featherstone said. "As it turns out, the GB mutant flies were perceiving pheromones differently. Specifically, the GB mutant males were no longer recognizing male pheromones as a repulsive stimulus." The research was published online today by the journal Nature Neuroscience. Copyright C 2007 Imaginova Corp. All Rights Reserved. From seienchan at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 07:03:00 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:03:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> On 11/12/2007, Anna Taylor wrote: > > seienchan at gmail.com wrote Tue Dec 11 01:36:14 UTC > 2007: > > > What's the point of having better philosophies when > people are starving to death? How can you be positive > that you know what makes other people > happy?Philosophies are understood by people that have > lived and experienced and wish to educate. Some ideas > are good and some are bad. The idea is to set memes > that are beneficial for all, not for the chosen few. I didn't say they were. And I don't presume to say EXACTLY what will make other people happy. What's important is an ability to think dynamically, an understanding of morality - as RATIONALITY, not some other unsatisfactory mystic description. And the fact that people starve to death has... well, more or less nothing to do with coming up with better ideas. Better ideas improve those societies that can benefit from them, and good societies evolve and improve over time anyway, so we can hopefully presume that at some point, most people will stop starving to death. Insisting that more progressive societies suppress their philosophies because other societies have little food is ridiculous - the two are almost unrelated ideas. And if the starving societies come up with better philosophies, well, that's FAR more likely to make them stop starving than anything else. So... uh, making good philosophy seems great. Charity is a good thing! Obviously you have never > been in any circumstance that required you to yield to > charity otherwise you would understand that not all > people that need a helping hand are those that are > drug addicts or are going to buy cigarettes. Uhh... sorry, did I not say food and drink first? The amount of money one would give a beggar would cover things ON THE LEVEL of food, drink or cigarettes. I mean, it would also cover things like small paperback books and stationery, but they're more likely to buy things like food/drink/cigs. The idea > behind the Scrooge idea was to show how all the money > in the world doesn't bring you happiness and at most > brings you closer to solitude because one fears the > lose of something that appears so relevant. Once > Scrooge discovers the idea of giving he no longer > holds close the idea of possession. So you want to deprive him of his natural right of property? That sounds terrible. And if all the money in the world can't bring happiness, then why give it to poor people if it won't make them happy? The point is, see, that moral decisions make one happy. Money just facilitates us to have other good things, like computers and food and houses and entertainment. Having these things makes it easier for us to spend more time coming up with better ideas that will benefit more people. The story tells us that money won't make rich people happy but it will poor. I think it really just comes down to a rather Catholic notion of sin and sacrifice, rather than actually tells us what can and can't make us happy, and what is and isn't right. I still think it's a great story. I still don't see why. :/ -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 11 07:39:44 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:39:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net><006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer><475B8AC2.5000607@kevinfreels.com><001101c83a93$2c5c2920$2b064e0c@MyComputer><475D7F06.8040707@kevinfreels.com><03df01c83b79$c09e71b0$2c0a4e0c@MyComputer> <1197327257_39498@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <005b01c83bc9$129b92f0$72064e0c@MyComputer> "hkhenson" > If we are the first then we face a completely unknown future. That is absolutely true and absolutely terrifying. I don't know about you but it scares the shit out of me. Oh well, at least things won't be boring. John K Clark From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Dec 11 07:45:02 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:45:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <408182.47239.qm@web30409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Seien wrote: > I still don't see why. :/ You just didn't like the story of Scrooge:) Happy Holidays Anna Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php From seienchan at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 09:16:15 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:16:15 +0000 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <408182.47239.qm@web30409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <408182.47239.qm@web30409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712110116k7035bbdfp53172a7f7c664cd0@mail.gmail.com> On 11/12/2007, Anna Taylor wrote: > > --- Seien wrote: > > You just didn't like the story of Scrooge:) That's not true. I gave explicit reasons for thinking the story had bad principles and ideas to agree with. A good story expresses values; fairy tales express values, even children's stories express values. We have to be careful about which stories we empathise with in case we pick up bad memes. As it happens, I think the story is quite a good one. But that's not a very interesting or remotely useful thing to talk about. It's much more important to talk about the memes one risks picking up when one reads something, especially something popular, to determine whether or not we are being influenced by these memes - and whether or not we should be. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seienchan at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 10:08:43 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:08:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <005b01c83bc9$129b92f0$72064e0c@MyComputer> References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> <475B8AC2.5000607@kevinfreels.com> <001101c83a93$2c5c2920$2b064e0c@MyComputer> <475D7F06.8040707@kevinfreels.com> <03df01c83b79$c09e71b0$2c0a4e0c@MyComputer> <1197327257_39498@S1.cableone.net> <005b01c83bc9$129b92f0$72064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7d6322030712110208r3f94402aja23106e6555dd933@mail.gmail.com> On 11/12/2007, John K Clark wrote: > > "hkhenson" > > > If we are the first then we face a completely unknown future. > > That is absolutely true and absolutely terrifying. I don't know about you > but it scares the shit out of me. Oh well, at least things won't be > boring. > > John K Clark No way, it sounds cool! We can innovate and pioneer all on our own! :) We've done it already on a very small scale on our own planet, so it would be silly to shy away from doing it on an intergalactic level, now that we have so much more knowledge than we did before. :) -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 10:18:48 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:18:48 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712102244s63a4d475j2f51f7ce1ee4a802@mail.gmail.com> References: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> <200712110558.lBB5wRpV026136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7d6322030712102244s63a4d475j2f51f7ce1ee4a802@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2007 6:44 AM, Seien wrote: > Firstly, Spike: you presume that memes can be passed only from parents to > children. Not even genes are this limited, and memes are far more dynamic > than genes. I can persuade people of my ideas and propagate my memes that > way. Many philosophers had no children and yet their ideas more or less > survive. If anything they are improved upon, which one can only be glad > about. As I said, reproduction isn't the most important thing for humans any > more. Making rational and useful ideas is far more important than that. > That philosophy might apply to you and your friends, but..... We have discussed birth rates before on this list. First world nations have effectively stopped breeding. Their birth rates are below replacement level. Which explains the concentration on extending the lifespan of existing members. Third world countries have growing populations, are rapidly acquiring modern technology and will be demanding more space and resources in the near future. There seems to be a major clash of populations looming up over the horizon. (Ask Keith!). > And Mike: Morality IS rationality. It would be quite abhorrent to follow an > idea with no rational justification. Morality is about ideas and theories on > the best way to live. This is arrived at rationally. Again, persuasion over > coercion. There's no need to speak like a savage when you have the mind of a > human being. :) > Breeding has not been controlled by rationality until very recently, in selected areas only. As soon as it was, we stopped doing it. We are now dying out. Whether our superior morality and technology can keep at bay the hordes outside the gates is a question that will be answered in the near future. The best solution I can see is that yes, temporarily, we might be able to. If the third world have time to become first world nations, then they also will stop breeding. But the interim period will surely have traumatic times. BillK From seienchan at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 11:18:17 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:18:17 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: References: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> <200712110558.lBB5wRpV026136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7d6322030712102244s63a4d475j2f51f7ce1ee4a802@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712110318y7c84f2bdu8defb44b7c9cf2bd@mail.gmail.com> >We have discussed birth rates before on this list. First world nations have effectively stopped breeding. Their birth rates are below replacement level. Which explains the concentration on extending the >lifespan of existing members. That's okay. All you have done is cited a problem here. We can solve this problem, but that's no reason to make people stop concentrating on philosophy and start concentrating on breeding. You seem to be taking here the Environmentalist approach: you are confronted with a problem, and instead of trying to be dynamic and get more knowledge so you can solve it, you prefer to limit yourself and regress back to the mindset that existed before the problem came about. >Whether our superior morality and technology can keep at bay the hordes outside the gates is a question that will be answered in the >near future. Maybe we should try persuading them. This seems an extremely uncreative approach to the problem you cited - there are more people in the world than in Britain and America and you would prefer to keep them outside the country because of their current memes rather than persuade them of our good ideas. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Tue Dec 11 13:33:06 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:33:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary Psychology and Religion Message-ID: <8CA0A117F212974-410-409@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> /Growing up in a religious environment was said to have little effect > on belief. Dr Hamer, who in 1993 claimed to have identified a DNA > sequence linked to male homosexuality, said the existence of the "god > gene" explained why some people had more aptitude for spirituality > than others." / ______________ The so called " god gene" or aptitude for spirituality arise from the sense of self-preservation. Fear drives humans to invent a system called religion or god to protect them from their own imagined fears. Psychologically speaking, Roosevelt said: "There's nothing to fear but fear itself." Chemicals in our brain contain dopamine stimulating "the fight or flight response" originating from the limbic area which we share with other mammals. Brain chemicals are forms of energy which follows the laws of physics, briefly stated: for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction." ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 13:46:44 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:46:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] gay bomb again In-Reply-To: <200712110652.lBB6qwoc006075@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> <200712110652.lBB6qwoc006075@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712110546p302ba270y497eacf3b3585756@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 11, 2007 1:26 AM, spike wrote: > This leads to a question especially for the heterosexuals among us, but > others are welcome to comment too: Should the scientists eventually > develop > a pill that would cause one to be temporarily homosexual, would you eat > it? I imagine that having this pill supposes it's opposite effect as well. I think it is also interesting to question what happens when orientation is a mood easily altered with a pill. Maybe it sounds far-fetched, but if it were 'safe' enough - I could see it in candy. An effective dose is the entire package - much like the latest fad of caffeine added to gum or mints. A scarier consideration is what happens when the "gay is immoral" group (for lack of a better term that isn't too broad-brush) realizes that they can 'fix' homosexuals with ongoing drug therapy. Again, it sounds rediculous - but there are a lot of prescriptions filled every day to 'fix' ADD too. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 13:54:13 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:54:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <776999.59218.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712110554r5da12828yb51bc8f4dd3ce648@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 11, 2007 12:41 AM, spike wrote: > The idea I take away is that without the appropriate technology, wealth > alone is of little value. The poorest among us would surely be unwilling > to > give up their modern destitution in exchange for being the richest person > on > the planet a mere thousand years ago. What say ye, highly intelligent but > capital challenged friends? Any takers? > Only a thousand years? I dunno. But while you're taking that pill for 24 hours of a new perspective, I wouldn't mind seeing what it was like to be Pharaoh for a day. :) "So let it be written..." (haha) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 14:07:40 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:07:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 11, 2007 2:03 AM, Seien wrote: > Uhh... sorry, did I not say food and drink first? The amount of money one > would give a beggar would cover things ON THE LEVEL of food, drink or > cigarettes. I mean, it would also cover things like small paperback books > and stationery, but they're more likely to buy things like food/drink/cigs. > > I just imagined ET's looking down at earth saying things like, "Sure, we could show them how to access cheap personal fusion reactions - but they'd probably just use that energy to drive to work or watch TV, so lets not give it to them until they're more mature." I think worrying about what the person uses your charity for is missing the point of charity. If you can spare that money and you willingly give it to someone who doesn't have any, can you call it charity if you put restrictions on how it is used? I grant that you have a right to buy someone's behavior with your money, but that's not charity. I also see your point about using your resources according to those principles that you personally feel will do the greatest good, but that still does not yield your resources to someone else's autonomy. I'm not making a judgement as much as an observation that you (and those posting in this thread) seem to be approaching the point from very different directions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 14:25:17 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:25:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712102244s63a4d475j2f51f7ce1ee4a802@mail.gmail.com> References: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> <200712110558.lBB5wRpV026136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7d6322030712102244s63a4d475j2f51f7ce1ee4a802@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712110625n28e97c1ena3302cf1935b378c@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 11, 2007 1:44 AM, Seien wrote: > >if he can start a church with morality as a goal, maybe the powerful god > representation can trump the larger numbers if they believe themselves > subject to his desire. (of course it's easier if you start programming them > as early as possible to accept the doctrine before they have any experience > with logic and rational thinking) > > >But if you take it all away, what are you left with? > --Mike Dougherty > > And Mike: Morality IS rationality. It would be quite abhorrent to follow > an idea with no rational justification. Morality is about ideas and theories > on the best way to live. This is arrived at rationally. Again, persuasion > over coercion. There's no need to speak like a savage when you have the mind > of a human being. :) > > Also, if you're going to use a gender pronoun, you may as well use the > right one: I am female. > To be honest, I kind of lost track of which object the pronoun in that statement was referring (you, the church, god, ???) Thanks for the update though, I will try to not make that mistake again. I agree with your definition of morality and rationality. I was using a more jaded impression of the coerced behavior in the guise of morality dictated by a religious institutional authority. Are the laws of the Church as obvious as the "laws of Nature" vs "Natural Law" - or are they twisted around obvious truths in a way that makes believe without understanding more acceptable? (forgive my ignorance - I had one semester-long class on "Christian Morality" at a Catholic university. It was a long semester.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seienchan at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 14:43:22 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:43:22 +0000 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> On 11/12/2007, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2007 2:03 AM, Seien wrote: > > > > > > > I just imagined ET's looking down at earth saying things like, "Sure, we > could show them how to access cheap personal fusion reactions - but they'd > probably just use that energy to drive to work or watch TV, so lets not give > it to them until they're more mature." Using it to drive to work and watch TV could be useful. They might be doing good or important or interesting work, or watching something cool on TV. I think worrying about what the person uses your charity for is missing the > point of charity. If you can spare that money and you willingly give it to > someone who doesn't have any, can you call it charity if you put > restrictions on how it is used? But I never said I would put restrictions on things. I just said I would be able to use my money better than a beggar could use a small fraction of it. Where he might use it to buy food, I might use it to buy books, or on internet bills so I can teach my students things across the internet in America. People benefit more if I spend my money morally on myself than if I give it to other people. I grant that you have a right to buy someone's behavior with your money, but > that's not charity. I also see your point about using your resources > according to those principles that you personally feel will do the greatest > good, but that still does not yield your resources to someone else's > autonomy. I'm not making a judgement as much as an observation that you > (and those posting in this thread) seem to be approaching the point from > very different directions. I don't think that charity is a good thing. I think it's wrong. I don't have a lot of money. I want to use it only on things that I think are right. If I give money to people I want it to be for things that I think are right. There's no good reason to give your money out indiscriminately to people. It's your money, you worked for it and earned it. You should spend it only on what you think is good to spend it on. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Tue Dec 11 14:46:40 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:46:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Appropriate Technology Message-ID: <8CA0A1BC680C549-410-826@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> Spike wrote: "> The idea I take away is that without the appropriate technology, wealth > alone is of little value. The poorest among us would surely be unwilling > to > give up their modern destitution in exchange for being the richest person > on > the planet a mere thousand years ago. What say ye, highly intelligent but > capital challenged friends? Any takers?" ____________ The appropriate technology, if I may call it that, is lacking in the form of proper education with emphasis on science starting in the elementary level onward with a equal emphasis on the arts and humanities. In third developing countries or some first developing ones there is little or nothing in the form of proper education balancing religious education as in the form of arts/ philosophy with scientific subjects or applied sciences to become a well rounded human being/a well rounded education. The issue with morality as an ideal/utopian dream cannot be resolved with irrationality. Morality cannot be legislated or genetically programmed but a rational education is just a tip of the iceberg so to speak. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From citta437 at aol.com Tue Dec 11 15:16:12 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:16:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Conscilience Message-ID: <8CA0A1FE6B6DBA5-410-A52@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> Keith wrote: ""Selfish gene" is a metaphor. I know Dawkins slightly (he has quoted me) and read this book back in the late 70 or early 80s. I think I read Eric Drexler's copy. I think you should try for a deeper level of understanding of this background material." _____________ My understanding is not attached to any memes/metaphor or otherwise. But metaphorically speaking, we are all forms of energy in synergetic interactions without which there's no energy to think rationally. Written laws of physics are theoretically working in connection with chemistry, mathematics and genetic technology of which I'm not an expert in such disciplinary fields. Do you have to be a rocket scientist to understand the basic forms of energy? Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From citta437 at aol.com Tue Dec 11 15:31:56 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:31:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Nature Hates a Vacuum Message-ID: <8CA0A22194BFCED-410-B7A@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> "I can't see that breeding--in a pre contraceptive era--needed any religious support. Generally humans populated whatever space they had to the maximum extent possible." Hi Keith, I think you "hit the nail's head" this time. Someone also said that "nature hates a vacuum." We are all part of nature with expanding memes to occupy whatever space we find in time. In the physical universe, energy expands according to the principle of thermodynamics. ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 16:25:30 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:25:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30712110825y7d96180bk7634f8f365e3a7e6@mail.gmail.com> I have found this whole exchange on Dickens's "A Christmas Carol" fascinating. Because you all seem to have missed the point of the story as I see it. It's not about welfare or charity or buying whisky and cigs. The story is all about the capacity to love. Can you love? Can you love yourself? If you can't love yourself, can you love others? As we all know, many people cannot do either. Scrooge certainly couldn't. Scrooge had lost the only people he loved -- his sister died and the woman he loved and hoped to marry was denied him, so believing he was unworthy of love, he spent the rest of his life thinking money could replace love, because he thought his lack of money is what lost him love in the first place. To Scrooge, no one deserves money=love more than he. By having the crap scared out of him and the turning points of his life made clear, Scrooge learns that love is all that matters. Money simply confers freedom. And to people who are not free, freedom is the ultimate gift. So he transfers that money=love in the form of generosity to both the people who know him (relatives, Crachits) and those who don't (charity workers). Christmas is a symbol of a time of love, not just of one's self, family, friends, but of all humanity. It's the one time of the year a certain segment of the population pay at least lip service to the value of universal love. This is what Dickens is referencing. You can reject Christianity, but you can't claim the story is irrelevant just because you don't dig the religious references or the handouts. It's all about context. Dickens knew better than anyone living in the most powerful empire on Earth at the time what deep societal unhappiness economic selfishness and a lack of brotherly love had wrought. Just read any of his other novels to see the devastation that abounds in the early years of the industrial revolution in Britain. They are not exaggerations. (Only his wonderful names are exaggerations!) They are documentary, much of it based on his own childhood living in workhouses and debtors' prison. It is not a coincidence that reform movements in 19th C. Britain came right on the heels of his works. His writings did more to expose his culture's injustices and crimes and ameliorate man's inhumanity to man than all the H+ers/Extropians/Transhumanists/Futurists put together. Think about that. And Happy Holidays. ;-) PJ From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 11 17:12:52 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:12:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <200712110558.lBB5wRpV026136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> <200712110558.lBB5wRpV026136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1197393161_19750@S1.cableone.net> At 10:58 PM 12/10/2007, spike wrote: (keith) > > I can't see that breeding--in a pre contraceptive era--needed any > > religious support. Generally humans populated whatever space they > > had to the maximum extent possible. Keith > >Ja Keith, I mostly agree, but I was referring to the modern post >contraceptive era. Really effective contraception methods are not much more than 100 years old. When talking evolution, that's not enough time. >In most of human history, reproduction was surely a side >effect of the satisfaction of sexual urges, which represented the most >intense pleasure available to humans. Now we know of multiple of paths to >personal fulfillment that does not involve sexual activity or reproduction. In the EEA they did and to some extent they still do. For males at least nothing was more predictive of reproductive success than high social standing. What motivates us to post? It is the expectation that doing so will gain us attention and higher social status. Of course I *risk* social standing by pointing out the dark side of human nature. (Less so here because most of you are up on EP but I was lambasted from bench by Judge Whyte about my postings on the subject where I said the observation applied to me as well as everyone else.) >One example is what we are doing right now, interacting with like-minded >people on the internet, daily feeding our brains to a most gratifying >satiety. And hopefully absorbing some of the facts about ourselves and the world around us. >This is not to say that you, my good friends, are better than sex, quite on >the contrary. But I can say with honest and heartfelt sincerity that for >all of you I am grateful, for both your existence and the fact that >technology lets us reach one another. It is amazing. The subjects discussed here are hard to talk about just about anywhere else. Best wishes, Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 11 17:25:39 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:25:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] fermi paradox In-Reply-To: <005b01c83bc9$129b92f0$72064e0c@MyComputer> References: <20071207162247.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.69be624898.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <006e01c839c3$14d21f60$1d084e0c@MyComputer> <475B8AC2.5000607@kevinfreels.com> <001101c83a93$2c5c2920$2b064e0c@MyComputer> <475D7F06.8040707@kevinfreels.com> <03df01c83b79$c09e71b0$2c0a4e0c@MyComputer> <1197327257_39498@S1.cableone.net> <005b01c83bc9$129b92f0$72064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <1197393928_18441@S3.cableone.net> At 12:39 AM 12/11/2007, John K Clark wrote: >"hkhenson" > > > If we are the first then we face a completely unknown future. > >That is absolutely true and absolutely terrifying. I don't know about you >but it scares the shit out of me. Oh well, at least things won't be boring. It's an improvement over a lethal future implied by the assumption that intelligence is common and what we can see looking out into the universe. Keith From seienchan at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 17:58:02 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:58:02 +0000 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712110825y7d96180bk7634f8f365e3a7e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30712110825y7d96180bk7634f8f365e3a7e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712110958o24b007eao115b49dbd7f10bdd@mail.gmail.com> PJ, the sentimentalism in that announcement is nigh-overwhelming. I am sure that if I asked you explain to me what love is, you would find it very hard very quickly. Christmas, as far as I can deduce, is of value as either a celebration composed of part tradition and part commercialism, or as nothing at all. It's nice to say it's a celebration of love, but when considered objectively that feels almost mawkish, and on top of that it's meaningless as a statement. Paying lip service to love? That sounds revolting. And, love is all that matters? If that is the moral of story, I hate it even more! "Love is all that matters" is a ghastly statement, condemning one to a lifetime of irrational behaviour. If someone does not know what to do in a situation, and you tell them to do what makes them happy, for instance, you haven't helped them. They KNOW what to do to make them happy, that's not what's causing the problem. They want to know what they ought to do; in other words, what is morally right. Morality is the theory of decision-making, if you like - it includes knowledge on what is the best way to live. Morality:Superior; Love:Inferior. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 11 18:06:05 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:06:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] EP and morality was Appropriate Technology In-Reply-To: <8CA0A1BC680C549-410-826@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0A1BC680C549-410-826@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1197396354_18649@S4.cableone.net> At 07:46 AM 12/11/2007, Terry wrote: snip (Agree that education is a good thing) >The issue with morality as an ideal/utopian dream cannot be resolved >with irrationality. Morality cannot be legislated or genetically >programmed but a rational education is just a tip of the iceberg so to >speak. Is a sense of morality and moral behavior a widespread psychological trait in human populations? If you answer yes (and it is hard to imagine any other answer) then this psychological trait was either directly selected (keeping in mind inclusive fitness) or is it a side effect of something else that was selected. Can you make a case for morality being genetic? (I can from dogs.) Can you imagine a reasonable origin for the trait(s) in stone age populations? Keith From seienchan at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 18:32:18 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:32:18 +0000 Subject: [ExI] EP and morality was Appropriate Technology In-Reply-To: <1197396354_18649@S4.cableone.net> References: <8CA0A1BC680C549-410-826@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> <1197396354_18649@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7d6322030712111032s5c8783c4gdc74bc0e9f3d7418@mail.gmail.com> Dogs? The last I checked, those kinds of animal were effectively computer programmed (or at least, simulatable by code). Morality is rational and therefore dynamic. How can you combine the two? :) On 11/12/2007, hkhenson wrote: > > At 07:46 AM 12/11/2007, Terry wrote: > > snip (Agree that education is a good thing) > > >The issue with morality as an ideal/utopian dream cannot be resolved > >with irrationality. Morality cannot be legislated or genetically > >programmed but a rational education is just a tip of the iceberg so to > >speak. > > Is a sense of morality and moral behavior a widespread psychological > trait in human populations? > > If you answer yes (and it is hard to imagine any other answer) then > this psychological trait was either directly selected (keeping in > mind inclusive fitness) or is it a side effect of something else that > was selected. > > Can you make a case for morality being genetic? (I can from > dogs.) Can you imagine a reasonable origin for the trait(s) in stone > age populations? > > Keith > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 11 18:43:39 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:43:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Too many level shifts was Nature Hates a Vacuum In-Reply-To: <8CA0A22194BFCED-410-B7A@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0A22194BFCED-410-B7A@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1197398607_21828@S1.cableone.net> At 08:31 AM 12/11/2007, Terry wrote: >(keith wrote) >"I can't see that breeding--in a pre contraceptive era--needed any >religious support. Generally humans populated whatever space they >had to the maximum extent possible." > >Hi Keith, I think you "hit the nail's head" this time. Someone also >said that "nature hates a vacuum." We are all part of nature with >expanding memes to occupy whatever space we find in time. In the >physical universe, energy expands according to the principle of >thermodynamics. To a very good approximation nature is *all* vacuum. That saying originated with experimenters at the bottom of a ocean of air in the days when leather flap valves were high tech. Memes, in a way sort of analogous to genes, do spread into a population of susceptible hosts. How the susceptibility of the hosts varies with time and the presence of other memes is a subject of considerable interest to me. Trying to bring in thermodynamics is shifting too many levels in a discussion. But then I might be overly sensitive to this as a result of some particularly bad experiences with people who should know where their competence ends supporting a subtile vandal on Wikipedia who was pushing his "human thermodynamic" theory. Applying theory from one level more than a level away has to be done with great caution. Here is my list of discussion levels. memes (culture) human biology and EP rest of biology chemistry physics Keith From amara at amara.com Tue Dec 11 19:04:09 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:04:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Too many level shifts (was Nature Hates a Vacuum) Message-ID: hkhenson hkhenson at rogers.com : >To a very good approximation nature is *all* vacuum. More precisely, most of the universe is in a plasma state. [1] Rocks and liquids and life are special conditions. [2] Amara [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29 http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/08.matter_phases/ [2] number density: >10^{21} charged particles/meter^3 and temperature ~10^2 to 10^4 Kelvin -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From hibbert at mydruthers.com Tue Dec 11 18:47:44 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:47:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <475EDB50.2050807@mydruthers.com> > There is a lot to be said for solitude. In 1843, one gave up privacy > to hire household servants to take care of the grinding labor of > daily survival. Could you imagine having a dozen people hanging > around, in your home, at all times? I would not like that. You would love it if the alternative was doing the grinding labor of daily survival yourself. Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org http://mydruthers.com From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 19:32:24 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:32:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712110958o24b007eao115b49dbd7f10bdd@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30712110825y7d96180bk7634f8f365e3a7e6@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110958o24b007eao115b49dbd7f10bdd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30712111132g62df4061l2d47357faedf390@mail.gmail.com> Seien, Of the 6+ billion Homo sapiens sapiens on this globe, we find that brains can be wired in many different ways. I am wired for increased empathy, so much so that I write about the subject and see the world through that prism. I'm also wired to love. I love a lot of people in many different ways. I suspect the two are connected. Perhaps you are not wired that way. That's okay, although a lack of empathy would make it very difficult for you to be a literary critic, since fiction requires empathy. But from your writing, I can tell storytelling is not at the top of your list of interests. However, in defense of my previous statements, love has a myriad of meanings and Dickens utilized almost all of them in "A Christmas Carol", from the interpersonal to the impersonal, including romantic, sexual, familial, parental, fraternal, religious, platonic, altruistic, empathic and paraphilic (one could interpret Scrooge's love of money as a sexual replacement if you really wanted to get Freudian, which I do not). Dickens knew that there is no universal definition for love, as do I. He knew that what one person calls love may be different from another's, as do I. But in the aggregate, all the forms of "love" represent the bonds humans acknowledge between each other. You may call them what you will; morality, ethics, a part of evolutionary psychology, the golden rule, etc., but the bonds exist, even on this list. ;-) And by the way, if you think humans are objectively rational, or are capable of making even partially rational decisions without the messy, mawkish, emotional parts of their brain coming into play (read any Ant?nio Damasio), perhaps I could interest you in purchasing a bridge in Brooklyn. I'll even put a bow on it. It makes the perfect holiday gift... PJ From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 11 20:35:43 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:35:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] EP and morality and dogs In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712111032s5c8783c4gdc74bc0e9f3d7418@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8CA0A1BC680C549-410-826@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> <1197396354_18649@S4.cableone.net> <7d6322030712111032s5c8783c4gdc74bc0e9f3d7418@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197405332_24136@S1.cableone.net> At 11:32 AM 12/11/2007, Seien wrote: >Dogs? The last I checked, those kinds of animal were effectively >computer programmed (or at least, simulatable by code). Morality is >rational and therefore dynamic. How can you combine the two? :) There was a study I read years ago (which I have not yet found again) where dog breeds were tested for "moral" behavior. Understand that dogs, being pack animals already *had* moral behaviors, but humans have selected for more of less of these psychological traits ub different breeds depending on the use of the dog breed. The test involved hungry dogs of different breeds being placed where they thought they were not being watched and could take food that was not given to them. There was considerable consistent behavior among animals of the same breed and great divergence between breeds. Since the difference between breeds is genetic, QED. I would also say you considerably over rate "rational." People are in my experience far more into rationalizing what they want to do from a much deeper psychological level than they are at setting up "wants" as a outcome of rational thinking, that is thinking under formal logic rules. There is a vast literature on this subject that has developed in the last 15 years, with the more interesting parts of it being more recent and involving a lot of functional MRI. Here are a few I picked up while looking for the dog moral study. I don't agree with all of what they say of course, but they are indicative of the flux of research going on in this area. The Origin of Intuitions Perhaps because moral norms vary by culture, class, and historical era, psychologists have generally assumed that morality is learned in childhood, and they have set out to discover how morality gets from outside the child to inside. The social intuitionist model takes a different view. It proposes that morality, like language, is a major evolutionary adaptation for an intensely social species, built into multiple regions of the brain and body, which is better described as emergent than as learned, yet which requires input and shaping from a particular culture. Moral intuitions are therefore both innate and enculturated. The present section describes the ways in which moral intuitions are innate, while the next section describes the ways in which they are shaped by culture during development. http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.emotionaldog.manuscript.pdf Very interesting paper that makes the case that human traits have more in common with wild dogs than they do with chimps and offers the possibility that humans were selected for these behaviors after they partnered with dogs. http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/s/275/Science/Coevolution03.pdf MORAL EMOTIONS Guilt, shame, embarrassment, jealousy, pride and other states that depend on a social context. They arise later in development and evolution than the basic emotions (happiness, fear, anger, disgust, sadness) and require an extended representation of oneself as situated within a society. They function to regulate social behaviours, often in the long-term interests of a social group rather than the short-term interests of the individual person. MODULES Functional and/or anatomical components that are relatively specialized to process only certain kinds of information. Modules were originally thought of as cognitively impenetrable and informationally encapsulated (having restricted access to only certain information). Although most people do not view modules in such strict terms, there is evidence of domain-specific processing that is specialized for specific ecological categories (such as faces and social contract violations), although there is debate on this issue. http://emotion.caltech.edu/papers/Adolphs2003Cognitive.pdf Keith From x at extropica.org Tue Dec 11 19:47:20 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:47:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712110825y7d96180bk7634f8f365e3a7e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30712110825y7d96180bk7634f8f365e3a7e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/11/07, PJ Manney wrote: > By having the crap scared out of him and the turning points of his > life made clear, Scrooge learns that love is all that matters. Money > simply confers freedom. And to people who are not free, freedom is > the ultimate gift. Huh. I thought the story was about the fallacy of confusing instrumental values with terminal values, and that Money and Love were just stand-ins for those in the audience who tend to think in more concrete terms. From x at extropica.org Tue Dec 11 19:25:11 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:25:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Nature Hates a Vacuum In-Reply-To: <8CA0A22194BFCED-410-B7A@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0A22194BFCED-410-B7A@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On 12/11/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > "I can't see that breeding--in a pre contraceptive era--needed any > religious support. Generally humans populated whatever space they > had to the maximum extent possible." > > Hi Keith, I think you "hit the nail's head" this time. Someone also > said that "nature hates a vacuum." We are all part of nature with > expanding memes to occupy whatever space we find in time. In the > physical universe, energy expands according to the principle of > thermodynamics. Your appreciation of principles of thermodynamics and evolution is commendable but misapplied. I feel compelled to speak up on this because it's near the root of much half-baked thinking on almost every topic extropic. At any scale, what we see is not "expansion", but selection for structures tending to increase the rate of increase of entropy in their environment. Note that it's not about simply increasing entropy, but increasingly increasing entropy per unit of interaction space. Expansion is a consequence of a very low-order (simple) mode of increasing entropy, dominating the behavior of simple structures such as atoms and molecules in a gas, or in a larger frame, the interactions of billiards balls, extendable to the simplest of interactions in even a cosmic context. But nature selects for structures supporting not just increasing entropy, but increasingly increasing entropy, so certain synergistic combinations tend to persist. More specifically, we observe selection for those combinations (and recombinations) which are coherent with what came before, and which express novel degrees of freedom, ever more effectively dissipating energy in the creation of self-similar fractal structures ever more effectively doing the same in interaction with their (necessarily local) environment. Subjectively, we see a tendency toward increasing order in our local environment in exchange for increasing entropy "out there." Humans now play a part in higher-order structures exploiting energy to produce increasingly dense (subjective) information corresponding to structures increasingly effective in accord with this thermodynamic principle. In this light, and given that interaction volume increases as the cube with surface area increasing as the square of distance, what should we expect of the geometry of increasingly intelligent growth? Google "fourth law of thermodynamics" OR exergy for more. From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 21:06:38 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:06:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30712110825y7d96180bk7634f8f365e3a7e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30712111306u2cec1be0pbcee86ad5079a0f@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 11, 2007 11:47 AM, wrote: > Huh. I thought the story was about the fallacy of confusing > instrumental values with terminal values, and that Money and Love were > just stand-ins for those in the audience who tend to think in more > concrete terms. Ho, ho, ho. Don't instrumental values help achieve terminal ones? More importantly, we need those stand-ins. That's what storytelling is about. Using those concrete emotions and behaviors to make it real, specific and personal, not general, philosophic and impersonal, even though the general is "terminal". Otherwise, you don't create empathy. Dickens wouldn't reach anyone (except maybe you!) if he had written about the golden rule from the point of view of evolutionary altruism. PJ From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 11 21:14:09 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:14:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] EP and sentimentality was songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712110958o24b007eao115b49dbd7f10bdd@mail.gmail.co m> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30712110825y7d96180bk7634f8f365e3a7e6@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110958o24b007eao115b49dbd7f10bdd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197407678_22771@S4.cableone.net> At 10:58 AM 12/11/2007, Seien wrote: >PJ, the sentimentalism in that announcement is nigh-overwhelming. I >am sure that if I asked you explain to me what love is, you would >find it very hard very quickly. Christmas, as far as I can deduce, >is of value as either a celebration composed of part tradition and >part commercialism, or as nothing at all. It's nice to say it's a >celebration of love, but when considered objectively that feels >almost mawkish, and on top of that it's meaningless as a statement. >Paying lip service to love? That sounds revolting. > >And, love is all that matters? If that is the moral of story, I hate >it even more! "Love is all that matters" is a ghastly statement, >condemning one to a lifetime of irrational behaviour. If someone >does not know what to do in a situation, and you tell them to do >what makes them happy, for instance, you haven't helped them. They >KNOW what to do to make them happy, that's not what's causing the >problem. They want to know what they ought to do; in other words, >what is morally right. Morality is the theory of decision-making, if >you like - it includes knowledge on what is the best way to live. > >Morality:Superior; Love:Inferior. Ok, let's drag out the mental EP microscope and look at sentimentality. Why do some stories affect most people in a highly emotional way? I have not given this much thought, so take a crack at it and you teach me. We can start by listing stories and describing common features. I will contribute one, The short story "Leaf by Niggle" by JRR Tolkien. It's impossible for me to read or even to think about without dripping tears. Please play by the EP rules. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 11 21:26:31 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:26:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] EP and morality and dogs In-Reply-To: <1197405332_24136@S1.cableone.net> References: <8CA0A1BC680C549-410-826@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> <1197396354_18649@S4.cableone.net> <7d6322030712111032s5c8783c4gdc74bc0e9f3d7418@mail.gmail.com> <1197405332_24136@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1197408380_25565@S1.cableone.net> > >http://emotion.caltech.edu/papers/Adolphs2003Cognitive.pdf Another good chunk from the same article. Social cognition and emotion What is social cognition? If the social is ubiquitous,we face the problem of including all aspects of cognition as social. If it is special,we have to explain why and how (BOX 1).As a matter of practice, social brain science has indeed carved out a restricted domain of cognition. The bulk of studies emphasize motivational and emotional factors.Whereas other aspects of cognition - such as language, for example - contribute substantially to the regulation of social behaviour, the intuition has been that emotion stands in a privileged position. This intuition has its basis in our observations of other species and of human infants, whose social behaviour seems to be tightly coupled to emotion - a coupling that is heavily regulated in adults.But the intuition also has a functional explanation. Emotions can be thought of as states that coordinate homeostasis in a complex, dynamic environment; in so far as one aspect of the environment is social, emotions will participate in regulating social behaviour. In fact, one class of emotions - the so-called social or MORAL EMOTIONS - serve specifically in this capacity and probably guide altruistic helping5 and punishment6. From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 11 21:33:31 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:33:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Interesting pointer to a book on the state of language research In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712111132g62df4061l2d47357faedf390@mail.gmail.com > References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30712110825y7d96180bk7634f8f365e3a7e6@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110958o24b007eao115b49dbd7f10bdd@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30712111132g62df4061l2d47357faedf390@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197408800_24269@S3.cableone.net> http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/56421 From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 23:22:58 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:22:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Nature Hates a Vacuum In-Reply-To: References: <8CA0A22194BFCED-410-B7A@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200712111722.58218.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 11 December 2007, x at extropica.org wrote: > At any scale, what we see is not "expansion", but selection for > structures tending to increase the rate of increase of entropy in > their environment. Note that it's not about simply increasing > entropy, but increasingly increasing entropy per unit of interaction > space. > > selection for those combinations (and recombinations) which are > coherent with what came before, and which express novel degrees of > freedom, ever more effectively dissipating energy in the creation of > self-similar fractal structures ever more effectively doing the same > in interaction with their (necessarily local) environment. Salthe's natural philosophy of entropy, http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol2-3/2-3%20resolved/Salthe.htm > So, finally: why is there anything? Because the universe is expanding > faster than it can equilibrate. Why are there so many kinds of things? > Because the universe is trying to simultaneously destroy as many > different energy gradients as possible in its attempt to equilibrate. See also Leibniz's law of plentitude: the universe is maximally diverse at this moment (so there's also some optimism in here). Re: fractal structures, throw in some Tegmark, or less applicably, Zindell. > In this light, and given that interaction volume increases as the > cube with surface area increasing as the square of distance, what > should we expect of the geometry of increasingly intelligent growth? Delicious; would you please expand on this? And do I get a guess at the mystery poster? - Bryan From citta437 at aol.com Wed Dec 12 01:02:12 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:02:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psychology and Religion Message-ID: <8CA0A71C351F6B4-A68-619@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> Someone said that morality is rationality. Not always so. Sometimes "you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink." Rationality may help one to be moral but not the other way around. A child's irrational behavior is neither moral nor immoral. Some adults behave like a child due to psychological trauma. Science and technology are tools for understanding reality without clinging to what is considered logical or moral. What is moral to one tribe is immoral to another. Where can you find the logic in that? ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 12 02:07:53 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:07:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psychology and Religion In-Reply-To: <8CA0A71C351F6B4-A68-619@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0A71C351F6B4-A68-619@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1197425262_3750@S1.cableone.net> At 06:02 PM 12/11/2007, Terry wrote: >Someone said that morality is rationality. Not always so. Sometimes >"you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink." > >Rationality may help one to be moral but not the other way around. A >child's irrational behavior is neither moral nor immoral. Some adults >behave like a child due to psychological trauma. > >Science and technology are tools for understanding reality without >clinging to what is considered logical or moral. What is moral to one >tribe is immoral to another. Where can you find the logic in that? I think you may be out of your depth here. Perhaps you might ask for a source list. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 12 02:16:13 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:16:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Interesting work re emotional coupling to reasoning In-Reply-To: <200712111722.58218.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <8CA0A22194BFCED-410-B7A@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> <200712111722.58218.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197425764_3760@S4.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george at betterhumans.com Wed Dec 12 02:31:34 2007 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:31:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Become a Betterhumans intern Message-ID: Ready to make your mark on the future and create a name for yourself in the transhumanist community? Looking to branch out and network with key movers and shakers? Love to dive head-first into a little bit of controversy every now and then? Here at Betterhumans we're running into the future with scissors. And we're looking for some incisive people with a pair of their own to join us. In the midst of a major rethink and redesign, we're aiming to relaunch in early January with sexy new features, a kick-ass new look and content that turns heads?and makes them shake. And that's where you come in. We have grand visions, and need some help to realize them. Smart and ambitious? Then we're looking for you to assist with the site's operation, including through highly visible research and writing. (If you've got a background in journalism, all the better.) As an intern, you need to be conscientious, enthusiastic and reliable. Oh, and a bit twisted. The future, after all, is going to be very, very weird?and, if we can help it, damn interesting. Unfortunately, we can't currently pay cash for your work. But we can compensate with an exciting ride, some moderate fame, and the sheer thrill of working on something that makes your more conservative friends angrily intrigued. Not to mention, it could look really cool on your resume some day?particularly if you're applying for that job with the molecular nanotech antiaging company you've had your eye on. So, ready to live at your edge and help build the web's number one portal into the future? Make it happen now. Email your resume or profile (including writing samples if applicable) to george at betterhumans.com. And if you're really interested, please don't hesitate, as there are a limited number of positions available. Looking forward to our future together, George Dvorsky Editor-in-Chief, Betterhumans george at betterhumans.com From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 02:37:26 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:37:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712111837g1449b7w741a1a5d9e7d3726@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 11, 2007 9:43 AM, Seien wrote: > I don't think that charity is a good thing. I think it's wrong. I don't have > a lot of money. I want to use it only on things that I think are right. If I > give money to people I want it to be for things that I think are right. > There's no good reason to give your money out indiscriminately to people. > It's your money, you worked for it and earned it. You should spend it only > on what you think is good to spend it on. That's the best example of Objectivism I've read. I thoroughly enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. I agree with you. There are generally too few who understand how this could work at a large scale. From x at extropica.org Wed Dec 12 03:11:27 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:11:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Nature Hates a Vacuum In-Reply-To: <200712111722.58218.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <8CA0A22194BFCED-410-B7A@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> <200712111722.58218.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/11/07, Bryan Bishop wrote: > And do I get a guess at the mystery poster? My identity is hardly a mystery to anyone here: Vexatious extroversion, exasperating eccentricity, excruciating existentialism, excesses of explication and explanation! I expedite my exit by Exocet or excess of Excedrin! I'm x and ex nihilo, exponent of the not-yet-extant, export connections within a context of complexity, expressly exposing a sexier subtext of extropic exploration. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 12 03:19:22 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:19:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] EP and morality was Appropriate Technology In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712111032s5c8783c4gdc74bc0e9f3d7418@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712120346.lBC3k8Si003501@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Seien Subject: Re: [ExI] EP and morality was Appropriate Technology Dogs? The last I checked, those kinds of animal were effectively computer programmed ...~Seien WOW cool, Seien, that is a helllll of an idea pal! A computer program that trains dogs. I have a cousin who is a professional dog trainer. I may be able to get him to advise me on how to write such code. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 12 03:59:25 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:59:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <62c14240712111837g1449b7w741a1a5d9e7d3726@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712111837g1449b7w741a1a5d9e7d3726@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071211215608.02564548@satx.rr.com> At 09:37 PM 12/11/2007 -0500, you wrote: >On Dec 11, 2007 9:43 AM, Seien wrote: > > I don't think that charity is a good thing. I think it's wrong. I > don't have > > a lot of money. I want to use it only on things that I think are > right. If I > > give money to people I want it to be for things that I think are right. > > There's no good reason to give your money out indiscriminately to people. > > It's your money, you worked for it and earned it. You should spend it only > > on what you think is good to spend it on. > >That's the best example of Objectivism I've read. My instant glib reaction: Rand-meets-Skinner. Or maybe Rand-meets-John Broadus Watson. "Give a man one fish, you fed him for a day. Give him a school, and make him pay for it--*that*'ll teach him!" Damien Broderick From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 04:18:32 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:18:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] EP and morality was Appropriate Technology In-Reply-To: <200712120346.lBC3k8Si003501@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7d6322030712111032s5c8783c4gdc74bc0e9f3d7418@mail.gmail.com> <200712120346.lBC3k8Si003501@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712112018t1c9e451dq77d97bc3b28e5f76@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 11, 2007 10:19 PM, spike wrote: > WOW cool, Seien, that is a helllll of an idea pal! A computer program that > trains dogs. I have a cousin who is a professional dog trainer. I may be > able to get him to advise me on how to write such code. You'd really excite the AI folks if you could get a dog that trains computer programs. From citta437 at aol.com Wed Dec 12 04:29:43 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:29:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] (no subject) Message-ID: <8CA0A8EC10BABF7-A68-FC4@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> Keith wrote: "Is a sense of morality and moral behavior a widespread psychological trait in human populations? My reply: NO, a child has no sense of morality or moral behavior. Keith: If you answer yes (and it is hard to imagine any other answer) then this psychological trait was either directly selected (keeping in mind inclusive fitness) or is it a side effect of something else that was selected. My reply: Morality is a sign of matured development in human society. Some society where the members manifests immature behavior or dependence on metaphysical beliefs cannot see reason from fantasy. Can you make a case for morality being genetic? (I can from dogs.) Can you imagine a reasonable origin for the trait(s) in stone age populations? Dogs are trained to be obedient. Human brains are more complex than a dog's brain. The thought/belief of a morality gene is a mere thought/assumption propagated by those with an agenda for whatever benefit they desire for their ownselves like the stone age people who saw what they want to see i.e. the gods for rain, fertility etc. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From amara at amara.com Wed Dec 12 05:30:42 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:30:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psychology and Religion Message-ID: citta437 at aol.com : these references might help: http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/my-1987-interview-with-vishy-anand/#comment-68867 Amara From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 12 05:40:42 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:40:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] turing test again In-Reply-To: <1197408800_24269@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200712120607.lBC67S65026273@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Can we claim that Turing prediction has still not been fulfilled? I don't think Turing had this in mind: "It's a fact," it declares, "that not a single girl has yet guessed that she is talking with a computer program!" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316473,00.html Flirty Chat-Room 'Bot' Out to Steal Your Identity Tuesday, December 11, 2007 By Philippe Naughton Be careful next time you get accosted by a flirty stranger in an Internet chatroom: He or she could just be a Russian chat-up bot out to steal your identity. Internet security experts say that Russian programmers have created a piece of software known as CyberLover that can infiltrate dating sites and chatrooms and patiently seduce its victims. The "bot" solicits and collects information such as home addresses, telephone numbers and personal photographs, which are then used to compile a profile that can be sold on to identity thieves. The creators of the software, who use the Web address Botmaster.ru, market it as a device allowing computer-savvy men to link up with women (or women with men) without having to go through endless time-consuming introductions. Botmaster says that its software can make the acquaintance of between 10 and 20 people in half an hour. "It's a fact," it declares, "that not a single girl has yet guessed that she is talking with a computer program!" But Sergei Shevchenko, senior malware analyst at the security firm PC Tools, said in a statement that its real application is much more dangerous: ID fraud. "Internet users today are generally aware of the dangers of opening suspicious attachments and visiting unusual URLs, but CyberLover employs a new technique that is unheard of - and that's what makes it particularly dangerous," said Sergei Shevchenko, senior malware analyst at PC Tools. "As a tool that can be used by hackers to conduct identity fraud, CyberLover demonstrates an unprecedented level of social engineering. It employs highly intelligent and customized dialogue to target users of social-networking systems," Shevchenko added. For the moment, the attacks have been limited to Russia but could potentially spread to other parts of the world. "CyberLover has been designed as a bot that lures victims automatically, without human intervention. If it's spawned in multiple instances on multiple servers, the number of potential victims could be very substantial," Shevchenko said. From amara at amara.com Wed Dec 12 06:19:14 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:19:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] abandon all services Message-ID: >>If I was more Buddhist than I am, the combination of the experiences of >>my Italian years plus the final months left me on November 17 with >>almost nothing that I once valued when I entered the Italy in January >>2003, but instead, a pure being, which would have been perfect for >>entering a monastery. :-/ >Not a nunnery....? In the old days, the monasteries provided the widest and deepest education. Anyway, after wallowing in the end result of my international-move-from-Hell, it's better now to adopt the Beppe Grillo approach (*) to my past experiences or maybe a Nina Simone approach (**) and move on. I'm in the best place possible in the world (because my best resources are _here_ and _not_ there) in order to glue those pieces of myself back together. (*) the word: "vaffanculo" (F*ck *ff) as applied by Beppe Grillo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/ (**) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJA69C6SlRk Feeling Good, Nina Simone ("It's a new dawn, it's a new day") Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From robotact at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 11:28:33 2007 From: robotact at gmail.com (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:28:33 +0300 Subject: [ExI] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <8CA0A8EC10BABF7-A68-FC4@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0A8EC10BABF7-A68-FC4@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Interesting. Where on one hand evolutionary psychology-inspired morality consists of set of genetically inbuilt reinforcers, one can also make a point of morality based on uncritically accepted memes. It for example shows how switching to rationality simplifies morality. On Dec 12, 2007 7:29 AM, wrote: > > Keith wrote: > "Is a sense of morality and moral behavior a widespread psychological > trait in human populations? > > My reply: NO, a child has no sense of morality or moral behavior. > > Keith: If you answer yes (and it is hard to imagine any other answer) > then > this psychological trait was either directly selected (keeping in > mind inclusive fitness) or is it a side effect of something else that > was selected. > > My reply: Morality is a sign of matured development in human society. > Some society where the members manifests immature behavior or > dependence on metaphysical beliefs cannot see reason from fantasy. > > Can you make a case for morality being genetic? (I can from > dogs.) Can you imagine a reasonable origin for the trait(s) in stone > age populations? > > Dogs are trained to be obedient. Human brains are more complex than a > dog's brain. The thought/belief of a morality gene is a mere > thought/assumption propagated by those with an agenda for whatever > benefit they desire for their ownselves like the stone age people who > saw what they want to see i.e. the gods for rain, fertility etc. > > Terry > ________________________________________________________________________ > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - > http://webmail.aol.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:robotact at gmail.com From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Dec 12 11:33:12 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 06:33:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071211215608.02564548@satx.rr.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712111837g1449b7w741a1a5d9e7d3726@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071211215608.02564548@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <35328.72.236.102.114.1197459192.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > "Give a man one fish, you fed him for a day. Give him a school, and > make him pay for it--*that*'ll teach him!" > It sure sounds harsh, but things one works hard to learn (by intention or accident) are often better learned than the stuff served up on a silver platter. I've certainly seen that with my kids. :( Regards, MB From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 11:56:37 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:56:37 +0000 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <35328.72.236.102.114.1197459192.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712111837g1449b7w741a1a5d9e7d3726@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071211215608.02564548@satx.rr.com> <35328.72.236.102.114.1197459192.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: On Dec 12, 2007 11:33 AM, MB wrote: > It sure sounds harsh, but things one works hard to learn (by intention or accident) > are often better learned than the stuff served up on a silver platter. > > I've certainly seen that with my kids. :( > Children are a special case, needing protection and tuition. As for adults who need help, definitely they need to be ruled with a rod of iron. Not us successful first worlders, of course. We're free to do as we like with our riches of education, health, intelligence, civilisation, money, etc. Those lackadaisical New Orleaners should be chained into work gangs and forced to rebuild their city themselves. That'll larn 'em. BillK From citta437 at aol.com Wed Dec 12 14:01:14 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:01:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Exergy and the second law of thermodynamics Message-ID: <8CA0ADE97DC9C55-8DC-4C70@FWM-D02.sysops.aol.com> ""Second Law of Thermodynamics Heat cannot be transfered from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instance after the Big Bang when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified." _____________ Extropica.org stated that there is a fourth law called "exergy" which sounds so much like the second law of thermodynamics. What did I miss? First according to the above quoted article there was a singularity/extropy{perfect order} when all the forces of the Universe were unified then after the Big Bang entropy ensued. Then because of entropy, the energy and matter in the universe becomes less useful. My understanding of "exergy" is the same as the second law of thermodynamics. __________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 14:03:41 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:03:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] turing test again In-Reply-To: <200712120607.lBC67S65026273@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1197408800_24269@S3.cableone.net> <200712120607.lBC67S65026273@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712120603s1727fc00t977fbc82e9647cb5@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 12, 2007 12:40 AM, spike wrote: > "CyberLover has been designed as a bot that lures victims automatically, > without human intervention. If it's spawned in multiple instances on > multiple servers, the number of potential victims could be very > substantial," Shevchenko said. So do you think there is an embarrassing moment when two instances of CyberLover realize they've been scamming each other? From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 14:19:32 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:19:32 +0000 Subject: [ExI] turing test again In-Reply-To: <62c14240712120603s1727fc00t977fbc82e9647cb5@mail.gmail.com> References: <1197408800_24269@S3.cableone.net> <200712120607.lBC67S65026273@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <62c14240712120603s1727fc00t977fbc82e9647cb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 12, 2007 2:03 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > So do you think there is an embarrassing moment when two instances of > CyberLover realize they've been scamming each other? > Like the man who was flirting with women in an internet chatroom and when they arranged to meet, he discovered his virtual girlfriend was his wife? Obviously he had to divorce her. :) BillK From citta437 at aol.com Wed Dec 12 15:25:42 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:25:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Re; Emotional and Rational behavior Message-ID: <8CA0AEA648B4E17-8DC-51CF@FWM-D02.sysops.aol.com> ".How can the diverse findings that we accumulate be situated under a single functional framework? Specifically,how can causal net- works explain the many correlations between brain and behaviour that we are discovering? What are the relative contributions ofinnate and acquired factors,culture and individual differences to social cognition? To what extent do these factors contribute to psychopathology? Can large-scale social behaviour,as studied by political science and economics, be understood by studying social cognition in individual subjects? Finally,what power will insights from cognitive neuroscience give us to influence our social behaviour,and hence society? And to what extent would such pursuit be morally defensible? How we approach these questions will largely shape social brain science in the coming decades. reward and punishment148.We might need to invent a new set ofterms that can translate between the different ways ofdescribing social behaviour,and that correspond more closely to the neural processes that underlie them. It might be that certain social cognitive skills ? notably the ability to represent other people?s minds ? distinguish humans and perhaps apes from all other animals.Ifwe understand other people in part by simu- lating processes within ourselves,the converse is also true:we understand ourselves in part by observing other people and their reactions to us.Our ability to think about other people might be an aspect ofour ability to | Different ways of classifying behaviour Category of behaviour Example Social disposition Personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism) Strategic Deception, reconciliation Ecological Attachment, aggression Moral Social emotions (guilt, embarrassment, pride, jealousy) Emotional response Basic emotions (happiness, fear, anger, disgust, sadness) Reinforcement Motivational state (reward, punishment) ___________________ All of the above boils down to the issue of consciousness, the behavior of the mind. Our mind is a response mechanism limited to the cause and effect between the inner structure in the microspace [physiochemical interactions] and the outside changing environment/randomness. Emotions, as mentioned in the above quote, emerge from those interconnecting events causing stressful effects on some minds still dependent on comforting thoughts/reinforcement. Thus the length of time a brain is under stress, the risk of cells dying from lack of reinforcements increases. A society rich in resources in connection with a healthy lifestyle providing state of the art in technology/education increases the individuals ability to cope in rational ways with the fast changing environment. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Dec 12 15:33:52 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:33:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] (no subject) Message-ID: <20071212083352.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.9a0de6591a.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 12 16:36:05 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:36:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Morality and meta In-Reply-To: <8CA0A8EC10BABF7-A68-FC4@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0A8EC10BABF7-A68-FC4@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1197477355_16567@S4.cableone.net> At 09:29 PM 12/11/2007, Terry wrote: Before I respond to this, could you tell us a bit about your background? There isn't a lot to glean from your presence on the web but I did find this really cool photo (obviously taken at a science fiction convention costume contest). http://www.members.aol.com/Citta437/myhomepage/moogle.jpg >Keith wrote: >"Is a sense of morality and moral behavior a widespread psychological >trait in human populations? > >My reply: NO, a child has no sense of morality or moral behavior. Girl children don't have breasts. Babies don't talk or walk. Yet all these products of evolution are widespread in adults (of the appropriate sex). Not to mention that moral emotions such as shame emerge very early in children, about 3, when (in the EEA) they graduated from their mother's arms to the play group. >Keith: If you answer yes (and it is hard to imagine any other answer) >then >this psychological trait was either directly selected (keeping in >mind inclusive fitness) or is it a side effect of something else that >was selected. > >My reply: Morality is a sign of matured development in human society. You are making this statement in opposition to a truly massive background of scientific studies over the last 20 years. We now know exactly what part of the brain are specialized to make moral decisions. >Some society where the members manifests immature behavior or >dependence on metaphysical beliefs cannot see reason from fantasy. I would be hard pressed to come up with any society did "see reason from fantasy." The number rational thinkers is small, the number whose actions are guided by rational thinking is even smaller. >Can you make a case for morality being genetic? (I can from >dogs.) Can you imagine a reasonable origin for the trait(s) in stone >age populations? > >Dogs are trained to be obedient. There are limits to what you can train a dog to do, and it varies widely by breed and by individual. Some breeds of hunting dogs cannot be trained to leave meat alone when they are not being watched. Others understand ownership of food almost without being trained. >Human brains are more complex than a >dog's brain. The thought/belief of a morality gene is a mere >thought/assumption propagated by those with an agenda for whatever >benefit they desire for their ownselves like the stone age people who >saw what they want to see i.e. the gods for rain, fertility etc. There isn't *a* morality gene. A large number, maybe half of human genes, are involved in the growth and organization of the brain. These genes cause the specialized structures to form that fMRI researchers see active in making moral decisions. This is *widely* understood by the scientific community that is concerned with such matters and reasonably well understood by the people on this mailing list. Keith PS, If you want to know who I am, Google "Keith Henson" or go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 12 16:59:06 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:59:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] EP and the marriage market In-Reply-To: References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712111837g1449b7w741a1a5d9e7d3726@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071211215608.02564548@satx.rr.com> <35328.72.236.102.114.1197459192.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <1197478737_16866@S3.cableone.net> The number of stories in the popular press with an EP orientation has gone way up in the past few years. Here is one. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/12/scirmarr112.xml Keith From scerir at libero.it Wed Dec 12 16:38:11 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:38:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Exergy and the second law of thermodynamics References: <8CA0ADE97DC9C55-8DC-4C70@FWM-D02.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000401c83cdd$649e3cf0$13931f97@archimede> citta437 > What did I miss? First according to the above quoted > article there was a singularity/extropy {perfect order} > when all the forces of the Universe were unified then > after the Big Bang entropy ensued. Since Boltzmann there are different views about that. A good picture seems to be here http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0210527 From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 12 17:03:23 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:03:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [EP_group] Book: Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science Message-ID: <1197478992_16985@S3.cableone.net> Forwarded from an EP group > Mechanical Mind Gilbert Harman >Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Margaret A. Boden. Two >volumes, xlviii + 1631 pp. Oxford University Press, 2006. $225. > >The term cognitive science, which gained currency in the last half of >the 20th century, is used to refer to the study of >cognition?cognitive structures and processes in the mind or brain, >mostly in people rather than, say, rats or insects. Cognitive science in >this sense has reflected a growing rejection of behaviorism in favor of >the study of mind and "human information processing." The field includes >the study of thinking, perception, emotion, creativity, language, >consciousness and learning. Sometimes it has involved writing (or at >least thinking about) computer programs that attempt to model mental >processes or that provide tools such as spreadsheets, theorem provers, >mathematical-equation solvers and engines for searching the Web. The >programs might involve rules of inference or "productions," "mental >models," connectionist "neural" networks or other sorts of parallel >"constraint satisfaction" approaches. Cognitive science so understood >includes cognitive neuroscience, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics >and artificial life; conceptual, linguistic and moral development; and >learning in humans, other animals and machines. > >[Human Information Processing ] In 1972, Peter Lindsay and >Donald Norman published a textbook that made the computational approach >to psychology a familiar part of the undergraduate experience. The book >was illustrated with memorable diagrams showing the "data," >"computational," "cognitive" and "decision" demons of Oliver Selfridge's >Pandemonium program at work. The demons were "mindlike software >'agents,'" able to cooperate and communicate with each other and with a >human user. From Mind as Machine. >56> > >Among those sometimes identifying themselves as cognitive scientists are >philosophers, computer scientists, psychologists, linguists, engineers, >biologists, medical researchers and mathematicians. Some individual >contributors to the field have had expertise in several of these more >traditional disciplines. An excellent example is the philosopher, >psychologist and computer scientist Margaret Boden, who founded the >School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences at the University of Sussex >and is the author of a number of books, including Artificial >Intelligence and Natural Man (1977) and The Creative Mind (1990). Boden >has been active in cognitive science pretty much from the start and has >known many of the other central participants. > >In her latest book, the lively and interesting Mind as Machine: A >History of Cognitive Science, the relevant machine is usually a >computer, and the cognitive science is usually concerned with the sort >of cognition that can be exhibited by a computer. Boden does not discuss >other aspects of the subject, broadly conceived, such as the "principles >and parameters" approach in contemporary linguistics or the psychology >of heuristics and biases. Furthermore, she also puts to one side such >mainstream developments in computer science as data mining and >statistical learning theory. In the preface she characterizes the book >as an essay expressing her view of cognitive science as a whole, a >"thumbnail sketch" meant to be "read entire" rather than "dipped into." > >It is fortunate that Mind as Machine is highly readable, particularly >because it contains 1,452 pages of text, divided into two very large >volumes. Because the references and indices (which fill an additional >179 pages) are at the end of the second volume, readers will need to >have it on hand as they make their way through the first. Given that >together these tomes weigh more than 7 pounds, this is not light >reading! > >Boden's goal, she says, is to show how cognitive scientists have tried >to find computational or informational answers to frequently asked >questions about the mind?"what it is, what it does, how it works, >how it evolved, and how it's even possible." How do our brains generate >consciousness? Are animals or newborn babies conscious? Can machines be >conscious? If not, why not? How is free will possible, or creativity? >How are the brain and mind different? What counts as a language? > >The first five chapters present the historical background of the field, >delving into such topics as cybernetics and feedback, and discussing >important figures such as Ren? Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Charles >Babbage, Alan Turing and John von Neumann, as well as Warren McCulloch >and Walter Pitts, who in 1943 cowrote a paper on propositional calculus, >Turing machines and neuronal synapses. Boden also goes into some detail >about the situation in psychology and biology during the transition from >behaviorism to cognitive science, which she characterizes as a >revolution. The metaphor she employs is that of cognitive scientists >entering the "house of Psychology," whose lodgers at the time included >behaviorists, Freudians, Gestalt psychologists, Piagetians, ethologists >and personality theorists. > >Chapter 6 introduces the founding personalities of cognitive science >from the 1950s. George A. Miller, the first information-theoretic >psychologist, wrote the widely cited paper "The Magical Number Seven, >Plus or Minus Two," in which he reported that, as a channel for >processing information, the human mind is limited to about seven items >at any given time; more information than that can be taken in only if >items are grouped as "chunks." Jerome Bruner introduced a "New Look" in >perception, taking it to be proactive rather than reactive. In A Study >of Thinking (1956), Bruner and coauthors Jacqueline Goodnow and George >Austin looked at the strategies people use to learn new concepts. >Richard Gregory argued that even systems of artificial vision would be >subject to visual illusions. Herbert Simon and Allen Newell developed a >computer program for proving logic theorems. And Noam Chomsky provided a >(very) partial generative grammar of English in Syntactic Structures >(1957). > >Two important meetings occurred in 1956, one lasting two months at >Dartmouth and a shorter one at MIT. There was also a third meeting in >1958 in London. Soon after that, Miller, Eugene Galanter and Karl >Pribram published an influential book, Plans and the Structure of >Behavior (1960), and Bruner and Miller started a Center for Cognitive >Studies at Harvard. These events were followed by anthologies, textbooks >and journals. "Cognitive science was truly on its way." > >In the remainder of Boden's treatment, individual chapters offer >chronological accounts of particular aspects of the larger subject. So, >chapter 7 offers an extensive discussion of computational psychology as >it has evolved since 1960 in personality psychology, including emotion; >in the psychology of language; in how psychologists conceive of >psychological explanation; in the psychology of reasoning; in the >psychology of vision; and in attitudes toward nativism. The chapter then >ends with an overview of the field of computational psychology as a >whole. Boden acknowledges that "we're still a very long way from a >plausible understanding of the mind's architecture, never mind computer >models of it," but she believes that the advent of models of artificial >intelligence has been extraordinarily important for the development of >psychology. > >Chapter 8 discusses the very minor role of anthropology as the >"missing," or "unacknowledged," discipline of cognitive science. Here >Boden touches on the work of the relatively few anthropologists who do >fit into cognitive science. > >Chapter 9, the last in volume 1, describes Noam Chomsky's early impact >on cognitive science, discussing his famous review of B. F. Skinner's >book Verbal Behavior, his characterization of a hierarchy of formal >grammars, his development of transformational generative grammar and his >defense of nativism and universal grammar. Boden notes that >psychologists, including Miller, lost interest in transformational >grammar after realizing that the relevant transformations were ways of >characterizing linguistic structure and not psychological operations. > >As Boden mentions, many people, including me, raised objections in the >1960s to Chomsky's so-called nativism?his view that certain >principles of language are innate to a language faculty. She seems >unaware that Chomsky's reasons for this view became clearer as time went >on and formed the basis for the current, standard >principles-and-parameters view, which explains otherwise obscure >patterns of differences between languages. > >Perhaps the heart of Boden's story is her account of the development of >artificial intelligence, broadly construed. There were two sorts of >artificial intelligence at the beginning: One treated beliefs and goals >using explicit languagelike "propositional" representations, whereas the >other?the connectionist approach?took beliefs and goals to be >implicitly represented in the distribution of excitation or connection >strengths in a neural network. > >The proposition-based approach, outlined in chapter 10, initially >developed programs for proving theorems and playing board games. These >were followed by studies of planning, puzzle problem solving, and expert >systems designed to provide medical or other advice. Special programming >languages were devised, including LISP, PROLOG, PLANNER and CONNIVER. >Systems were developed for default reasoning: For instance, given that >something is a bird, assume it flies (in the absence of some reason to >think it does not fly); given that it is a penguin, assume it does not >fly (in the absence of some reason to think it does fly). > >There were difficulties. One was "computational complexity"?almost >all methods that worked in small "toy" domains did not work for more >realistic cases, because of exponential explosions: Operating in even >slightly more complex domains took much longer and used many more >resources. Another issue was whether "frame" assumptions (such as that >chess pieces remain in the same position until captured or moved) should >be built into the architecture of the problem or should be stated >explicitly. This became a pressing issue in thinking about general >commonsense reasoning: Is it even possible to explicitly formulate all >relevant frame assumptions? > >On the other side was the connectionist neural-net approach, considered >in chapter 12, which seeks to model such psychological capacities as >perception, memory, creativity, language and learning, using >interconnected networks of simple units. Connectionism was >?especially concerned with rapidly recognizing and classifying items >given their observed characteristics, without having to go through a >long, complicated chain of reasoning. > >In the simplest case of a single artificial perceptron, several >real-number inputs represent the values of selected aspects of the >observed scene, and an output value (the activation of the perceptron in >question), possibly 1 or 0, indicates yes or no. The perceptron takes a >weighted sum of the input values and outputs 1, or yes, if the sum is >greater than some threshold value; if not, the output is 0. Perceptrons >can be arranged in feed-forward networks, so that the output of the >first layer goes to perceptrons in the second layer, whose outputs are >inputs to a third layer, and so on until a decision is made by a final >threshold unit. Given appropriate weights and enough units, a >three-layer network can approximate almost any desired way of >classifying inputs. Relevant weights do not need to be determined ahead >of time by the programmer. Instead, the network can be "trained" to give >desired outputs, by making small corrections when the network's response >is incorrect. > >There are other kinds of connectionist networks. For example, in certain >sorts of recurrent networks, the activations of the units settle into a >more or less steady state. > >Boden describes these developments in loving detail, along with bitter >disputes between proponents of proposition-based research and those who >favored the connectionist approach. The disagreements were fueled by >abrupt changes in U.S. government funding, which are noted in chapter >11. Much of the government money available was provided in the >expectation that artificial intelligence would prove to be militarily >useful. In the 1980s, funders decided to switch their support from >proposition-based artificial intelligence to connectionism. They did so >both because of perceived stagnation in the proposition-based approach >(mainly due to the difficulties mentioned above), and because >connectionism became more attractive with the discovery (or rediscovery) >of back-propagation algorithms for training multilayer networks. > >More recent developments are described in chapter 13. These include >virtual-reality systems, attempts to construct societies of artificial >agents that interact socially, and CYC?a project aimed at explicitly >representing enough of the commonsense background to enable an >artificial system to learn more by reading dictionaries, textbooks, >encyclopedias and newspapers. Chapter 14 is a rich account of >computational and cognitive neuroscience. Topics touched on include >challenges to the computational approach, theories of consciousness and >philosophy of mind. In chapter 15, Boden describes the origins of >artificial life and then discusses reaction-diffusion equations, >self-replicating automata, evolutionary networks, computational >neuro-ethology (computational interpretation of the neural mechanisms >that underlie the behavior of an animal in its habitat) and work on >complex systems. Chapter 16 reviews philosophical thinking about mind as >machine. Is there a mind-body problem? If a robot simulation of a person >were developed, would it be conscious? Would it suffer from a mind-body >problem? Would it be alive? A very brief final chapter lists promising >areas for further research. > >This is, as far as I know, the first full-scale history of cognitive >science. I am sure that knowledgeable readers may have various quibbles >about one or another aspect of this history (like my own objection above >to the discussion of Chomsky's work in linguistics). But I doubt that >many, or in fact any, readers will have the detailed firsthand knowledge >that Boden has of so much of cognitive science. Future histories of the >subject will have to build on this one. >Reviewer Information >Gilbert Harman is Stuart Professor of Philosophy at Princeton >University, where in the past he was chair of the Program in Cognitive >Studies and codirector of the Cognitive Science Laboratory. He is >coauthor with Sanjeev Kulkarni of Reliable Reasoning: Induction and >Statistical Learning Theory (The MIT Press, 2007). > >Source: American Scientist >http://www.americanscientist.org/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/56418 > From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 17:17:29 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:17:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] EP and the marriage market In-Reply-To: <1197478737_16866@S3.cableone.net> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712111837g1449b7w741a1a5d9e7d3726@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071211215608.02564548@satx.rr.com> <35328.72.236.102.114.1197459192.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <1197478737_16866@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Dec 12, 2007 4:59 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > The number of stories in the popular press with an EP orientation has > gone way up in the past few years. > I don't read this as having an EP orientation. This is just an example of how scarcity or plenty affects choices. Substitute car for men or women in this article. If cars are in short supply, you take what you can get. Suddenly old beat-up wrecks seem suitable. If all the showrooms are full, you get real picky about which car you want and negotiate deals with the salesman for discounts and added extras to your selection. If supply is average you try to get the best deal you can, but you know you can't haggle too much or someone else will buy it. Where's the EP in that? BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 12 17:18:41 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:18:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] turing test again In-Reply-To: <62c14240712120603s1727fc00t977fbc82e9647cb5@mail.gmail.com > References: <1197408800_24269@S3.cableone.net> <200712120607.lBC67S65026273@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <62c14240712120603s1727fc00t977fbc82e9647cb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197479914_17359@S3.cableone.net> At 07:03 AM 12/12/2007, Mike Dougherty wrote: >On Dec 12, 2007 12:40 AM, spike wrote: > > "CyberLover has been designed as a bot that lures victims automatically, > > without human intervention. If it's spawned in multiple instances on > > multiple servers, the number of potential victims could be very > > substantial," Shevchenko said. > >So do you think there is an embarrassing moment when two instances of >CyberLover realize they've been scamming each other? I want to see the log! Somewhere there is a log of the Eliza bot chatting with Perry the Paranoid bot. Keith PS. When I shared this thought with my wife she responded, "You voyeur, you!" :-) From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 12 17:20:11 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:20:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712111837g1449b7w741a1a5d9e7d3726@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071211215608.02564548@satx.rr.com> <35328.72.236.102.114.1197459192.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071212111222.02336688@satx.rr.com> >As for adults who need help, definitely they need to be ruled with a >rod of iron.... > >Those lackadaisical New Orleaners should be chained into work gangs >and forced to rebuild their city themselves. That'll larn 'em. What BillK (sardonically, above) and PJ said. What's more... This supposed to be a discussion arising from Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," which in turn was a response to avarice rather than rational management, to cruel and oppressive treatment of staff by a dictatorial boss, carelessness of consequences, and general hatred of life on the part of someone damaged by tragedy as well as deliberate rejection of empathy and family warmth. Refresh your memory of the plot at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol Anyone who supposes that Scrooge is John Galt or Mr. Spock needs a quick visit from the Ghost of Wake Up and Smell the Napalm in the Morning. Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 12 19:01:39 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:01:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] EP and the marriage market In-Reply-To: References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712111837g1449b7w741a1a5d9e7d3726@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071211215608.02564548@satx.rr.com> <35328.72.236.102.114.1197459192.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <1197478737_16866@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1197486088_19636@S1.cableone.net> At 10:17 AM 12/12/2007, BillK wrote: >On Dec 12, 2007 4:59 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > > > The number of stories in the popular press with an EP orientation has > > gone way up in the past few years. > > >I don't read this as having an EP orientation. >This is just an example of how scarcity or plenty affects choices. > >Substitute car for men or women in this article. > >If cars are in short supply, you take what you can get. Suddenly old >beat-up wrecks seem suitable. > >If all the showrooms are full, you get real picky about which car you >want and negotiate deals with the salesman for discounts and added >extras to your selection. > >If supply is average you try to get the best deal you can, but you >know you can't haggle too much or someone else will buy it. > >Where's the EP in that? It's at the level of why a person wants a car/wife/husband in the first place and what value metrics are considered in the "purchase." The value metrics differ, wealth in men for women and youth/beauty in women for men. Peacocks and peahens would have different metrics from humans. Keith From pjmanney at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 19:12:22 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:12:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071212111222.02336688@satx.rr.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712111837g1449b7w741a1a5d9e7d3726@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071211215608.02564548@satx.rr.com> <35328.72.236.102.114.1197459192.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <7.0.1.0.2.20071212111222.02336688@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30712121112p3b9f90a0j39ea7af44b53a591@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 12, 2007 9:20 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > This supposed to be a discussion arising from Dickens' "A Christmas > Carol," which in turn was a response to avarice rather than rational > management, to cruel and oppressive treatment of staff by a > dictatorial boss, carelessness of consequences, and general hatred of > life on the part of someone damaged by tragedy as well as deliberate > rejection of empathy and family warmth. Refresh your memory of the plot at > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol > > Anyone who supposes that Scrooge is John Galt or Mr. Spock needs a > quick visit from the Ghost of Wake Up and Smell the Napalm in the Morning. To paraphrase Dickens: "And so, as Petite Pat observed, Dog Bless Us, Every One!" But especially you, Damien. ;-[) PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 12 19:32:16 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:32:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] turing test again In-Reply-To: <1197479914_17359@S3.cableone.net> References: <1197408800_24269@S3.cableone.net> <200712120607.lBC67S65026273@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <62c14240712120603s1727fc00t977fbc82e9647cb5@mail.gmail.com> <1197479914_17359@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071212133107.021f0e40@satx.rr.com> At 10:18 AM 12/12/2007 -0700, Keith H. wrote: >PS. When I shared this thought with my wife she responded, "You voyeur, you!" Careful! That's the sort of remark that ends up in court transcripts. :( Damien Broderick From extropy at unreasonable.com Wed Dec 12 18:56:41 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:56:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] turing test again In-Reply-To: <1197479914_17359@S3.cableone.net> References: <1197408800_24269@S3.cableone.net> <200712120607.lBC67S65026273@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <62c14240712120603s1727fc00t977fbc82e9647cb5@mail.gmail.com> <1197479914_17359@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200712121856.lBCIuXj70988@unreasonable.com> Keith wrote: >Somewhere there is a log of the Eliza bot chatting with Perry the >Paranoid bot. Perry's a bot?! Cool. How extropian of him. >PS. When I shared this thought with my wife she responded, "You voyeur, you!" She says it like it's a bad thing.... -- David. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Dec 12 23:26:50 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:26:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071212111222.02336688@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <519393.60987.qm@web30408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: >This supposed to be a discussion arising from >Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," which in turn was a >response to avarice rather than rational management, >to cruel and oppressive treatment of staff by a >dictatorial boss, carelessness of consequences, and >general hatred of life on the part of someone >damaged by tragedy as well as deliberate rejection >of empathy and family warmth. Refresh your memory of >the plot at > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol I don't remember the psychosis that Scrooge had and I don't believe that your analysis of Scrooge's behaviour has anything to do with the theme of the story. I remember the following: 1) Money doesn't bring you happiness 2) A little boy that's sick because the family can't afford to buy food let alone can afford to loose their job right before Christmas. Hence the fact of why charity is so important. 3) The fact that Scrooge at the end sees the error of his ways and makes a conscious effort to grow. As the recurrent themes are social injustice and poverty, I would say I was on tract with my defence of charity. I assume when reading a story people pick up information on many different levels or maybe I just didn't get it. BTW, I read your on-line book, I really enjoyed it, thanks. (I asked my mother to buy me The Spike for Christmas (and thanks to many on the list for giving me good ideas for some interesting books). Have Happy Holidays. Anna Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 13 02:53:39 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:53:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] turing test again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712130320.lBD3KMLM000552@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] turing test again > > On Dec 12, 2007 2:03 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > ...two instances of CyberLover realize they've been scamming each other? > > > > Like the man who was flirting with women in an internet chatroom and when > they arranged to meet, he discovered his virtual girlfriend was his wife? > > Obviously he had to divorce her. :) > > > > BillK BillK, this hit song from 1979 predated widespread use of the internet for these kinds of relationships, but had a happier ending: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/onehitwonders/pinacoladalyrics.html Rupert Holmes Pina Colada Lyrics I was tired of my lady We'd been together too long Like a worn-out recording Of a favorite song So while she lay there sleeping I read the paper in bed And in the personal columns There was this letter I read "If you like Pina Coladas And getting caught in the rain If you're not into yoga If you have half a brain If you'd like making love at midnight In the dunes on the Cape Then I'm the love that you've looked for Write to me and escape." I didn't think about my lady I know that sounds kind of mean But me and my old lady Have fallen into the same old dull routine So I wrote to the paper Took out a personal ad And though I'm nobody's poet I thought it wasn't half bad "Yes I like Pina Coladas And getting caught in the rain I'm not much into health food I am into champagne I've got to meet you by tomorrow noon And cut through all this red-tape At a bar called O'Malley's Where we'll plan our escape." So I waited with high hopes And she walked in the place I knew her smile in an instant I knew the curve of her face It was my own lovely lady And she said, "Oh it's you." Then we laughed for a moment And I said, "I never knew." That you like Pina Coladas Getting caught in the rain And the feel of the ocean And the taste of champagne If you'd like making love at midnight In the dunes of the Cape You're the lady I've looked for Come with me and escape From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Dec 13 03:21:40 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:21:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712101551m59772765h8c42a14b4dc1a52@mail.gmail.com > References: <200712091756.lB9Hugj60711@unreasonable.com> <200712100454.lBA4s5wH029009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1197263759_14546@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20712100420l6e08ba44n56297d4927ef7fd5@mail.gmail.com> <1197296474_20712@S3.cableone.net> <7d6322030712100833o1994d8e0x5631d18f69bc013b@mail.gmail.com> <475D9D68.9070106@kevinfreels.com> <1197321833_33793@S3.cableone.net> <7d6322030712101551m59772765h8c42a14b4dc1a52@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197516093_1850@S4.cableone.net> At 04:51 PM 12/10/2007, you wrote: >On 10/12/2007, Kevin Freels ><kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote: > >This would work if religion were only about irrational and >unreasonable explanations for the world around you. But it is much >deeper. Deeply religious people will put the religion before >everything else - including their own lives and the lives of others. >Faith is more important than fact. There has to be some underlying >benefit to this behaviour or it wouldn;t have made it out of the >first few people into the general population. Maybe it's a >side-effect - as an overdeveloped sense of hope and there just >happens to be a net benefit. > > > >Well, now faith is more important than fact, because of the >self-preserving nature of memes (like genes). At the time, if it was >the best available explanation, then, well, that was the benefit: it >was the best available explanation. Also, as you rightly say, it >gave a sense of hope and possibly even made people psychosomatically >do better and be more productive and confident if they felt the gods >were with them. (This might be bad for them in the case of rushing >into battle, or good in terms of, say, engineering new and >potentially dangerous technology or something, but that doesn't >matter to the meme of course). > > > > >On 10/12/2007, hkhenson ><hkhenson at rogers.com > wrote: >At 01:11 PM 12/10/2007, you wrote: > >You put your finger right on it. "Before everything else - including >their own lives and the lives of others." So what reoccurring >situation in the EEA could have led to conditions where this trait >would promote genetic survival? > > >why should it promote genetic survival? You have to remember that gene copies exist in relatives. So an irrational sacrifice of a warrior might be in the interest of his genes even though he gets killed (and his copies get destroyed). >If Religion is an antirational meme, it will behave in ways that >promote its memetic survival. If there's a gene that makes people >more likely to be fanatics, well, okay. I don't see necessarily why >this gene can't behave in a self-promoting way anyway, although my >knowledge of genetics is pretty poor compared to my understanding of >meme theory. But WRT the meme, Religion is one of the strongest >antirational memeplexes next to parenting and romance, so we're >likely to see a lot of self-preservation behaviour from this meme. >Memes are not dependent on genes to explain the ways they behave. In the long run memes and genes can't be at odds. Those that are die out. Look into the history of the Shaker meme. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 13 03:54:15 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:54:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] turing test again In-Reply-To: <200712130320.lBD3KMLM000552@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712130320.lBD3KMLM000552@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071212213946.022163d0@satx.rr.com> At 06:53 PM 12/12/2007 -0800, Spike quoth from 1979: >So I waited with high hopes >And she walked in the place >I knew her smile in an instant >I knew the curve of her face >It was my own lovely lady >And she said, "Oh it's you." Long before that, I wrote a story called "Sweet, Savage Robot" along the same lines. Let's see... here it is, as slightly buffed up for its piecemeal inclusion in the novel STRIPED HOLES (available for a token pittance, as you'll wish to learn, at http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook9079.htm ): ======== Across the width and breadth of the Milky Way galaxy, through tens of thousands of parsecs and hundreds of millions of stars burning at rates governed by their position on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, except in the case of those stars that had been turned down by lunatic energy conservationists, beings large and small wept and wailed, beat their dorsal membranes against their cilia, wept salty methane tears, twisted and tore their soaked lace hankies, broke their hearts, plighted their troth, smurged and made up, loodled one another under cover of the Great Whistling Moon's descent, and in general got on with the business of providing material for the writers of Harlequin or Mills & Boon novelettes. All happy families are alike, you see, but an unhappy family is unhappy after its own fashion. Oddly enough, this was even true on Alpha Grommett, the sole known world in nearby space inhabited principally by machine intelligences. Of a Christmas Eve, and indeed of every other eve, nothing animate stirred there, not even a mouse. Mice had actually been the first to go, on Alpha Grommett, which was infested quite a long while back by the descendants of a single autonomic better mousetrap left on the innocent, fecund surface of the planet by a careless interstellar visitor. Any self-reproducing machine, no matter how simple (and it's tricky finding one simpler than an alert mousetrap) will mutate, given time. Nothing mysterious here. No call to postulate a beneficent deity that has created living machines in Its own image. The principles of neo-Darwinism as upgraded by second thoughts on Punctuated Equilibrium and Self-Organizing Criticality are quite sufficient to account for the flowering of one paltry line of hungry mousetraps into the ornate, ticking, humming, bright-cogged and copper-bushed mechanical ecology that today thrives on the denuded landscape of Alpha Grommett. It is not strictly true that nothing organic lives there. Since 1937, a stocky green lizard with bifocals from the moist neighboring planet Gamma Globulin has held a quite important post with the principal newspaper in the capital city, Rock-Breaks-Scissors. No reader knows her true name, of course. Fewer still realize that their favorite daily columnist is organic, and as you can imagine this is a secret guarded very closely by those few in the know. By one of those droll turns of fate which play so regularly into the cynical hands of racists and bootboys, it has proved to be the case that nobody but an organic intelligence can pen a solid, moving Miss Lonely-Hearts column. Machines bleed, it's true. It may be lubricant rather than a thin watery suspension of platelets, erythrocytes, white cells, albumen, fibrinogen, floating nitrogenous wastes, and neurotransmitters on their way to and from work, but cut one with a welding torch and see if he doesn't bleed. Their pumps, no less than the human kind, can break with unrequited love; passion as well as Boolean logic seethes within their anodized chests; murders and deeds of wild romantic heroism are done at lust's behest. Yet somehow they just can't rise to the empathy required by an advice columnist. On Alpha Grommett, therefore, a retired upper-middleclass brontomegasaur named Mrs. Emilia Aardwimble reigns as the Heart-Balm queen for a whole world of tortured, lovesick, worried, faithful robot parents, children, sweethearts, and suspected wirehead junkies. On the morning I mean to tell you about, a robot named Bruce Diode sat at breakfast with his wife Sally. They were not a happy couple. "I may well be, as you allege, an old fool," observed Mr. Diode. "You, by contrast, are a frowdy old fool." He continued spooning graphite into his supplementary minerals orifice with one extensor, simultaneously holding his novel open with a second elbow and slurping light lubricating fluid from an oil can held in a third. Between spoonfuls of graphite he expertly ground, polished, and inserted a fresh lens in his hind optic without putting down his utensil or raising his forward optics from the book. "Well!" Repeated usage had long since worn the edge from Mrs. Diode's indignation. "Sometimes I wonder why I ever married--" "--a half-witted buffoon like you, " Bruce Diode intoned along with her, like a record. Their rituals were, as robot conversational gambits tend of course to be, a trifle mechanical. Scooping up the last of the serviceable if hardly delicious thick gray dust, he slurped it down, keeping his attention fixed on his book, nine-tenths lost in a glamorous if dangerous world of sharp crimes, tough PIs and incisive mouthpieces. Sally Diode, on her side of the breakfast workbench, folded the morning paper from the funnies to her favorite column. Early in their marriage, she had laid down her custom of reading the newspaper at breakfast. She had seen too many sitcoms of husbands blithely hidden behind newspapers to let Bruce get away with that. While this gambit still didn't allow her to see her husband, she didn't particularly want to, not anymore. And the news was far more interesting than a running blow-by-blow account of the events in his latest sadistic cheap edition thriller. The truth was, their connubial conversation had quickly become reduced to a pattern. Each felt rather uneasy and more than a little miffed if the algorithm was abandoned. By running the same subroutines each day, they acknowledged each other's presence while avoiding the need of brute existential challenge. Bruce rotated his upper optic the precise number of degrees inside the top of his cabinet to see the liquid crystal clock displayed there. Seventeen minutes to get into the city. He made an automatic computation. Eleven and half minutes to reach the traction, drive to the office, park in the underground lot, ride the riser to the fourth floor, Bundy in, and lock on to his desk. That left precisely the apt interval to finish reading this next chapter and evacuate his discharge. "You should be glad anyone married you," he said absently, varying the formula of their dialogue. His hand touched the discharge tube, guided it to the ventral valve, clicked it in, waited for the negative pressure to build and activate the red light. Flooding through the dome above them, the brilliant X-ray-rich sun of Alpha Grommett kissed his cabinet without his noticing. His optics were riveted to the page. Bruce Diode rather resembled one of the early treadle driven Singer sewing machines, with random additions from tasteless Japanese war toys. He perambulated with some difficulty on four fat little worn wheels, preferring whenever feasible to transfer to the public traction hookup. His wife Sally looked more like an Art Deco radio set, the kind that glow like burnished wood and smell like hot Bakelite as they warm up, their dial yellow and soothing as the purr of a tabby cat, station call-designations lettered beautifully on the illuminated half-circle of the dial and big chunky knobs to control sound and tone. "Bruce! What you said--that's what Meg Kindheart says here to `Fed Up,' " Sally exclaimed with surprise. The tabloid, open at "For the Love-Lorn," dropped from before her dial with the snapping sound of abruptly folded paper. She studied her rusting husband intently, amazed by his agreement with the advice columnist. "Let's have no more about that damned interfering pest," Bruce said sharply. He lifted all optics from his thriller. Though his vexation derived principally from Sally's disregard of breakfast tradition, it remained valid that if he loathed one thing in all of Alpha Grommett more than any other thing, it was its sticky-beaking Lonely Hearts columnist. "Pop psychology," he sneered. "Self-taught drivel. She should be deactivated for practicing witchcraft without a license." "Really!" Sally was secretly glad of a break in the monotony of their normative programming, and anxious to defend her heroine. "Meg Kindheart is the most sensible machine in the world." "Ha! You'd know about `sense'." Mrs. Diode crackled a circuit breaker in a marked manner. "It's a pity there aren't more machines that show an interest in others." She cast Bruce a withering and significant glare. He sneered back, ratcheting raspingly. "I wouldn't be surprised if the office cleaning Bug writes her rubbish." That stung, and he pressed his advantage. "And if it's not the Bug, it's some rusted-out old derrick that missed her chance fifty years ago." He snapped his novel shut and clapped his hat on. "There's no one like a nonreplicating artifact to make free with advice." Sally's dial went white. The numbers bleached. Her manipulators opened and closed convulsively. "You-- you old bucket!" she screamed and rushed from the room. Bruce Diode sighed angrily as the door slammed, and spun his optic back to the clock. With a curse he found he was late. He scraped paint from his blower as he coupled to the traction. By the time he reached the office he was in a ripe mood. The hot humidity didn't help any. Bruce's routines had been disturbed for the first time in years, and his entire flow system was now out of whack. Sally, for her part, winced at the crash of the traction's gears. Bruce was in a particularly unpleasant mood. Sighing, she returned to the lube bench and gathered the nozzles together. She consulted her own internal clock. He would be late for work. Sally flung the nozzles into the cleaning unit. At the bench, she picked up the paper and finished Meg Kindheart. Why did he have to go on like that? It hadn't been this way when they were first married. Self-pity dopplered through her and she wondered, not for the first time, whether they should have replicated while they were still new enough for mutations to be held within nominal limits. The nozzles popped up shining and clean, and the emptiness of her life assailed her with crushing force. Every day, the same recursive routine. She had become a drudge. Angrily, she damped her overload. What right did Bruce have to destroy her dreams? He didn't love her anymore, that was certain. All he ever thought about was his stupid trashy novels, his policemen and secret agents and steely PIs. An awful possibility jumped up into her temporary cache memory. Could Bruce be having an affair with some letter-quality job in the office? Some fast, two-directional dot-matrix operator? It didn't bear thinking about. A gigabyte of ghastly, lurid bit-mapped images cascaded through her high core. Sally bent over the bench and gave herself up to her misery and shame. Soon enough, her outburst ran its course. She re-booted herself, rolled to a mirror, regarded her artful if dated cabinet, the warm vacuum-tube glow at the back of her yellow dial. "I'm not that old," she muttered. "Nowhere near the scrap heap, damn it." A fierce determination glowed in her deepest circuits. "I'll put a spoke in his wheel," she told her image. "He's not the only one able to play at that game. My days as his patient house drudge are finished for good!" Sally turned and as her optics swung past the side panels of the mirror a cruel ray of the Alpha Grommett sun caught her worn knobs and tatty grille. Courage waned. She needed support; moral support for her new stand. There was no question, of course, where she would seek at it. "Meg Kindheart! I shall write at once!" Without further ado, Sally Diode found the modem keyboard and began pouring out her poor mechanical soul, all unknowing, to a lizard from steamy Gamma Globulin. By midday, the office temperature was in the high hundreds. Bruce Diode, despite his insulation and autonomic regulation blowers, felt frazzled and short of temper. Outside, he knew, in the mercury pools and mineral tailings, young machines cavorted under the roasting sun and thought of nothing but love, fun, and self-replication. For Bruce, sockets running with oil, the day was the pit of hell. All morning long, from its inauspicious beginning, he'd felt utterly miserable. He and Sally were well and truly stuck in a rut. He'd been denying this truth for years. Now it was unavoidable. "Blast!" he muttered on the short-wave local band. "Damn and blast!" Several juniors raised their optics, shrank back to their terminals when he caught them at it. In a pet, he threw his files back into storage and seethed. That bitch Meg Kindheart, he thought. What an inane name! She'd know what was amiss in his marriage, he thought bitterly. She'd give him a five-line solution, couched in such vacuous and elusive terms that it could mean anything or nothing. Not that he'd ever read anything the fool had penned. Discharges, no. He leaned back wearily, letting his springs take the weight for a change. Moir? static spun inside his CPU for a frightening moment. Inspiration struck like a glitch from heaven. "William?" The kid at the next work station shunted his optics cautiously. "Yes, Mr. Diode?" "William, old knurl, can you lend me your copy of the lntelligencer for half a mo'?" "Sure." The young mechanism looked relieved; he was not going to be shouted at. He fished inside his leg. "Here, sir." Bruce nodded curtly, turned away so nobody could see over his shoulder, found For the Love-Lorn. The office clock beamed out the midday break. Everyone but Bruce rose and left the room. Mr. Diode drew a keyboard toward him and began a biting letter to the meddling machine he loathed so much. The finest Heart-Balm columnist in the universe was examining her modem-linked terminal's bulletin board. The day's dreadful temperatures had dropped only a little, but inside her steamy, climate-set module on Alpha Grommett the stout green lizard known to millions of Intelligencer readers as Meg Kindheart fanned herself with her claw more for metaphoric narrative purposes than because she was genuinely overheated, and crossed the room from her escritoire to draw the mica curtains. Halfway through her first millennium, Mrs. Emilia Aardwimble had retired from her position as Matron of Eggs after a massive cholesterol-induced heart attack--a leading cause of fatalities in brontomegasaurs because of the tremendous strain any big dino species has just got to suffer living out of water--followed by intermittent but troubling cardiac troubles. Casting about for an interest, she chanced during a long recuperative galactic tour upon the unusual machine city of Rock-Breaks-Scissors, with which for reasons not even she could explain she fell instantly in love. Perhaps it was the boom and clack, the humming industry. Perhaps it was the strange beauty of an entire planet unrestricted by the ecological niceties of organic life, so that poisonous but lovely fumes gusted ceaselessly across a sky like beaten egg-yolk (though this was scarcely an image Mrs. Aardwimble would have permitted to linger within her conscious awareness) and delirious young mechanisms sported merrily in mineral tailings so carcinogenic they'd instantly bring cancers boiling through the lung and digestive tract of any unprotected creature based on the carbon molecule. Now, for a moment, Mrs. Aardwimble stood at her triple-sealed window, gazing at the flaring yellow sky and the viridescent angular shapes of the city. A breezy tornado came off the liquid mercury sea, raising a purple haze, carrying to her ears through the sturdy walls of her life-support module the happy bleats and pitterings of machines at play. Emilia smiled to see their happiness, but her smile grew wistful as she remembered the thousands who did not share it. Slowly, she turned her great green mass, pivoting solemnly on her tail, and made her way back to her screen index of tragic letters. Most of these communications were too intimate and shocking to answer through the newspaper. Meg Kindheart always sent personal replies to these letters, direct, via the Net. It was her most appealing and pump-priming feature, yet most of her readers were quite unaware of it. She sat down in the huge hydraulic chair with the slot cut for her tail, glancing, as she always did, at the umber hologram of her four hatchlings and the more recent deep image holos of the grandchildren. As reptiles, her species on Gamma Globulin bred slowly, but they bred surely. Fervently, Mrs. Emilia Aardwimble thanked the Great Whistling Moon that the kids had grown up healthy, strong and happy. If only-- Young Brian Aardwimble's face smiled poignantly from one of the earliest of the holograms, breaking her heart. Brian, the brilliant saurian musician, the master of contrapuntal warbling, the prodigy who had died so tragically young. Only Mrs. Aardwimble and her inseminator knew that Brian had farned himself in an arkle. Only they knew the anguish of their mistakes, of forcing him in the egg, of demands imposed in the long dreaming years within its leathery shell, years that ought to have been a period of prebirth meditation and tranquility but which they had made a nightmare of competitive pressure and premature peer rivalry. Yet out of suffering, she knew, gazing at his young likeness, comes a measure of wisdom. Sighing, Mrs. Aardwimble called up the first pleading cry for help. The letter was from a young mechanism, already in the throes of replication after a thoughtless bout of solitary self-loodling, driven to distraction by its predicament. It was thinking of erasing its ROM chip. With a wrench, Mrs. Aardwimble looked again at Brian's portrait, and away. Carefully, choosing her words with precision, she wrote a message of solace to the pregnant machine. It would not appear in the Intelligencer. This was a personal lifeline, a work of organic love. No machine would have dreamed of doing such a thing. Because no machine would dream of doing such a thing was precisely why the world of Alpha Grommett needed Mrs. Emilia Aardwimble, or some living creature like her. The next letter was from an ageing housebot, a rather silly, selfish mech who wanted all the answers without any of the effort. She at least had a dream, one she wished Meg Kindheart to endorse, but it was a heedless, feckless dream. She sought approval to leave her spouse and escape with some shining hero of fantasy. Her name, as you will have guessed, was Sally Diode. The big lizard eased her buttocks and put her snout into her cupped claws. Her compassion was tinged with disgust. Uncertain of how best to reply, she returned the letter to its holding register. Thirteen letters down the stack she came on another, which might have been the mirror image of Mrs. Diode's. It began sarcastically, even rudely. Mrs. Aardwimble was tempted to delete it, but hesitated because of an element of loss, of frustration behind the bitterness. The machine that had input these words was disappointed with marriage, with his career, with everything. The final challenge was ironic, but Mrs. Aardwimble responded to the unhappy aspiration beneath it: "Do you suggest, Miss Heal-All Kindfart, that I should leave my little brood and seek a True Love in the great wide world?" The letter, yes, was from Bruce Diode. Mrs. Emilia Aardwimble was not without a deeply compassionate sense of humor. Smiling broadly, she called the earlier letter into an adjacent window and sat considering her replies. The sky over Rock-Breaks-Scissors was deep violet, tinged with a gray deep enough to be edible. Bruce Diode leaned back against the leaf-spring shock absorbers of his traction line, zipping home. The volcanoes had brought dreadful weather the past few weeks. High above the carbon dioxide atmosphere, clouds of sulphuric acid swept across the countryside, pouring down as dreary corrosive rain each night and ruining the children's outdoor games. Still, despite the humidity, the weather did seem to be clearing up. Bruce was, frankly, more relaxed and at ease with himself than he'd been for years, though his cabinet tingled and surged with excited expectation. He hadn't felt this way since his courtship, and even that had been a rigid, controlled business. Eagerly, Mr. Diode anticipated the joys of getting home from work. The snaking line of robots clipping on and off the traction, almost alive in the gloom, came to a ragged halt at an earthquake fracture. While the autonomics spurted out their quick-setting crystal bridgework, Bruce jounced impatiently against his springs. At length, unable to wait until he got home to the privacy of his study, he rolled his eyes inside his cabinet and called up the latest email from his secret sweetheart. "My darling," ran the words across his inward screen, "I cannot imagine how I lived before we met. But that's silly, isn't it?--because we have not met. Or perhaps we have, perhaps our chips were etched by the same Xaser, doped from the same source, and perhaps in these bytes we take from each other, a link has been forged between two wild spirits."' Something strange was happening to his sensors, or to the interpretative matrix that took in the data from his sensors. The copper greens of the buildings nearby shimmered with light even though the sun was setting. Bruce Diode shivered, too, with besotted love. "I like to believe that we are the only two of our model, stamped out as a pair, the mold broken. O my love, my yet-nameless love, can we not go together into that world of our dreams where I see you now only during off-peak inactivation? Impossible? I cannot believe it..." Tenderly, Bruce sent the magic bits back to enciphered safekeeping. A splatter of drops fell, and the traction system raised its perfunctory shields. Bruce felt like crying aloud with bittersweet rejoicing. "Rain," his lover had written, "how like the pain which falls in cruel droplets when love is lost. If only my spouse could understand--" Well, Bruce growled to himself, damn the big dumb insensitive brute. And so on. "You'll understand," Meg Kindheart had written to him, "why I cannot publish this letter. But I see a way to help you find yourself. Are you married to the wrong kind of mechanism? Why, then, let me introduce you to a 'bot suffering the same agonies, a sensitive dreamer, someone you might love if only I can bring you together." Bless her, he thought. The traction released him. The rain had stopped, but there were no activity signals coming from his home. All the better. He rolled in, plittered up and down the inquiry band. Nobody answered. Sally was out visiting one of her vapid friends and he'd have to make do with the leavings from the morning sump. One light burned in his study, on the bulletin board. He rolled forward on his fat little wheels, extensors quivering, and jacked in. It was not from his lover. Disappointment crushed him briefly, to be replaced by new excitement. It was a note from Meg Kindheart. An invitation to Scissors Heights! For dinner! This very evening! Bruce felt his intelletron whir. The intimation was clear. His beloved would be there. Zealously, he scrubbed down his cabinet and polished his lenses. Scampering like a young mech, he dashed for the outbound traction and plugged in. Bald wheels spinning free, he plunged toward his destiny. There's no point in laboring this, I trust? Yes, the big elegantly dressed lizard met Bruce at the door. Yes, he was led in to the steamy, somewhat uncomfortable living room. Yes, he found himself staring at a large worn Art Deco radio, whom he saved from pitching on its dial with a deft sweep of his extensor. Yes, he tweetered like a fool and radiated all over the place while Mrs. Emilia Aardwimble lumbered graciously from the room. "Poor Sally," Bruce Diode thought, when he was capable of thinking the next thing. "She looks as if she will die of mortification." Then he saw himself clearly, abandoning embarrassment, forgetting pettiness, seeing as well, before him, the mechanism that had written those glorious, those gorgeous letters. The 'bot he had never known! And somehow he knew deep within his most hard-wired circuits that Sally was seeing him in the same perspective, as the shining servomech of his letters to her, the passionate machine that until now had always been afraid to cry out its wonder and joy--and, he thought, all aglow with joy and wonder, his love, his love. With tremendous dignity, utterly sure of himself at last, Bruce Diode rolled across the floor and placed his wife's trembling lateral extensor against the side of his ingestion orifice. And Sally looked back at him and she saw a little funny machine like a Singer Sewer with bits added on by Gyro Gearloose, and she forgave him the endless irritations, the selfishness, the private detective paperbacks, the humorless pedestrian dreariness of him, and saw too that he was her great and shining hero at last. Machines don't laugh, though, which is a terrible shame. For if these two had been human people and by some miracle they hadn't already slaughtered each other with any heavy instrument that happened to be lying conveniently to hand or run fuming from the room in the very first enraged moment, why, then they'd have leaned on each other's necks and laughed together, laughed and roared and guffawed and groaned with the outrage of it until tears ran down their cheeks. But robots never laugh, so instead Bruce and Sally Diode bowed in a dignified fashion to each other and, extensors linked, rolled together in pursuit of Mrs. Emilia Aardwimble and their promised dinner. was her great and shining hero at last. Machines don't laugh, though, which is a terrible shame. For if these two had been human people and by some miracle they hadn't already slaughtered each other with any heavy instrument that happened to be lying conveniently to hand or run fuming from the room in the very first enraged moment, why, then they'd have leaned on each other's necks and laughed together, laughed and roared and guffawed and groaned with the outrage of it until tears ran down their cheeks. But robots never laugh, so instead Bruce and Sally Diode bowed in a dignified fashion to each other and, extensors linked, rolled together in pursuit of Mrs. Emilia Aardwimble and their promised dinner. From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 13 04:20:17 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:20:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] turing test again and again In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071212213946.022163d0@satx.rr.com> References: <200712130320.lBD3KMLM000552@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071212213946.022163d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071212221728.02291788@satx.rr.com> Oh damn. A bit too much self-replication in that last post of "Sweet Savage", with 3 and a bit pars unintentionally re-pasted at the end. Thought I might as well mention this immediately, in case anyone thought I was being even cuter than in the body of the piece. Damien Broderick From extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Dec 13 03:52:30 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:52:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] turing test again In-Reply-To: <200712130320.lBD3KMLM000552@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712130320.lBD3KMLM000552@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712130355.lBD3tjj10112@unreasonable.com> Spike wrote: >BillK, this hit song from 1979 predated widespread use of the internet for >these kinds of relationships, but had a happier ending: What I thought of with Bill's posting was Kate Bush's 1980 variant on the theme, Babooshka, which did not turn out so well: She wanted to test her husband. She knew exactly what to do: A pseudonym to fool him. She couldn't have made a worse move. She sent him scented letters, And he received them with a strange delight. Just like his wife But how she was before the tears, And how she was before the years flew by, And how she was when she was beautiful. She signed the letter "All yours, Babooshka, Babooshka, Babooshka-ya-ya! All yours, Babooshka, Babooshka, Babooshka-ya-ya!" She wanted to take it further, So she arranged a place to go, To see if he Would fall for her incognito. And when he laid eyes on her, He got the feeling they had met before. Uncanny how she Reminds him of his little lady, Capacity to give him all he needs, Just like his wife before she freezed on him, Just like his wife when she was beautiful. He shouted out, "I'm All yours, Babooshka, Babooshka, Babooshka-ya-ya! All yours, Babooshka, Babooshka, Babooshka-ya-ya! All yours, Babooshka, Babooshka, Babooshka-ya-ya!" -- David. From nanogirl at halcyon.com Thu Dec 13 07:14:12 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:14:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Happy holidays card I made for you References: <8CA0A8EC10BABF7-A68-FC4@MBLK-M18.sysops.aol.com> <1197477355_16567@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <013e01c83d58$7854f830$0200a8c0@Nano> Dear fellow extropes, I've made an animated Christmas card for you called "Cookies and Christmas Crumbs" which features a special duet. Come take a bite (or watch it) here: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/christmas07.htm I hope you find it tasty! And please, comments on this animation are welcome at the blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2007/12/cookies-and-christmas-crumbs.html Holiday cheer (and cookies) to all! Best wishes, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 13 13:50:12 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:50:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Why I joined the Extropy list discussion. Message-ID: <8CA0BA637CA54C6-17E4-63B6@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> To whom it may concern, I'm not new to the list. In fact I was part of the list a year ago but I was not ready then due to my naive attachment to the philosophical question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Keith asked me to give some background of myself. Let me just say I retired from a stressful field in the medical industry. Now I got all the time to concentrate on what I like doing most, to lessen the entropy in my mind and get on moving towards the goal of extropy. Lets just say I found out that this is my goal all along. Wishing to remain incognito, Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From brent.allsop at comcast.net Thu Dec 13 14:30:59 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:30:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why I joined the Extropy list discussion. In-Reply-To: <8CA0BA637CA54C6-17E4-63B6@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0BA637CA54C6-17E4-63B6@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <47614223.80602@comcast.net> Terry, Welcome, and congratulations on your progress. Brent Allsop citta437 at aol.com wrote: > To whom it may concern, > > I'm not new to the list. In fact I was part of the list a year ago but > I was not ready then due to my naive attachment to the philosophical > question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" > > Keith asked me to give some background of myself. Let me just say I > retired from a stressful field in the medical industry. Now I got all > the time to concentrate on what I like doing most, to lessen the > entropy in my mind and get on moving towards the goal of extropy. > > Lets just say I found out that this is my goal all along. > > Wishing to remain incognito, > Terry > ________________________________________________________________________ > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - > http://webmail.aol.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 13 14:58:02 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Morality and Meta Message-ID: <8CA0BAFB1B63AAD-18C-105@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Keith wrote: On 12-12-07 "Girl children don't have breasts. Babies don't talk or walk. Yet all these products of evolution are widespread in adults (of the appropriate sex). Not to mention that moral emotions such as shame emerge very early in children, about 3, when (in the EEA) they graduated from their mother's arms to the play group." _____________ Hi, Keith before I respond to the above let me thank you for that picture of a young charming costumed girl you sent. First of all that was not me and secondly I was not in any convention with costumed members. The conventions I attended were with Secular Humanists where I've been a member for a decade now. I agree children are too young to understand adults' obssessions about sex and morality. But as they grow into their teens, hormonal changes are manifested in their body and behavior. However, babies start to develop a sense of self between the outside and their feelings of need to be fed, to be touched and to communicate these needs. The feelings of shame emerge soon or late depending on the structure of the brain's ability to acquire language inorder to get enculturated. Btw what is EEA? Does it concern about the evolution of ego? If so then ego or the sense of self is embedded in the genes what some evolutionary biologist call the survival instinct which was inherited from the earliest organism that evolved. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From seienchan at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:02:05 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:02:05 +0000 Subject: [ExI] turing test again In-Reply-To: <200712130355.lBD3tjj10112@unreasonable.com> References: <200712130320.lBD3KMLM000552@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712130355.lBD3tjj10112@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712130702w2f79c9eya17f827da0ab9dba@mail.gmail.com> >> Like the man who was flirting with women in an internet chatroom and when > they arranged to meet, he discovered his virtual girlfriend was his wife? > > Obviously he had to divorce her. :) > > > >> BillK >BillK, this hit song from 1979 predated widespread use of the internet for these kinds of relationships, but had a happier ending: >http://www.lyricsondemand.com/onehitwonders/pinacoladalyrics.html Yes, but the divorce story was Islamic, whereas the people in the song are clearly Westerners. Of course the former would divorce whilst the latter are witty and optimistic. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seienchan at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:24:33 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:24:33 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Morality and Meta In-Reply-To: <8CA0BAFB1B63AAD-18C-105@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0BAFB1B63AAD-18C-105@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712130724k6c82fc2bqbdf034cf71e454c4@mail.gmail.com> On 13/12/2007, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > > I agree children are too young to understand adults' obssessions about > sex and morality. I think you must be using a meaningless mystical version of morality here? Morality is widely available to humans because morality is reason. It's living well, it's making rational decisions. Sex, on the other hand, is all tied up with the romance memeplex and so is generally pretty irrational, or at least associated almost entirely with irrational concepts. It seems hardly fair to lump the two together. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Dec 13 15:24:38 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:24:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [EP_group] Dating site matches couples by body odour Message-ID: <1197559479_3535@S3.cableone.net> Now *this* is a nice example of EP getting into commercial application. The research that led up to this was first observed maybe two or three decades ago in mice. What makes for a distinctive body odour is a person's MHC genes, the same ones you have to match for tissue transplants. >Dating site matches couples by body odour >By Catherine Elsworth in Los Angeles > >An American dating company claims to have >cracked the secret to physical attraction and >finding that perfect match ? body odour. > >To the founders of ScientificMatch.com, love is >simply a matter of chemistry. It asks members to >submit a DNA sample ? the saliva-swab commonly >used in paternity or drug testing ? and then >analyses it to calculate their ideal partner. > >This will be someone with ?a natural odour >you?ll love, with whom you?d have healthier >children and a more satisfying sex life?, says >the company, which claims to be ?the only >introduction service that creates matches with actual physical chemistry?. > >The process works, the founders say, because DNA >analysis enables scientists to match people with >compatible immune system genes ? ie, those with >different immune systems with whom they would >create babies with more robust immune systems. >And the company claims: ?The fact is, we love >how other people smell when their immune systems >are different from ours ? they smell sexier.? > >Members, who are charged close to ?1,000 for the >service, are also asked fill out a questionnaire >on their ?fundamental, core values? so they can >be matched to people who share their beliefs, a >process the company likens to ?soul matching, or values matching?. > >The service has so far been launched in the >Boston area, which is seen as a fertile market >because of its large number of single people - >around 39 per cent of the population, according to local surveys. In a few years there should be some really interesting statistics coming out of this company. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:43:32 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:43:32 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [EP_group] Dating site matches couples by body odour In-Reply-To: <1197559479_3535@S3.cableone.net> References: <1197559479_3535@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Dec 13, 2007 3:24 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > Now *this* is a nice example of EP getting into > commercial application. The research that led up > to this was first observed maybe two or three decades ago in mice. > > What makes for a distinctive body odour is a > person's MHC genes, the same ones you have to match for tissue transplants. > I shudder to think what my socks will get me matched with! :) BillK From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 13 17:07:59 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:07:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Morality and Meta Message-ID: <8CA0BC1D8F48E4B-18C-AA0@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> "Morality is a sign of matured development in human society." This was my reply on 12-12-07 to Keith's post and below is the continued quest: Keith: "You are making this statement in opposition to a truly massive background of scientific studies over the last 20 years. We now know exactly what part of the brain are specialized to make moral decisions." My reply: My understanding of morality as a sign of maturity relates to a mind's ability to discern rationality from fantasy/irrationality. This is in synergy with EP and other scientific studies/theories which are still being tested until proven otherwise. Keith: I would be hard pressed to come up with any society did "see reason from fantasy." The number rational thinkers is small, the number whose actions are guided by rational thinking is even smaller." Well said. Our global society is an example of your statement. You need not go to another planet to escape the global exploitation of our natural resources. The majority cling to irrational solution in other words they only see what they want to see. Keith: "There isn't *a* morality gene. A large number, maybe half of human genes, are involved in the growth and organization of the brain. These genes cause the specialized structures to form that fMRI researchers see active in making moral decisions." My reply: Morality is a meme invented by religious believers in the hope that the individual would behave according to traditions or values of said society. Morality values are arbitrary so to speak. Those who cling to what is seen as valuable without evidence or further tests are in the majority. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Dec 13 17:21:42 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:21:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Morality and Meta In-Reply-To: <8CA0BAFB1B63AAD-18C-105@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0BAFB1B63AAD-18C-105@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1197566494_446@S4.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 13 17:32:02 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:32:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] X-mass songs 2 Message-ID: <8CA0BC5351B89DE-18C-C86@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Bilk wrote on12-12-07 "Children are a special case, needing protection and tuition. As for adults who need help, definitely they need to be ruled with a rod of iron. Not us successful first worlders, of course. We're free to do as we like with our riches of education, health, intelligence, civilisation, money, etc. Those lackadaisical New Orleaners should be chained into work gangs and forced to rebuild their city themselves. That'll larn 'em." _____________________ Hi, Bilk I sensed sarcasm in your above statement. We are like kids acting like we are superior to those we see as "lackadaisical." To cling to rationality as a sign of being an adult is immaturity itself. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From seienchan at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 18:34:17 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:34:17 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Morality and Meta In-Reply-To: <1197566494_446@S4.cableone.net> References: <8CA0BAFB1B63AAD-18C-105@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <1197566494_446@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7d6322030712131034k2ea0a2c5l44a62cb3d634a8f6@mail.gmail.com> >>My reply: Morality is a meme invented by religious believers in the hope that the individual would behave according to traditions or values of said society. Morality values are arbitrary so to speak. Those who cling to what is seen as valuable without evidence or further tests are >>in the majority. In light of how crucially important morality is to civilisation, that's a pretty terrible thing to say. Morality isn't invented by religion - that's a meangingless definition of it. Morality is an area of knowledge, which includes theories about how to make good choices, and how to live well - and therefore what's right and wrong and good and evil. You could call it the theory of decision-making. Morality is reason, if you like. It is not a religious dogma, although religion likes to have morality attributed to it. It sounds pretty damn important to me. It means the difference between making a bad decision and a good one. I can only presume by your eschewing of morality, and the notion that morality might be important, that you don't want it. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seienchan at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 18:39:16 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:39:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] X-mass songs 2 In-Reply-To: <8CA0BC5351B89DE-18C-C86@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0BC5351B89DE-18C-C86@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712131039r124b2577u3cd597ae80460bc1@mail.gmail.com> On 13/12/2007, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > > Hi, Bilk I sensed sarcasm in your above statement. We are like kids > acting like we are superior to those we see as "lackadaisical." To > cling to rationality as a sign of being an adult is immaturity itself. > > Terry > > Terry I tend to think of rationality as a sign of being civilised, intelligent, moral, rather than a sign of being biologically fully formed. A child can be rational too, and would be if it weren't for all the irrationalities in the parenting memeplex. Our culture prizes things like reason, making good decisions, optimism, pride in humanity. Others don't. The two kinds of culture aren't the same, and they aren't equally valuable. One of them is abhorrent. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seienchan at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 18:46:26 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:46:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <62c14240712110625n28e97c1ena3302cf1935b378c@mail.gmail.com> References: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> <200712110558.lBB5wRpV026136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7d6322030712102244s63a4d475j2f51f7ce1ee4a802@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110625n28e97c1ena3302cf1935b378c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712131046s5e98c673s1c8ee8d99f35d96@mail.gmail.com> On 11/12/2007, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2007 1:44 AM, Seien wrote: > > > > > > > To be honest, I kind of lost track of which object the pronoun in that > statement was referring (you, the church, god, ???) Thanks for the update > though, I will try to not make that mistake again. Ahh, that's fine :) I agree with your definition of morality and rationality. I was using a > more jaded impression of the coerced behavior in the guise of morality > dictated by a religious institutional authority. Are the laws of the Church > as obvious as the "laws of Nature" vs "Natural Law" - or are they twisted > around obvious truths in a way that makes believe without understanding more > acceptable? (forgive my ignorance - I had one semester-long class on > "Christian Morality" at a Catholic university. It was a long semester.) You went to a Catholic University? That's horrible, I'm sorry :( And yes, many people seem to confuse morality with religious morality. I'm afraid I'm not sure I understood your question, but I shall try my best to answer it anyway. Religion is an antirational memeplex. Even the things they say that are right in essence are wrong in method: the idea that one ought generally not to go around killing people is a good one, for example, but the reasons for this in Christianity are all the wrong ones and so the idea loses its value. The reason that religion gets it wrong is because it *is* antirational, and the essence of morality is reason. One can only arrive at moral decisions, think in a morally good way, behave in a right way rather than an evil way, with the use of *dynamic reason. *Religion openly suppresses reason. Therefore it openly suppresses morality. It replaces this loss of real morality with a false "morality" of its own. http://curi.us/blog/post/1163-morality-is-not-for-god <-this dialogue might interest you. :) -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seienchan at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 18:56:52 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:56:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712111132g62df4061l2d47357faedf390@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30712110825y7d96180bk7634f8f365e3a7e6@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110958o24b007eao115b49dbd7f10bdd@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30712111132g62df4061l2d47357faedf390@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712131056k46a0380g58cfb888056eacc3@mail.gmail.com> On 11/12/2007, PJ Manney wrote: > > Seien, > > Of the 6+ billion Homo sapiens sapiens on this globe, we find that > brains can be wired in many different ways. I am wired for increased > empathy, so much so that I write about the subject and see the world > through that prism. I'm also wired to love. I love a lot of people > in many different ways. I suspect the two are connected. Perhaps you > are not wired that way. That's okay, although a lack of empathy would > make it very difficult for you to be a literary critic, since fiction > requires empathy. But from your writing, I can tell storytelling is > not at the top of your list of interests. Surprisingly enough, you're completely wrong. I write fiction almost constantly, fanfiction and original fiction. I also read fiction almost exclusively. I'm sure if I was as frigid as you portray me, I would not be as deeply in love with a certain fellow as I am. However, I am also rational. I'm aware that love is governed almost exclusively by the romance memeplex, and I take GREAT care not to wind up making bad decisions because of that. We're not "wired" to these kinds of things. We can identify the memes that produce them and modify them. However, in defense of my previous statements, love has a myriad of > meanings and Dickens utilized almost all of them in "A Christmas > Carol", from the interpersonal to the impersonal, including romantic, > sexual, familial, parental, fraternal, religious, platonic, > altruistic, empathic and paraphilic (one could interpret Scrooge's > love of money as a sexual replacement if you really wanted to get > Freudian, which I do not). Dickens knew that there is no universal > definition for love, as do I. He knew that what one person calls love > may be different from another's, as do I. But in the aggregate, all > the forms of "love" represent the bonds humans acknowledge between > each other. You may call them what you will; morality, ethics, a part > of evolutionary psychology, the golden rule, etc., but the bonds > exist, even on this list. ;-) Most of those kinds of love are either irrational, or executed in irrational ways. I wouldn't want that portrayed in a good light. And Morality, Ethics, EP, all are distinct things with their own meanings. They are not interchangeable. And by the way, if you think humans are objectively rational, or are > capable of making even partially rational decisions without the messy, > mawkish, emotional parts of their brain coming into play (read any > Ant?nio Damasio), perhaps I could interest you in purchasing a bridge > in Brooklyn. I'll even put a bow on it. It makes the perfect holiday > gift... I think that the majority of our memes, even here in the West, are antirational. Oh well, that's a shame. But, like all problems, it can be solved. "if you think humans are objectively rational" <---- I don't, but I do think that rationality is objective and that humans are capable of reason. In the statement "rationality is objective" is contained the parallel statement "morality is objective". -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seienchan at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 18:58:16 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:58:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] EP and morality was Appropriate Technology In-Reply-To: <200712120346.lBC3k8Si003501@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7d6322030712111032s5c8783c4gdc74bc0e9f3d7418@mail.gmail.com> <200712120346.lBC3k8Si003501@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712131058l33325097xfeb9777b86d04168@mail.gmail.com> On 12/12/2007, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Seien > Subject: Re: [ExI] EP and morality was Appropriate Technology > > > WOW cool, Seien, that is a helllll of an idea pal! A computer program > that > trains dogs. I have a cousin who is a professional dog trainer. I may be > able to get him to advise me on how to write such code. > > spike > > That would be fun ^^ It's possible that an acquaintance of mine has done it, although unfortunately I know him so vaguely that I'm not really sure. ^^; I know it is possible, at any rate. Have you ever played nintendogs? ;) -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Dec 13 18:54:16 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:54:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] X-mass songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712131039r124b2577u3cd597ae80460bc1@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0BC5351B89DE-18C-C86@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <7d6322030712131039r124b2577u3cd597ae80460bc1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47617FD8.7080902@kevinfreels.com> >"Our culture prizes things like reason, making good decisions, optimism, pride in humanity. " How I wish this were true. Unfortunately the mother of my 12 yr old daughter's friend regularly forgives her husband for beating her because he's a christian but won't allow my daughter to come around because she stated that Jesus was not the son of God. So my daughter is being punished for reason. From x at extropica.org Thu Dec 13 20:17:25 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:17:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] "Objective morality" [Was: christmas songs 2] Message-ID: On 12/13/07, Seien wrote: > In the statement "rationality is objective" is contained the parallel > statement "morality is objective". We would do well to recognize that while rational morality is entirely valid (in the same sense as "rational bridge engineering" is valid), it is the principles supporting the instrumental methods that are increasingly objective, while the terminal values to be promoted are inherently subjective to the agent at the point of decision-making. Actions are assessed as increasingly moral to the extent they are perceived in principle to promote an increasing context of increasingly coherent (subjective) values over increasing scope of (objective) consequences. Wash, rinse, repeat. This understanding becomes increasingly important as technology amplifies the effects of private choices and public consequences. From pjmanney at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 20:30:24 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:30:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] christmas songs 2 In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712131056k46a0380g58cfb888056eacc3@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712110608.lBB68CMw005196@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <401841.2136.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7d6322030712102303s414d617cge832597e1c9cf6b0@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110607p3ef502b2s48488a9f6c865cae@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110643m5e7fa744v47730b765546378e@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30712110825y7d96180bk7634f8f365e3a7e6@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712110958o24b007eao115b49dbd7f10bdd@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30712111132g62df4061l2d47357faedf390@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712131056k46a0380g58cfb888056eacc3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30712131230s6b481025m87511ffe4b76c726@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 13, 2007 10:56 AM, Seien wrote: > I think that the majority of our memes, even here in the West, are > antirational. Oh well, that's a shame. But, like all problems, it can be > solved. > "if you think humans are objectively rational" <---- I don't, but I do think > that rationality is objective and that humans are capable of reason. > > In the statement "rationality is objective" is contained the parallel > statement "morality is objective". Then we will forever disagree, both biologically and philosophically. As I said, people are wired differently, from their genes, their development, their experiences, their cultures. While there are gross similarities that allow us to call all of us human, there are enough subtle and not-so-subtle differences that make us interesting and variable, and therefore, messy and confrontive to one another. Can you tell me who in this exchange has been "more rational"? One side discusses how things are, another how they wish they could be. Which is which? So far, neuroscience is more on my side than yours. But that might change... who knows? When you upload, you can drop me a line and tell me how your rationality is going. Until then, respectfully, PJ From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 13 20:38:36 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:38:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme vs.Rationality Message-ID: <8CA0BDF455A8E10-18C-19B3@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Seine wrote: "I tend to think of rationality as a sign of being civilised, intelligent, moral, rather than a sign of being biologically fully formed. A child can be rational too, and would be if it weren't for all the irrationalities in the parenting memeplex." My reply: Rationality comes with emotional maturation, a biological process involved in the development of a well balanced individual. A child can be intelligent in some aspect but maybe emotionally unstable. There are many forms of intelligence such as emotional intelligence wherein a study conducted in the early nineties showed those who have emotional intelligence have a better chance of succeeding in the corporate world. Siene: Our culture prizes things like reason, making good decisions, optimism, pride in humanity. Others don't. The two kinds of culture aren't the same, and they aren't equally valuable. One of them is abhorrent." Pardon me but what you see as abhorrent maybe a sign of irrationality/emotional immaturity. Our culture rewards symbols of success in politics, business and academics, the end products of national pride and some use of rationality by chance. Those who cling to symbols of morality do not always use reason. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From seienchan at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 20:46:59 2007 From: seienchan at gmail.com (Seien) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:46:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] X-mass songs 2 In-Reply-To: <47617FD8.7080902@kevinfreels.com> References: <8CA0BC5351B89DE-18C-C86@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <7d6322030712131039r124b2577u3cd597ae80460bc1@mail.gmail.com> <47617FD8.7080902@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <7d6322030712131246od9818bi9c7a52969c232d19@mail.gmail.com> On 13/12/2007, Kevin Freels wrote: > > >"Our culture prizes things like reason, making good decisions, > optimism, pride in humanity. " > > How I wish this were true. Unfortunately the mother of my 12 yr old > daughter's friend regularly forgives her husband for beating her because > he's a christian but won't allow my daughter to come around because she > stated that Jesus was not the son of God. So my daughter is being > punished for reason. > > That example's extremely parochial. Our culture, in general, in the West, prides itself in its reason, and at the very least its pro-humanness (even Christianity has that, whereas Islam is full of the worst kind of misogyny and misanthropy, and is utterly static about it too). Feel happy that your daughter lives in a country where Christian fundamentalism is tolerated and the law is generally objective. If it were, say, an Islamic country (and many countries are!), she would be forbidden to say things against religion in society at large instead of in that one house. Did you know that the Koran swears "destruction" against those that deviate in any way from the 12th century rules laid down exactly as they are in that book? It's not an empty threat either. Compared to death, imprisonment, whipping, being banned from one insane person's house seems astonishingly mild. -- ~Seien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 13 21:14:30 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:14:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Pride in Humanity? Message-ID: <8CA0BE4493DDA14-18C-1C14@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> "Siene: "Our culture prizes things like reason, making good decisions, optimism, pride in humanity. Others don't. The two kinds of culture aren't the same, and they aren't equally valuable. One of them is abhorrent." ______________ Pride in humanity is similar to god worship. Humans kill each other out of greed and ignorance and proud of it. What other specie is spared of pride and irrationality/ignorance? Artificial intelligence can be spared of irrationality and pride but it is not human. What AI could make us both humane and rational? Maybe that's a wrong question. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From benboc at lineone.net Thu Dec 13 21:28:19 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:28:19 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Exergy and the second law of thermodynamics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4761A3F3.8060104@lineone.net> citta437 at aol.com wrote: > Heat cannot be transfered from a colder to a hotter body. Damn! So my fridge doesn't work! I must be imagining all this ice-cream. ben zaiboc From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 13 21:45:13 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:45:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] citta437@aol.com In-Reply-To: <8CA0BE4493DDA14-18C-1C14@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0BE4493DDA14-18C-1C14@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071213154302.022c70c0@satx.rr.com> My spam blocker keeps filtering Terry's posts straight into the trash, even though I've tried a special filter that's meant to divert them to extropes. Is this a function of its seeing aol + a weird numerical (and hence bogus-looking?) nym? Damien Broderick From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 13 21:52:51 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:52:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Turing test Message-ID: <8CA0BE9A4CC3533-18C-1E83@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> "Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving, 5th Edition (Addison-Wesley; 2005). "The Turing test measures the performance of an allegedly intelligent machine against that of a human being, arguably the best and only standard for intelligent behavior. ... The Turing test, in spite of its intuitive appeal, is vulnerable to a number of justifiable criticisms. One of the most important of these is aimed at its bias toward purely symbolic problem-solving tasks. It does not test abilities requiring perceptual skill or manual dexterity, even though these are important components of human intelligence. Conversely, it is sometimes suggested that the Turing test needlessly constrains machine intelligence to fit a human mold. Perhaps machine intelligence is simply different from human intelligence and trying to evaluate it in human terms is a fundamental mistake. Do we really wish a machine would do mathematics as slowly and inaccurately as a human?" _______________ What I wish is to make humans perfect in every way, intelligent-wise and emotionally balanced individual/ a utopian dream. Some think we are nothing but thoughts, energy driven brains aka mind. Wisdom arise from directly experiencing reality according to ancient philosophers. How can a machine think non-thinking to see reality as it is? Some Zen Buddists practice seeing without assumptions and judgemental views. A robot is already pre-programmed to think within the box. To Zen practitioners there is no box. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 13 22:00:05 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:00:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] citta437@aol.com In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071213154302.022c70c0@satx.rr.com> References: <8CA0BE4493DDA14-18C-1C14@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071213154302.022c70c0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071213155907.023991d8@satx.rr.com> At 03:45 PM 12/13/2007 -0600, I wrote: >My spam blocker keeps filtering Terry's posts straight into the >trash Hmm--*that* got through, though, even with the aol etc @ in the subject line. From extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Dec 13 21:49:44 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:49:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712131046s5e98c673s1c8ee8d99f35d96@mail.gmail.com > References: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> <200712110558.lBB5wRpV026136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7d6322030712102244s63a4d475j2f51f7ce1ee4a802@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110625n28e97c1ena3302cf1935b378c@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712131046s5e98c673s1c8ee8d99f35d96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712132149.lBDLn8j39127@unreasonable.com> Seien wrote: >The reason that religion gets it wrong is because it *is* >antirational, and the essence of morality is reason. One can only >arrive at moral decisions, think in a morally good way, behave in a >right way rather than an evil way, with the use of dynamic reason. >Religion openly suppresses reason. Therefore it openly suppresses >morality. It replaces this loss of real morality with a false >"morality" of its own. This is an overstatement. Religions, and denominations within religions, differ in their embrace or rejection of reason. Many groups, starting from premises you or I might reject, then reason rigorously from those premises. In particular, large chunks of Buddhism, Judaism, and Ba'hai take thinking for yourself, critically, very seriously and embrace superceding traditional teachings when contradicted by the best external evidence. -- David. From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 13 22:30:50 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:30:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs Message-ID: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Me: "children are too young to understand adults' obssessions about > sex and morality." This is not a belief but a statement of fact supported by evidence resulting from socio-pscyhological studies/research. Seine: I think you must be using a meaningless mystical version of morality here? Morality is widely available to humans because morality is reason. It's living well, it's making rational decisions. Me: In the contrary morality is not supported by reason/rationality. It arise from fear of the unknown-what may happen if the code or rules of conduct is broken. Fear of punishment/suffering or hope for a reward as a reason to live well according to rules. Fear obstructs reason/rationality to see reality as it is. Seeing the nature of reality without evidence or proof but merely based on metaphysical beliefs is imagination/fantasy. Seine: "Sex, on the other hand, is all tied up with the romance memeplex and so is generally pretty irrational, or at least associated almost entirely with irrational concepts." Me: You limit your concepts of sex with romantic ideal. Biologically it is a natural process arising from hormonal interactions in the brain. Even romantic imagination arising from the brain is a result of some chemical reactions working in the amygdala to produce a pleasurable sensation in other words a mental masturbation. "It seems hardly fair to lump the two together." What you see as fair or unfair is just a projection of your mind/thought. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Dec 13 23:12:46 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:12:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712131046s5e98c673s1c8ee8d99f35d96@mail.gmail.com > References: <1197350820_6365@S3.cableone.net> <200712110558.lBB5wRpV026136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7d6322030712102244s63a4d475j2f51f7ce1ee4a802@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240712110625n28e97c1ena3302cf1935b378c@mail.gmail.com> <7d6322030712131046s5e98c673s1c8ee8d99f35d96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197587559_8795@S1.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 23:51:00 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:51:00 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Turing test In-Reply-To: <8CA0BE9A4CC3533-18C-1E83@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0BE9A4CC3533-18C-1E83@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200712131751.01004.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 13 December 2007, Terry wrote: > What I wish is to make humans perfect in every way And what is perfect? - Bryan From citta437 at aol.com Fri Dec 14 00:18:10 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:18:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Morality meme and civilization Message-ID: <8CA0BFDF1B287A8-18C-26C4@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Seien wtote: "In light of how crucially important morality is to civilisation, that's a pretty terrible thing to say. Morality isn't invented by religion - that's a meangingless definition of it. Morality is an area of knowledge, which includes theories about how to make good choices, and how to live well - and therefore what's right and wrong and good and evil. You could call it the theory of decision-making. Morality is reason, if you like. It is not a religious dogma, although religion likes to have morality attributed to it. It sounds pretty damn important to me. It means the difference between making a bad decision and a good one. I can only presume by your eschewing of morality, and the notion that morality might be important, that you don't want it." ______________ Hi, civilization rise and fall despite morality memes. I said morality memes was created by religious beliefs or faith to gods or spirit. Why can't man love each other without fear of god or hope for a reward? Is it due to the "selfish gene?" We are driven by a desire for self-preservation if that is not due to the selfish gene then what is it? ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Dec 14 01:36:59 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:36:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] citta437@aol.com In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071213154302.022c70c0@satx.rr.com> References: <8CA0BE4493DDA14-18C-1C14@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071213154302.022c70c0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1197596210_11749@S1.cableone.net> At 02:45 PM 12/13/2007, you wrote: >My spam blocker keeps filtering Terry's posts straight into the >trash, even though I've tried a special filter that's meant to divert >them to extropes. Is this a function of its seeing aol + a weird >numerical (and hence bogus-looking?) nym? > >Damien Broderick Your spam filter is smarter than I am. :-) Keith From citta437 at aol.com Fri Dec 14 01:44:48 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:44:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] EP and REligious beliefs Message-ID: <8CA0C0A0BEA62F6-18C-2ACD@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Keith wrote:>If Religion is an antirational meme, it will behave in ways that >promote its memetic survival. If there's a gene that makes people >more likely to be fanatics, well, okay. I don't see necessarily why >this gene can't behave in a self-promoting way anyway, although my >knowledge of genetics is pretty poor compared to my understanding of >meme theory. But WRT the meme, Religion is one of the strongest >antirational memeplexes next to parenting and romance, so we're >likely to see a lot of self-preservation behaviour from this meme. >Memes are not dependent on genes to explain the ways they behave. In the long run memes and genes can't be at odds. Those that are die out. Look into the history of the Shaker meme." __________________ Religious meme infects brains not trained in critical thinking/rationality. Such untrained brains are hosts to irrational memes. Without brains susceptible to memetic infection, these religious memes/beliefs die. I don''t know the Shaker meme. Is it based on reason or metaphysical beliefs? Some metaphysical beliefs based on faith is at odds with science and technology. The latter is based on the principles of continuous investigation on the nature of reality. The gap between science and religion exists due to minds attached to irrationality, a by- product of the "selfish gene." Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Dec 14 01:46:10 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:46:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] The Lucifer Principle In-Reply-To: <1197596210_11749@S1.cableone.net> References: <8CA0BE4493DDA14-18C-1C14@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071213154302.022c70c0@satx.rr.com> <1197596210_11749@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <35825.72.236.103.200.1197596770.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Please, was it on this list that the book "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom was recommended? If so, I thank whoever it was, the book was fascinating and thought provoking. I now see many things in my daily life in a different light. And I am looking at the present day world situation from a different perspective indeed. Thanks again. Regards, MB From x at extropica.org Thu Dec 13 23:17:06 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:17:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Turing test In-Reply-To: <8CA0BE9A4CC3533-18C-1E83@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0BE9A4CC3533-18C-1E83@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On 12/13/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > Some Zen > Buddists practice seeing without assumptions and judgemental views. A > robot is already pre-programmed to think within the box. To Zen > practitioners there is no box. Oh, pleeease. We see there is no "box." Not "there is no box." Terry, you might want to slow down -- your posting appears a bit over-heated -- and watch, learn, and enjoy the show a bit. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 14 02:26:50 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:26:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] citta437@aol.com In-Reply-To: <1197596210_11749@S1.cableone.net> References: <8CA0BE4493DDA14-18C-1C14@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071213154302.022c70c0@satx.rr.com> <1197596210_11749@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071213202448.021cd5c0@satx.rr.com> At 06:36 PM 12/13/2007 -0700, Keith wrote: > >My spam blocker keeps filtering Terry's posts straight into the > >trash, even though I've tried a special filter that's meant to divert > >them to extropes. Is this a function of its seeing aol + a weird > >numerical (and hence bogus-looking?) nym? > >Your spam filter is smarter than I am. :-) Yeah, I finally worked out what it was trying to tell me, and I sent it a message of thanks and a Xmas bonus. :) Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Dec 14 03:25:35 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:25:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] EP and REligious beliefs In-Reply-To: <8CA0C0A0BEA62F6-18C-2ACD@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0C0A0BEA62F6-18C-2ACD@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1197602727_12509@S4.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 14 02:59:19 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:59:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] disappearing car door In-Reply-To: <1197566494_446@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200712140326.lBE3Q1Da023383@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Is this cool or what? http://www.disappearing-car-door.com/ The door goes underneath the car instead of swinging out. Looks to me like an even better idea would be to have it swing up and over the car, altho I haven't tried to work out a mechanism that would do it. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 14 03:19:52 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:19:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] EP and morality was Appropriate Technology In-Reply-To: <7d6322030712131058l33325097xfeb9777b86d04168@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712140346.lBE3kYGv007468@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Seien Subject: Re: [ExI] EP and morality was Appropriate Technology WOW cool, Seien, that is a helllll of an idea pal!??A computer program that trains dogs.??spike ... I know it is possible, at any rate. Have you ever played nintendogs? ;)~Seien Sure haven't young lady, never even heard of it. I am so non-blackberry I can scarcely understand all the hip new things that are happening every day. I will google on it and try to get up to speed. We had nintendo when I was a kid, but I was more of a chess guy. The consoles cost a fortune and didn't do much. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 14 03:23:45 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:23:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] X-mass songs 2 In-Reply-To: <47617FD8.7080902@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <200712140350.lBE3oRj9014596@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Freels > ... > he's a christian but won't allow my daughter to come around because she > stated that Jesus was not the son of God. So my daughter is being > punished for reason. Kevin its a good thing your daughter didn't say jesus was actually the daughter of god, since she was a transvestite. Your friend's father mighta blown a fuse. spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 14 04:17:55 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:17:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] disappearing car door In-Reply-To: <200712140326.lBE3Q1Da023383@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712140326.lBE3Q1Da023383@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <476203F3.4070205@kevinfreels.com> Is it a hoax or is it real? Seems like an awfully cheesy video for something so cool. Especially having it hosted at youtube instead of their own server. I would expect much more detail and more salesmanship considering how unique it is. spike wrote: > > Is this cool or what? > > http://www.disappearing-car-door.com/ > > The door goes underneath the car instead of swinging out. Looks to me like > an even better idea would be to have it swing up and over the car, altho I > haven't tried to work out a mechanism that would do it. > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From pjmanney at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 05:05:19 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:05:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] disappearing car door In-Reply-To: <476203F3.4070205@kevinfreels.com> References: <200712140326.lBE3Q1Da023383@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <476203F3.4070205@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30712132105h63be363frf859a7e5bbe65b8a@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 13, 2007 8:17 PM, Kevin Freels wrote: > Is it a hoax or is it real? Seems like an awfully cheesy video for > something so cool. Especially having it hosted at youtube instead of > their own server. I would expect much more detail and more salesmanship > considering how unique it is. They're not in the SEMA directory http://www.semashow.com/main/main.aspx?ID=/content/SEMASHOWcom/HomePage so I've sent it on to my professional car buddy. I thought it was cool, too. We'll find out. PJ From stefan.pernar at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 05:14:33 2007 From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:14:33 +0800 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme vs.Rationality In-Reply-To: <8CA0BDF455A8E10-18C-19B3@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0BDF455A8E10-18C-19B3@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <944947f20712132114g4c1b6008v434cba147997794b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/14/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > > Seine wrote: > "I tend to think of rationality as a sign of being civilised, > intelligent, moral, rather than a sign of being biologically fully formed. > A child > can be rational too, and would be if it weren't for all the > irrationalities in > the parenting memeplex." I do not see a difference in morality and rationality. My arguments are summed up in a paper that you can find here: http://rationalmorality.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/practical-benevolence-2007-12-06_iostemp.pdf -- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefan.pernar at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 05:18:53 2007 From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:18:53 +0800 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> On 12/14/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > Me: In the contrary morality is not supported by reason/rationality. It > arise from fear of the unknown-what may happen if the code or rules of > conduct is broken. Fear of punishment/suffering or hope for a reward as > a reason to live well according to rules. Fear obstructs > reason/rationality to see reality as it is. Seeing the nature of > reality without evidence or proof but merely based on metaphysical > beliefs is imagination/fantasy. Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable over non existence and that the larger the group one belongs to the better one's own existence can be ensured. I replied to an earlier mail of yours with a link to a paper arguing this in more depths. If I had seen your statement here earlier I would have replied to you here with teh link... -- > Stefan Pernar > 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden > #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi > Chao Yang District > 100015 Beijing > P.R. CHINA > Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 > Skype: Stefan.Pernar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 14 05:57:10 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:57:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] disappearing car door In-Reply-To: <476203F3.4070205@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <200712140623.lBE6Nq5x029801@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Freels > Subject: Re: [ExI] disappearing car door > > Is it a hoax or is it real? Seems like an awfully cheesy video for > something so cool. Oops, ja I was too quick to hit send. Good eye Kevin. When I study the video there are a couple of dead giveaways. In those Lincolns, they called them prototype conversions. But those cars are rear wheel drive. So their frames would be in the way of a circular arc door. There was another giveaway: watch when the ladies get into the cars. The suspension doesn't settle. Those big road couches have relatively long travel cooshy suspension. Even my bony ass makes them settle when I get in. Disregard. Well done hoax tho. {8^D spike From aiguy at comcast.net Fri Dec 14 09:36:53 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:36:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] disappearing car door In-Reply-To: <200712140326.lBE3Q1Da023383@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1197566494_446@S4.cableone.net> <200712140326.lBE3Q1Da023383@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <007801c83e34$deacd7b0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> My biggest concern would be what happens if your battery goes dead or is shorted out suddenly. I've had that happen a few times over the years and there would have to be a way to manually open the door quickly or it could cause a safety hazard. The only other factor would seem to be cost. Power roofs on convertables always seemed to add a few grand to the price. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:59 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [ExI] disappearing car door Is this cool or what? http://www.disappearing-car-door.com/ The door goes underneath the car instead of swinging out. Looks to me like an even better idea would be to have it swing up and over the car, altho I haven't tried to work out a mechanism that would do it. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 14 09:58:45 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:58:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] disappearing car door In-Reply-To: <007801c83e34$deacd7b0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <1197566494_446@S4.cableone.net> <200712140326.lBE3Q1Da023383@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <007801c83e34$deacd7b0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <20071214095845.GM10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 04:36:53AM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > My biggest concern would be what happens if your battery goes dead or is > shorted out suddenly. My biggest concern would be side impacts. What's wrong with simple sliding doors, a la Mazda M5? But I'm probably not the only here who is bored silly by current crop of cars. Hybrids, how novel. We've now come full circle, to the Lohner-Porsche from 1899. Which even had the dernier cri, the sans-transmission in-hub motors! And fuel cells, we can't get the damn things right since 1839! Wow, does that suck, or what? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 citta437 at aol.com Fri Dec 14 12:20:35 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:20:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A Well-balanced individual Message-ID: <8CA0C62DCD3DAE1-1280-6755@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> Bryan asked: What is a perfect human being? None so far. Nature endowed us with a flexible brain that tilts either to the side of emotionalism or rationality. The five senses receiving stimuli from outside the box/consciousness/mind as the sixth sense is not yet a perfect machine. This mind/consciousness has no direct access from outside but the other five senses do. Stimuli coming from outside the box/brain pass thru several neurons before reaching the neocortex, the region of the brain center for memory and language. This center of the brain for memory and language interpretes the message received and sends it back to specialized neurons called the sympathetic nervous system. A brain that tilts more towards emotionalism rather than rationality was found to have a large amygdala{ the center of feelings} among the female gender according to one study done during the decade of the brain. Is this due to their upbringing or other genetic inheritance or both? Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From citta437 at aol.com Fri Dec 14 12:49:46 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:49:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics Message-ID: <8CA0C66F0DDEC99-1280-6838@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> "> Heat cannot be transfered from a colder to a hotter body. Damn! So my fridge doesn't work! I must be imagining all this ice-cream. ben zaiboc Your fridge works because of the electric current which converts the hot air from outside into cold air via that catalytic converter or whatever you call that machinery. I wish I were an electric engineer to be able to do that. Better yet to be able to convert AI into perfect humans with a well-balanced attitude without using too much energy. To reach the goal of extropian countries, we have yet to educate the majority that are still in ignorance due to greed and irrationality. How do you bridge the gap between science and religion? Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From x at extropica.org Fri Dec 14 13:10:48 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:10:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics In-Reply-To: <8CA0C66F0DDEC99-1280-6838@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0C66F0DDEC99-1280-6838@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On 12/14/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > Your fridge works because of the electric current which converts the > hot air from outside into cold air via that catalytic converter or > whatever you call that machinery. I wish I were an electric engineer to > be able to do that. > > Better yet to be able to convert AI into perfect humans with a > well-balanced attitude without using too much energy. > > To reach the goal of extropian countries, we have yet to educate the > majority that are still in ignorance... Terry, you don't know how right you are. From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 14:51:51 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:51:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics In-Reply-To: References: <8CA0C66F0DDEC99-1280-6838@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712140651y36628309l7d9aa537bab55f44@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 14, 2007 8:10 AM, wrote: > On 12/14/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > > Your fridge works because of the electric current which converts the > > hot air from outside into cold air via that catalytic converter or > > whatever you call that machinery. I wish I were an electric engineer to > > be able to do that. > > > > Better yet to be able to convert AI into perfect humans with a > > well-balanced attitude without using too much energy. > > > > To reach the goal of extropian countries, we have yet to educate the > > majority that are still in ignorance... > > Terry, you don't know how right you are. ..perhaps about a program education of education for the ignorant, but not about refrigeration. It takes 3 seconds to Google something like that. Converting ignorant humans/subhuman AI into "perfect humans" is not far from the alchemical lead to gold idea. In the same way we're trying to apply physical laws (thermodynamics) to memes, the lead to gold analogy is an allegory for the base metal (unwashed masses/ignorance) to be changed to a rare prize (enlightened, well-balanced humans) through some 'magical' process. We're using a different set of symbols to represent our intentions, but it's the same discussion. now I'd really have something if I could fill a Klein bottle with phlogiston... From x at extropica.org Fri Dec 14 15:07:33 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:07:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics In-Reply-To: <62c14240712140651y36628309l7d9aa537bab55f44@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0C66F0DDEC99-1280-6838@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> <62c14240712140651y36628309l7d9aa537bab55f44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/14/07, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Dec 14, 2007 8:10 AM, wrote: > > On 12/14/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > > > > Your fridge works because of the electric current which converts the > > > hot air from outside into cold air via that catalytic converter or > > > whatever you call that machinery. I wish I were an electric engineer to > > > be able to do that. > > > > > > Better yet to be able to convert AI into perfect humans with a > > > well-balanced attitude without using too much energy. > > > > > > To reach the goal of extropian countries, we have yet to educate the > > > majority that are still in ignorance... > > > > Terry, you don't know how right you are. > > ..perhaps about a program education of education for the ignorant, but > not about refrigeration. It takes 3 seconds to Google something like > that. Mike, it seems you don't appreciated the profundity of that post. As I read it, **every** statement struck me as commentary on ignorance and ignorance of ignorance. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 14 15:00:55 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:00:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics In-Reply-To: <62c14240712140651y36628309l7d9aa537bab55f44@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0C66F0DDEC99-1280-6838@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> <62c14240712140651y36628309l7d9aa537bab55f44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47629AA7.3050307@kevinfreels.com> I see your point, but one must also remember that gold is only valuable in t he first place because it is rare. Once you have converted all the lead into gold, what value does it really have? Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Dec 14, 2007 8:10 AM, wrote: > >> On 12/14/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> Your fridge works because of the electric current which converts the >>> hot air from outside into cold air via that catalytic converter or >>> whatever you call that machinery. I wish I were an electric engineer to >>> be able to do that. >>> >>> Better yet to be able to convert AI into perfect humans with a >>> well-balanced attitude without using too much energy. >>> >>> To reach the goal of extropian countries, we have yet to educate the >>> majority that are still in ignorance... >>> >> Terry, you don't know how right you are. >> > > ..perhaps about a program education of education for the ignorant, but > not about refrigeration. It takes 3 seconds to Google something like > that. > > Converting ignorant humans/subhuman AI into "perfect humans" is not > far from the alchemical lead to gold idea. In the same way we're > trying to apply physical laws (thermodynamics) to memes, the lead to > gold analogy is an allegory for the base metal (unwashed > masses/ignorance) to be changed to a rare prize (enlightened, > well-balanced humans) through some 'magical' process. We're using a > different set of symbols to represent our intentions, but it's the > same discussion. > > now I'd really have something if I could fill a Klein bottle with phlogiston... > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Fri Dec 14 15:33:25 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:33:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rational Morality Message-ID: <8CA0C7DCDA7E7B9-1280-724D@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> "I do not see a difference in morality and rationality. My arguments are summed up in a paper that you can find here: http://rationalmorality.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/practical-benevolence-2007-12-06_iostemp.pdf _____________ Hi Stephan, thanks for your info about Rational morality or practical benevolence. My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that your suggestion for a "Rational Morality" is similar to the 'Golden Rule." It is a sound philosophy but the practical side is hard to implement globally due to entropic processes still embedded in the brain [the survival instinct]. Continuous survival in the microspace is not the problem where morality or rationality does not exist. AI is progressing from entropy towards extropy by intergrating different fields of science and technology to solve specific situations that cause entropy/chaos. 1. Chemically engineering the brain with the use of pharmaceuticals i.e. using SSRI for depression, generalized anxiety 2. Genetically altering damaged brains is still undergoing a lot of obstacles due to political and economic reasons. 3. The inherent flexibility of the brain is an aspect where some practice of meditation decrease the psychological stress/chaos. 4. In some intances a combination of 1 and 3 is successful locally. 5. Global issues require global solutions i.e. global warming, poverty, crime and over population. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 14 16:44:41 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:44:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] EP and REligious beliefs In-Reply-To: <1197602727_12509@S4.cableone.net> References: <8CA0C0A0BEA62F6-18C-2ACD@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <1197602727_12509@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <4762B2F9.3090807@kevinfreels.com> >> I don't see necessarily why >> >this gene can't behave in a self-promoting way anyway, although my >> >knowledge of genetics is pretty poor compared to my understanding of >> >meme theory. Your knowledge of genetics so far seems to be right on the ball. Genes and memes are often so close they are difficult to separate. They have been feeding back to each other for thousands of years - each reinforcing the other. It's no wonder we spend such time trying to figure out what behaviors are attributed to which. OT: It's a shame that my spell-checker doesn't recognize "meme" as a real word. From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Dec 14 17:34:49 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:34:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A Well-balanced individual In-Reply-To: <8CA0C62DCD3DAE1-1280-6755@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0C62DCD3DAE1-1280-6755@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <20071214173450.VSBQ2633.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 06:20 AM 12/14/2007, you wrote: >Bryan asked: What is a perfect human being? There could be no such thing. And this is a good thing. Striving, problem-solving and creating -- is crucial for evolution and perfection is a state of stasis that defies all rationale. With meaningful imperfections, Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 14 17:34:10 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:34:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A Well-balanced individual In-Reply-To: <8CA0C62DCD3DAE1-1280-6755@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0C62DCD3DAE1-1280-6755@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4762BE92.3070403@kevinfreels.com> > > Bryan asked: What is a perfect human being? > > None so far. Nature endowed us with a flexible brain that tilts either > to the side of emotionalism or rationality. Most people experience both. Some are extremely rational and emotional at the same time. They go out and stand up against the irrational by putting together transhumanist organizations and are very proud of their ability to reason. Some are neither rational nor emotional. They are constantly doing stupid irrational things and they could care less. Emotion and reason are not opposites as you suggest. Reason is how one comes to a decision. Emotion is how much energy you put behind that. Emotion being the power behind the reasoning can seem to be the decision maker over reason but I propose that this is more a problem of simply having a flawed or malfunctioning "reasoner" in the brain. Every "reasoner" has some amount of flaw to it or we would all agree a lot more. > > A brain that tilts more towards emotionalism rather than rationality > was found to have a large amygdala{ the center of feelings} among the > female gender according to one study done during the decade of the > brain. Is this due to their upbringing or other genetic inheritance or > both? > Probably both. And it may have to do with diet as well. And the diet of the mother while she was pregnant. Those study results could just as easily explain the level of emotion a person is capable of without it having any bearing on their rationality. For this study to mean what you say, they had to first determine which women were more rational than the others and that in itself is subjective since different people can be more or less rational regarding different things that they are emotionally tied to. At most the study shows that a person who is emotionally attached to something is less likely to be totally rational about it. Emotions are useful or they wouldn't still be part of us. Seeing that they are just as much a part of us as reason, I would be willing to say that they are equally important. We never would have went to the moon without emotions. Hitler would have won WWII (assuming we would have progressed that far). Emotions MOTIVATE. Reason solves. They are two different things. From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Dec 14 16:03:39 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:03:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme vs.Rationality In-Reply-To: <944947f20712132114g4c1b6008v434cba147997794b@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8CA0BDF455A8E10-18C-19B3@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132114g4c1b6008v434cba147997794b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197662062_520@S3.cableone.net> At 10:14 PM 12/13/2007, Stefan wrote: snip >I do not see a difference in morality and rationality. My arguments >are summed up in a paper that you can find here: > >http://rationalmorality.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/practical-benevolence-2007-12-06_iostemp.pdf > If you don't mind me cherry picking a bit. "Evolution does not have an explicit goal but the implicit goal of evolution to increase fitness can be derived from the above arguments[22]. From examining what an increase in fitness actually constitutes, it can be concluded that an increase in fitness is equivalent with an increase in the ability of a unit of information to ensure its continued existence." Organisms are, of course, what is behaving morally, i.e., preserving information. Formerly this was all genetic information. "One could then form the hypothesis that that is good what increases fitness[18] or put another way that that is good what increases a unit of information's ability to ensure its continued existence." I notice that you cite Hamilton, but don't give the formula, C < R x B "Where C is the cost in fitness to the actor, R the genetic relatedness between the actor and the recipient and B is the fitness benefit to the recipient. Fitness costs and benefits are measured in fecundity. His two 1964 papers entitled The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior are now widely referenced." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.D._Hamilton "From the gene's point of view, evolutionary success ultimately depends on leaving behind the maximum number of copies of itself in the population. Until 1964 it was generally believed that genes only achieved this by causing the individual to leave the maximum number of viable offspring possible. However, in 1964 W. D. Hamilton showed that since relatives of an organism are likely to share more genes in common (not to be confused with "common genes," the opposite of scarce genes), the gene can also increase its evolutionary success by promoting the reproduction and survival of these related individuals. This leads individuals to behave as if maximising their inclusive fitness rather than their personal fitness." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness This is where rational for the individual and rational for the gene part company. I make the case that this ability to identify with unrelated others (say in an army unit) is because we evolved in bands where the average relatedness was high enough that taking a big chance of dying to defend the band was cost effective from the gene's viewpoint. From the individual's viewpoint, it's not rational to die to save others. From the gene's viewpoint it is, if they are relatives and the number you save in dying times the relatedness is more than one. This makes the case that brain mechanisms built by genes will, under particular circumstances, induce people to think and act irrationally. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Dec 14 17:35:46 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:35:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics In-Reply-To: References: <8CA0C66F0DDEC99-1280-6838@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> <62c14240712140651y36628309l7d9aa537bab55f44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197662222_567@S4.cableone.net> At 08:07 AM 12/14/2007, x wrote: >On 12/14/07, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2007 8:10 AM, wrote: > > > On 12/14/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: snip >Mike, it seems you don't appreciated the profundity of that post. As >I read it, **every** statement struck me as commentary on ignorance >and ignorance of ignorance. No kidding. The direction this is going isn't good, it's verging on cruelty. We also need to consider what is going into the archives. The list administrators should deal with it. ExI chat is a friendly place, but it has a low tolerance for utter nonsense. Keith From pjmanney at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 21:59:18 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:59:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] disappearing car door In-Reply-To: <200712140623.lBE6Nq5x029801@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <476203F3.4070205@kevinfreels.com> <200712140623.lBE6Nq5x029801@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30712141359k13907919gaaa87899ae7487fc@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 13, 2007 9:57 PM, spike wrote: > Oops, ja I was too quick to hit send. Good eye Kevin. When I study the > video there are a couple of dead giveaways. In those Lincolns, they called > them prototype conversions. But those cars are rear wheel drive. So their > frames would be in the way of a circular arc door. There was another > giveaway: watch when the ladies get into the cars. The suspension doesn't > settle. Those big road couches have relatively long travel cooshy > suspension. Even my bony ass makes them settle when I get in. This back from my car pro friend: "Maybe they're right! "It's theoretically possible though because on that model Lincoln the frame is integral with the chassis. The doors could stop at the driveshaft and sensors could've determined that there was proper road clearance under the car before the doors actuated to insure at least ?" clearance from the ground or something. "Smartest of all is if this really was CGI and they used it to supplement their corny working model (shown) to get VC funding rather than actually build out the Lincolns ? on the presumption that the CGI was less expensive, of course. "I still like it." However, while I like disappearing/reappearing... well, pretty much anything in design... I'm generally with Eugen. Cars over the last decade or so have been unbelievably.... ... uninspiring. My car friend and I laugh at the "new" technology that's a hundred years old. We wander the car shows looking for something to get excited about. And what about the unbalanced, unconstructive, uninteresting lines on everything? I also get frustrated by the industry's general slowness to adopt positive, constructive ideas. Eugen's also right about fuel cells! Makes me crazy! Instead, I find myself lusting after vintage cars, because their design is splendid and some of their ideas, even if they didn't last the test of time, are inspired. And although this is personal, there's something deeply satisfying driving a car that's a purely mechanical object. It has a totally different feel than a highly computerized car. > What's wrong with simple sliding doors, a la Mazda M5? Our kidmobile (aka minivan) has the auto-sliding doors and they work a treat, both automatically and manually if necessary. But aesthetically and practically, they do work better on big, boxy things, like peoplemovers. Not sleek coupes with rooflines that drop down past the open door line. For the most impractical, but beautiful door, I'll take the gullwing anyday. In my fantasies, it's a 1950's 300 sl Merc... ... Okay, I'm back now. :) Time to get the kids in the peoplemover. And move 'em around. PJ From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Dec 14 21:59:18 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:59:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics In-Reply-To: <47629AA7.3050307@kevinfreels.com> References: <8CA0C66F0DDEC99-1280-6838@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> <62c14240712140651y36628309l7d9aa537bab55f44@mail.gmail.com> <47629AA7.3050307@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <200712142158.lBELwTj65967@unreasonable.com> Kevin wrote: >I see your point, but one must also remember that gold is only >valuable in t he first place because it is rare. Once you have >converted all the lead into gold, what value does it really have? Gold is not only valuable because it is rare. Gold has physical properties that make it an excellent solution for certain engineering problems. Were gold more plentiful, it would, for instance, supplant copper, silver, and aluminum in many contexts where conductivity is desired. For that matter, lead is useful in of itself. If all the lead were converted to gold, we'd be looking for clever ways to accelerate the decay of radioactive waste into lead, to address our lead shortage. Pulling back a bit to an extropian worldview, it's important in one's life and in building the future to glean the durability of your premises. For example, some real estate commands a premium price because people need to travel to work and need someplace nearby to live. Dramatic improvements in transportation or communications can rip away that location premium. Other location premiums are longer lasting. Carmel will remain beautiful, Jerusalem will remain sacred, and Key West will remain quirky for decades longer, if not indefinitely. Although, of course, we here can envision an assortment of futures that would undercut them as well. -- David. From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 23:31:25 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:31:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A Well-balanced individual In-Reply-To: <20071214173450.VSBQ2633.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <8CA0C62DCD3DAE1-1280-6755@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> <20071214173450.VSBQ2633.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <200712141731.25350.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 14 December 2007, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >Bryan asked: What is a perfect human being? > There could be no such thing. ?And this is a good thing. Right. That was my point. - Bryan From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 15 02:59:07 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:59:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Well-balanced individual In-Reply-To: <200712141731.25350.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712150325.lBF3PlCP016645@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > >Bryan asked: What is a perfect human being? > > There could be no such thing... Natasha I have been called a perfect [certain part of a] human being. spike From pjmanney at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 04:40:57 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:40:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] PJ co-hosting Fast Forward Radio with guest Pearl Chin Message-ID: <29666bf30712142040w1c50165g7e32b91ed93dec84@mail.gmail.com> Hey all, I'm co-hosting Fast Forward Radio with Stephen Gordon on Sunday night, December 16th. Stephen and Phil Bowermaster have graciously asked me to fill in for Phil for the evening. Our guest will be Pearl Chin, president of the Foresight Institute. Not surprisingly, we'll be discussing nanotechnology. http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001527.html Can I tell you what a kick I get from saying, "co-hosting" and "our guest"? What a hoot! I hope you'll listen. PJ From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Dec 15 04:28:27 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:28:27 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics In-Reply-To: <200712142158.lBELwTj65967@unreasonable.com> References: <8CA0C66F0DDEC99-1280-6838@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> <62c14240712140651y36628309l7d9aa537bab55f44@mail.gmail.com> <47629AA7.3050307@kevinfreels.com> <200712142158.lBELwTj65967@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <476357EB.1020508@kevinfreels.com> > Kevin wrote: > > >> I see your point, but one must also remember that gold is only >> valuable in t he first place because it is rare. Once you have >> converted all the lead into gold, what value does it really have? >> > > Gold is not only valuable because it is rare. Gold has physical > properties that make it an excellent solution for certain engineering > problems. Were gold more plentiful, it would, for instance, supplant > copper, silver, and aluminum in many contexts where conductivity is desired. > > For that matter, lead is useful in of itself. If all the lead were > converted to gold, we'd be looking for clever ways to accelerate the > decay of radioactive waste into lead, to address our lead shortage. > > Yeah. You got me there. I shot from the hip. We weren't REALLY talking about gold and lead and I was careless. Thank you for being ever vigilant against such things. :-) (I really forgot how much I liked this group - why have I been absent so long? lol) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Dec 15 05:23:12 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:23:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme vs.Rationality In-Reply-To: <1197662062_520@S3.cableone.net> References: <8CA0BDF455A8E10-18C-19B3@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132114g4c1b6008v434cba147997794b@mail.gmail.com> <1197662062_520@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <476364C0.4030609@kevinfreels.com> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness > > This is where rational for the individual and rational for the gene > part company. > > I make the case that this ability to identify with unrelated others > (say in an army unit) is because we evolved in bands where the > average relatedness was high enough that taking a big chance of dying > to defend the band was cost effective from the gene's viewpoint. > > From the individual's viewpoint, it's not rational to die to save > others. From the gene's viewpoint it is, if they are relatives and > the number you save in dying times the relatedness is more than > one. This makes the case that brain mechanisms built by genes will, > under particular circumstances, induce people to think and act irrationally. > > Keith > Just to back Keith up some more (not that he needs my help), it is extremely important that anyone wanting to engage in a debate of this nature read and understand Hamilton's rule of inclusive fitness. (Thanks for the links Keith) It's been confirmed remarkably in a wide variety of animals. This isn't speculation. Keith is right on the money. I also recommend the work that Stephen Emlen did on the white-fronted bee-eaters in Kenya. Also check out the work of Robert Trivers regarding reciprocal altruism. It's especially important to this debate. This isn't speculation - it's all about observations. Bigger brains may make reciprocal altrusim even more likely because it allows animals such to keep track of who they did favors for and who "owes" them. One could then almost make the case that morality is a natural genetic behavior which causes and bigger brains allow some animals to use it in a calculating manner to accomplish what they want emotionally. Morality and altruism then become the base genetic behavior while rationalizing and reasoning memes become a learned way to take advantage of altrusitic individuals. (note: I am not trying to make this case. It just came out and may not make sense. I'll analyze it tomorrow when I'm not falling asleep at the keyboard.) Of course I subscribe to my own idea that our evolved brains are simply a more flexible and faster reacting evolutionary device that works by processing memes into genes. Over time if the memes take hold and spread wide and far, they become such a normal part of everyday life for everyone that they become genetic traits. Now I have to be careful here before someone accuses me of being a proponent of Lamarckian evolution. I do not mean that the memes change the genes. Only that a successful meme spread broadly across a population would create an environment where genes that accomplish the same things could spread quickly once they popped up and over enough time could become the norm through positive feedback loops. Here we have a recipe for a rapid response evolutionary system. More tired nonsense? Or am I on to something? Who knows - going to bed. From benboc at lineone.net Sat Dec 15 11:05:28 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:05:28 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme vs.Rationality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4763B4F8.2090803@lineone.net> "Stefan Pernar" wrote: > I do not see a difference in morality and rationality. My arguments are > summed up in a paper ... You aren't going to get people to take your ideas seriously while you make howlers like: "Evolution is the gradual accumulation of complexity". Seeing that right at the beginning greatly discouraged me from bothering to read the rest. ben zed From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Dec 15 13:22:21 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:22:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] PJ co-hosting Fast Forward Radio with guest Pearl Chin In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712142040w1c50165g7e32b91ed93dec84@mail.gmail.com > References: <29666bf30712142040w1c50165g7e32b91ed93dec84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071215132223.BMSE16876.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 10:40 PM 12/14/2007, PJ Manney wrote: >Hey all, > >I'm co-hosting Fast Forward Radio with Stephen Gordon on Sunday night, >December 16th. Stephen and Phil Bowermaster have graciously asked me >to fill in for Phil for the evening. Our guest will be Pearl Chin, >president of the Foresight Institute. Not surprisingly, we'll be >discussing nanotechnology. Hey hey - this is great PJ! ciao- Natasha >http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001527.html > >Can I tell you what a kick I get from saying, "co-hosting" and "our >guest"? What a hoot! > >I hope you'll listen. > >PJ >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: >12/13/2007 9:15 AM Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Sat Dec 15 13:55:15 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:55:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "Mechanical Mind" Message-ID: <8CA0D3940D14FAE-A3C-24C4@WEBMAIL-MB10.sysops.aol.com> From Margaret Boden's book review these questions were asked posted on 12-10-07: " How do our brains generate consciousness? Are animals or newborn babies conscious? Can machines be conscious? If not, why not? How is free will possible, or creativity? How are the brain and mind different? What counts as a language?" ________________ I find it interesting that there was no mention about genetics or was it incorporated in neurobiological sciences but was not given equal emphasis as in other fields of applied science? In the first question on how do our brains generate consciousness is similar to how did life evolve from the elements of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon? The catalysts include the change in temperature and pressure to tilt the balance towards the formation of organic life as discovered by science in the field of cosmology, another field not mentioned in the review. In the second quest-" are animals or newborn babies conscious? My answer is yes based on the fact that animals and babies follow the genetic blue print incripted in their DNA. It was recently discovered that even some plants like bananas share some 9% of human's DNA. 3. Can machines be conscious? If not, why not? Consciousness cannot be an automatic response as far as I know. The process arise in synergy with micro and macrolevels of interactions with the right conditions which exist in randomness. Some determinists/probabilists see free will and creativity as a fact of random events. 4.How are the brain and mind different? The mind is a behavior of the brain to interact with stimuli coming from inside and outside the sensing mechanism. It uses energy to think rationally depending on how it is genetically wired. 5. What counts as language? I read Steven Pinker's book about how the brain function in connection with language formation. { forgot the title} As I recall the gist of it is that language and memory are interconnected. Another recent discovery in neurobiology or neuronal functions is that memory cells are not concentrated merely in the brain but all over the human anatomy from the skin cells to other organ systems. See how complex this mechanical mind which is dependent on other functions {specialized cells} to do it's job well. In the long run human brain is analogous to cosmic evolution from extropic state/singularity to entropy.imho Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From citta437 at aol.com Sat Dec 15 14:35:57 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:35:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The quest, a conscilience: re: Mechanical Mind Message-ID: <8CA0D3EF074C762-A3C-25C4@WEBMAIL-MB10.sysops.aol.com> The philosophical question is why is it that the brain is genetically wired for self-preservation? The theory of evolution presents facts or evidence of variation/speciation but a philosophical question of why is it so is like asking why is water wet? The so called desires for self-preservation appears to be an automatic response as early as the first life forms evolved. Can it be called a primitive life form has a primitive response to stimuli/entropic state. AI is still in its primitive state of development. It waits for science to discover the changing nature of reality. Is it easier to integrate AI to scientific laws than not? Our curiousity is tied with the genes of self-preservation that's why we cannot do away spacetime to do away with entropy. It is the other side of extropy like the two sides of a coin. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 16:53:24 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:53:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <1196391711_872@S3.cableone.net> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200711291843.50390.kanzure@gmail.com> <1196391711_872@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 29 November 2007, hkhenson wrote: > To scope the problem, the area of the brain surface is about quarter > of a square meter, the cortical columns are spaced about 0.03 mm in a > hexagonal array. ?Figure about a thousand of them to the sq mm. There > are a million sq mm to a sq m. So if you had 250 H+ programmers, each > of them would have to be managing a million cortical column > simulations. > > Please check my numbers. > > If you have any suggestions about how to reduced the difficulty of > the project, please post them. No, I do not have any ideas. We do not have enough computing power. We'd need to have some way of inserting more nodes onto the internet so that we could do such a project. It might be possible to have a self-replicating factory that builds computational nodes for this very project. What projects can we do first to assure us that making enough nodes to run those 250mil sims would be useful? - Bryan From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 15 17:06:14 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:06:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200711291843.50390.kanzure@gmail.com> <1196391711_872@S3.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071215170614.GN10128@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:53:24AM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > No, I do not have any ideas. We do not have enough computing power. We'd > need to have some way of inserting more nodes onto the internet so that no, No, NO. You're not listening. Brain simulations aren't embarassingly parallel. You'd need some few kNodes, each with <1 us latency, and some 10 GBytes/s throughput. On WAN, you'd get some 10-100 ms, and few 10 kByte/s thoughput. To be blunt, this kills it dead. You need to use very large scale distributed resources correctly, orelse you're wasting their strenghts. > we could do such a project. It might be possible to have a > self-replicating factory that builds computational nodes for this very Whoa, whoa, whoa. Once we have these, then we're right in the middle of that Singularity already. Self-rep is hard, and it's mostly a control issue on macroscale, and a bootstrap issue on nanoscale. We can't do either yet. > project. What projects can we do first to assure us that making enough > nodes to run those 250mil sims would be useful? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 17:14:48 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:14:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Elegant 3D fluidic nano(almost) manufacturing method In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200712151114.48647.kanzure@gmail.com> Does this mean that we have an encapsulating medium in which we can build nanotechnological hardware now? - Bryan From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 17:17:17 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:17:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <20071215170614.GN10128@leitl.org> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> <20071215170614.GN10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712151117.17544.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 15 December 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote: > To be blunt, this kills it dead. You need to use very large scale > distributed resources correctly, orelse you're wasting their > strenghts. And what if we build our own fiber optics to connect the nodes together? > > we could do such a project. It might be possible to have a > > self-replicating factory that builds computational nodes for this > > very > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. Once we have these, then we're right in the > middle of that Singularity already. Self-rep is hard, and it's > mostly a control issue on macroscale, and a bootstrap issue on > nanoscale. We can't do either yet. I wonder why I said we need self-rep, all we need is the ability to make the factories and then let them churn out the cpu nodes. Might take a while for them to make enough nodes, operating at peak efficiency, but at least we'd be on track. - Bryan From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Dec 15 17:25:55 2007 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:25:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712151117.17544.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> <20071215170614.GN10128@leitl.org> <200712151117.17544.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Saturday 15 December 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> To be blunt, this kills it dead. You need to use very large scale >> distributed resources correctly, orelse you're wasting their >> strenghts. > > And what if we build our own fiber optics to connect the nodes > together? Are you using magic fiber? Is the speed of light different in your glass than in the rest of the universe? J. Andrew Rogers From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 15 17:45:03 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:45:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712151117.17544.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> <20071215170614.GN10128@leitl.org> <200712151117.17544.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071215174503.GO10128@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:17:17AM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > And what if we build our own fiber optics to connect the nodes together? I thought you were talking linking up volunteer's machines via residential broadband. If it's a local cluster, e.g. Myrinet will set you back some 1 k$/node. That leaves you with 2 k$/node, or 2 MBuck/1 kNode. Don't forget that you'd need 200 k$/year for juice, minus air conditioning and admining (allow for 1 MBuck/year operational costs otherwise). > I wonder why I said we need self-rep, all we need is the ability to make > the factories and then let them churn out the cpu nodes. Might take a We already have those -- they're called silicon foundries, and take multiple gigabucks to build and run. > while for them to make enough nodes, operating at peak efficiency, but > at least we'd be on track. Let's wait for desktop fabs, which will allow you to generate dedicated hardware for neural emulation while being affordable (0.1-1 M$). Maybe in another 25-30 years. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Dec 15 17:52:12 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:52:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme vs.Rationality In-Reply-To: <476364C0.4030609@kevinfreels.com> References: <8CA0BDF455A8E10-18C-19B3@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132114g4c1b6008v434cba147997794b@mail.gmail.com> <1197662062_520@S3.cableone.net> <476364C0.4030609@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <1197741125_14872@S4.cableone.net> At 10:23 PM 12/14/2007, Kevin Freels wrote: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness > > > > This is where rational for the individual and rational for the gene > > part company. > > > > I make the case that this ability to identify with unrelated others > > (say in an army unit) is because we evolved in bands where the > > average relatedness was high enough that taking a big chance of dying > > to defend the band was cost effective from the gene's viewpoint. > > > > From the individual's viewpoint, it's not rational to die to save > > others. From the gene's viewpoint it is, if they are relatives and > > the number you save in dying times the relatedness is more than > > one. This makes the case that brain mechanisms built by genes will, > > under particular circumstances, induce people to think and act > irrationally. > > > > Keith > > >Just to back Keith up some more (not that he needs my help), it is >extremely important that anyone wanting to engage in a debate of this >nature read and understand Hamilton's rule of inclusive fitness. (Thanks >for the links Keith) It's been confirmed remarkably in a wide variety of >animals. This isn't speculation. Keith is right on the money. > >I also recommend the work that Stephen Emlen did on the white-fronted >bee-eaters in Kenya. Also check out the work of Robert Trivers regarding >reciprocal altruism. It's especially important to this debate. This >isn't speculation - it's all about observations. It's always nice to be backed up by informed people. They tend to agree with me. :-) Right on observations. The observations also fit models that make sense in evolutionary bilogy terms >Bigger brains may make reciprocal altrusim even more likely because it >allows animals such to keep track of who they did favors for and who >"owes" them. One could then almost make the case that morality is a >natural genetic behavior which causes and bigger brains allow some >animals to use it in a calculating manner to accomplish what they want >emotionally. Morality and altruism then become the base genetic behavior >while rationalizing and reasoning memes become a learned way to take >advantage of altrusitic individuals. (note: I am not trying to make this >case. It just came out and may not make sense. I'll analyze it tomorrow >when I'm not falling asleep at the keyboard.) It's not bad. To extend a bit, social animals like humans and dogs limit the amount of benefit they provide even to related animals. I.e., genes to use up your life helping relatives to the exclusion of reproducing are not going be preserved. Hamilton's rule not only explains this class of altruism, but it states very clearly that there will be limits. Make demands that exceed these limits and a wolf will be driven out of the pack. (Happens.) >Of course I subscribe to my own idea that our evolved brains are simply >a more flexible and faster reacting evolutionary device that works by >processing memes into genes. Over time if the memes take hold and spread >wide and far, they become such a normal part of everyday life for >everyone that they become genetic traits. Now I have to be careful here >before someone accuses me of being a proponent of Lamarckian evolution. >I do not mean that the memes change the genes. Only that a successful >meme spread broadly across a population would create an environment >where genes that accomplish the same things could spread quickly once >they popped up and over enough time could become the norm through >positive feedback loops. Here we have a recipe for a rapid response >evolutionary system. More tired nonsense? Or am I on to something? Who >knows - going to bed. This can be expressed in a mathematical model. Protohumans about 2.5 million years ago suddenly started chipping rocks. I rather imagine that the ability to pick up the meme for chipping rocks gave the ones who could learn this a big genetic advantage, maybe even the ten to one advantage that being able to drink milk gave in the last few thousand years to those who were raising dairy animals. That's going to genetically fix a propensity to pick up the rock chipping meme in a rather small number of generations. Keith From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 18:01:35 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:01:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <20071215174503.GO10128@leitl.org> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151117.17544.kanzure@gmail.com> <20071215174503.GO10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712151201.35286.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 15 December 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:17:17AM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > And what if we build our own fiber optics to connect the nodes > > together? > > I thought you were talking linking up volunteer's machines via > residential broadband. If it's a local cluster, e.g. Myrinet will We were, at first. You showed that lag would make it useless. > set you back some 1 k$/node. That leaves you with 2 k$/node, > or 2 MBuck/1 kNode. Don't forget that you'd need 200 k$/year See below why it might not cost so much. > for juice, minus air conditioning and admining (allow for > 1 MBuck/year operational costs otherwise). I haven't solved the juice or aircon problem yet. Solar cells wouldn't work, not unless I also have a factory making those (again, see below), but then we'd need the land to put them on and some massive battery and ... doesn't sound good. Of course, putting them in orbit would give us as much space as we want, to beam the power back down to the ground, but then we're adding a whole next level to these plans: how would we make the required rocket? Maybe there's a simpler solution. > > I wonder why I said we need self-rep, all we need is the ability to > > make the factories and then let them churn out the cpu nodes. Might > > take a > > We already have those -- they're called silicon foundries, and > take multiple gigabucks to build and run. Nope. Those are the big, advanced fabs. I've been doing my homework, and the entire semiconductor fabrication process can be done in the home, with the right equipment. The originals who started the industry did just the same thing: they began with wax and very impure wafers and probably 500 micrometer technology. Anyway, the hardest part of doing it on our own will be the silicon ingot pulling (which requires thousands of degrees Fahrenheit) and the CVD chamber, the lithography is simple enough and the chemical washes are also ok. Making microprocessors on a first try is unrealistic, but I am confident that with OpenRISC that it might one day be possible. And if we're doing this much, figuring out how to make an ethernet card can be included such as your Myrinet reference. It will all be inefficient, slow, and terrible, but if it's all open source and the results are being published and other people start experimenting too, then improvements will be made. > > while for them to make enough nodes, operating at peak efficiency, > > but at least we'd be on track. > > Let's wait for desktop fabs, which will allow you to generate > dedicated hardware for neural emulation while being affordable > (0.1-1 M$). Maybe in another 25-30 years. Yes, that would be useful. But let's not "let's wait". Let's get it done. - Bryan From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 18:02:36 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:02:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151117.17544.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712151202.36905.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 15 December 2007, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > Are you using magic fiber? ?Is the speed of light different in your ? > glass than in the rest of the universe? If all of the nodes are local, communication at c will work well enough. Wasn't that Eugene's point? - Bryan From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Dec 15 18:16:53 2007 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:16:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712151202.36905.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151117.17544.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712151202.36905.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Saturday 15 December 2007, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >> Are you using magic fiber? Is the speed of light different in your >> glass than in the rest of the universe? > > If all of the nodes are local, communication at c will work well > enough. > Wasn't that Eugene's point? Even very locally, the latency difference between fiber Ethernet and specialized interconnects can still be measured in orders of magnitude such that computational problems that are practical on the latter are not cost effective on the former. Your enemy here is latency and many problems (including the one being discussed here) have parallelizability that is a very sensitive function of latency. It does not matter how many machines you have locally if the interconnect latency is so high (where "high" may be tens of microseconds) that you can only use a small fraction of them on your problem. This is the reason many supercomputing clusters will pay more for their cluster interconnect than they will on the actual compute nodes; having a lot of CPUs does not help much if your network latency is too high to parallelize the problem over that many nodes. J. Andrew Rogers From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 15 18:25:45 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:25:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712151202.36905.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151117.17544.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712151202.36905.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071215182545.GQ10128@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:02:36PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > If all of the nodes are local, communication at c will work well enough. The main reason renting e.g. dark fiber wouldn't work is not just relativistic latency (it can be partly ameliorated by custom, mostly ACK-less protocols), it's the cost of connectivity which is exponentiated by distance. 10 GBit/s cables are already expensive enough for ~m distances. In short, you need local clusters. Due to volume/surface ratio scaling WAN would work for very fat nodes. Maybe, for a PS7, on GBit/s residential broadband? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 18:46:38 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:46:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151202.36905.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712151246.38777.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 15 December 2007, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > compute nodes; having a lot of CPUs does not help much if your > network latency is too high to parallelize the problem over that > many nodes. Eugene just suggested that the latency problem can be fixed, though. On Saturday 15 December 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote: > custom, mostly ACK-less protocols), it's the cost of connectivity > which is exponentiated by distance. Cost minimization happens when you're making your own dark fiber. - Bryan From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 15 18:55:32 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:55:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712151246.38777.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151202.36905.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712151246.38777.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071215185532.GS10128@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:46:38PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Eugene just suggested that the latency problem can be fixed, though. Up to a point, only for some specific codes and custom protocols. It might well be that COTS hardware can't handle it (do Ethernet frames require an ACK?), so you'd need to roll your own, something using optical fiber as FIFO. > Cost minimization happens when you're making your own dark fiber. Making fiber is easy enough, but laying fiber isn't. Unless, magickal nanomoles burrowing everywhere, crisscrossing the crust with active optical gear for free. (Btw, here's a nice novel illustrating such http://www.kschroeder.com/Ventus/ ) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 19:05:54 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:05:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <20071215185532.GS10128@leitl.org> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151246.38777.kanzure@gmail.com> <20071215185532.GS10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712151305.54697.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 15 December 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Making fiber is easy enough, but laying fiber isn't. Unless, magickal > nanomoles burrowing everywhere, crisscrossing the crust with active > optical gear for free. Huh? What about a warehouse where all of the cpu nodes are being placed in a neat, orderly fashion, and then having simple bots (or people) come around and connect the new fiber from node to router/distributor? Ah, maybe a warehouse is not enough. So the best place to do this might be the desert, and then we don't have to worry about cables running over the surface, it's not like we're going to be disturbed by curious bystanders. > (Btw, here's a nice novel illustrating such > http://www.kschroeder.com/Ventus/ ) I was embarrased to order the book a few weeks ago, only to find within an hour an online copy. Heh. - Bryan From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 15 19:26:24 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:26:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712151305.54697.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151246.38777.kanzure@gmail.com> <20071215185532.GS10128@leitl.org> <200712151305.54697.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071215192624.GU10128@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 01:05:54PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Huh? What about a warehouse where all of the cpu nodes are being placed > in a neat, orderly fashion, and then having simple bots (or people) > come around and connect the new fiber from node to router/distributor? But this sets us back to mice and pumpkins, aka a Beowulf cluster worth a couple megabucks, and taking a megabuck/year to run it. Much easier is it to become a computational neuroscientist, and to rent time on a national facility. Now for mapping parameter spaces as e.g. Nano at home a BOINC or a grid client is about optimal. If you sell it right millions contributors might join (keeping them entertained is even more difficult, though), and you no longer have to budget for energy, climate and sysadmins. > Ah, maybe a warehouse is not enough. So the best place to do this might > be the desert, and then we don't have to worry about cables running > over the surface, it's not like we're going to be disturbed by curious > bystanders. Your best bet is to tale a few megabucks, and blow them upon a hall venting outside where power is cheap and climate is chilly. You might have noticed Google's and Microsoft's efforts in that direction -- only they can't afford to be topologically to far removed from their customers. > I was embarrased to order the book a few weeks ago, only to find within > an hour an online copy. Heh. It is a good idea to still order the book, or at least pay for a book or two from the Ventus series (I won't, they're not that good). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 19:36:04 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:36:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <20071215192624.GU10128@leitl.org> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151305.54697.kanzure@gmail.com> <20071215192624.GU10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712151336.04900.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 15 December 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote: > But this sets us back to mice and pumpkins, aka a Beowulf cluster > worth a couple megabucks, and taking a megabuck/year to run it. Not if we do it all in-house. - Bryan From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Dec 15 19:48:06 2007 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:48:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712151336.04900.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151305.54697.kanzure@gmail.com> <20071215192624.GU10128@leitl.org> <200712151336.04900.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <73FC3696-487C-4E77-930E-1D2E62A2F8CB@ceruleansystems.com> On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Saturday 15 December 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> But this sets us back to mice and pumpkins, aka a Beowulf cluster >> worth a couple megabucks, and taking a megabuck/year to run it. > > Not if we do it all in-house. Precisely how will this save you megabucks? The labor cost for many of these clusters asymptotically approaches "negligible". Hardware and power are already commodities for the most part; you can shave a few pennies here and there, but most megabuck clusters are already built on the cheap. J. Andrew Rogers From citta437 at aol.com Sat Dec 15 20:09:29 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:09:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Extropy/Entropy re: Rational Morality Message-ID: <8CA0D6D88D2FA76-A3C-2FEC@WEBMAIL-MB10.sysops.aol.com> Stephan wrote: "Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable over non existence and that the larger the group one belongs to the better one's own existence can be ensured. I replied to an earlier mail of yours with a link to a paper arguing this in more depths. If I had seen your statement here earlier I would have replied to you here with teh link." _____________ Sorry, I was not paying attention till now. My mind is easily distracted and lost tract of time. I'm still learning about the use of computer interactions on the web. My monkey mind is jumping topic to topic, from entropy to extropy and now rational morality. I'm trying to integrate the little I learned from cosmology to genetics with sociological implications of rational morality. As I said in my previews posts morality exists only in our minds and not in cosmic evolution or genes. Sociologists call the process reciprocal rationality to what you chose to call as rational morality. The mind is attached to what it sees as beneficial to itself. Call it whatever term you chose it boils down to this genetic predisposition for self preservation. On another note, extropy exists side by side with entropy, without one the other cannot exist like two sides of a coin. i.e. Our minds cannot see the genetic effects of GM plants and animals till the evidence of extinction is available. ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 21:34:27 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:34:27 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <73FC3696-487C-4E77-930E-1D2E62A2F8CB@ceruleansystems.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151336.04900.kanzure@gmail.com> <73FC3696-487C-4E77-930E-1D2E62A2F8CB@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <200712151534.27379.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 15 December 2007, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > Precisely how will this save you megabucks? By not paying for any of it. - Bryan From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 15 22:08:01 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:08:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712152234.lBFMYcNZ027556@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of J. Andrew Rogers ... > > Your enemy here is latency and many problems (including the one being > discussed here) have parallelizability that is a very sensitive > function of latency... J. Andrew Rogers J. Andrew, I thought about this problem for some time before coming to the conclusion that latency is inherently important to the kinds of computing that I expect optimized star systems to perform. To follow up on a thread started a couple weeks ago, we imagined a star system where intelligent life is a few thousand or few tens of thousands of years advanced beyond a singularity. Most would agree that a post singularity intelligence would try to optimize the information to matter content of the star system. From that we imagine an M-brain. But once one realizes the truth of your comment, "parallelizability that is a very sensitive function of latency" and the enempy* is latency, a new insight appears. An S-Brain sacrifices maximum energy usage in exchange for decreasing latency between nodes. spike *enempy looks like an ordinary typo, which actually it was at first. Then I cheerfully realized it could be a new term meaning "enemy of extropy", thus saving me the effort of fixing the typo. From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 22:40:29 2007 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:40:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Well-balanced individual In-Reply-To: <8CA0C62DCD3DAE1-1280-6755@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0C62DCD3DAE1-1280-6755@webmail-de09.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: I'm seeing a lot of talk of rationality and morality on these boards, but am I the only one here seeing an unaddressed normative framework involved here? For instance, aside from the apparent assumption that rationality and emotionalism are separate things, given the apparent claim that a well-balanced individual is the proper balance between these two allegedly separate things, who says what the balance is or even if there *is* a proper balance? At least, nature doesn't. I think when we make such claims we ought to make our normative framework, and our values, evident and not pretend they come from anywhere else other than our own judgments and evaluations. Perfection, too, isn't a property in nature but a human judgment. Okay, I just wanted to clear the air a little :) Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 22:45:02 2007 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:45:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/13/07, Stefan Pernar wrote: > > Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable over non > existence and that the larger the group one belongs to the better one's own > existence can be ensured. I replied to an earlier mail of yours with a link > to a paper arguing this in more depths. If I had seen your statement here > earlier I would have replied to you here with teh link... > Preferable according to whom? *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 23:00:08 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:00:08 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712152234.lBFMYcNZ027556@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712152234.lBFMYcNZ027556@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 15 December 2007, spike wrote: > appears. ?An S-Brain sacrifices maximum energy usage in exchange for > decreasing latency between nodes. I know about mbrains and jbrains, but not about sbrains. Is this your computronium cloud from a few years ago on this same list? - Bryan From benboc at lineone.net Sat Dec 15 23:52:07 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:52:07 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476468A7.1010808@lineone.net> From: citta437 at aol.com wrote: > Your fridge works because of the electric current which converts the > hot air from outside into cold air Which is another way of saying it transfers heat from a colder to a hotter body. My fridge works because of a heat pump. Heat pumps pump heat in the opposite direction to the normal flow of heat. Making the cold body colder, and the hot one hotter. Fridges are a bit like life. They seem to reverse entropy, but really they just redistribute it. Globally you get more of it, but locally, you get icecream. ben zed From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 16 03:16:10 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:16:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Bishop ... > > I know about mbrains and jbrains, but not about sbrains. Is this your > computronium cloud from a few years ago on this same list? > > - Bryan Ja. I imagined a structure that was made from the materials of an earthlike planet. The botecs go thus: our atmosphere weighs about 100k newtons per square meter, so that's about 1e4 kilograms, and the radius is about 6.4e6 meters, so squared is about 40e12 and 4 pi is about 12, so whats that, about 5e18 kg? One percent of our atmosphere is argon which isn't good for anything, so I imagine all the non-noble-gas atoms in the planet orbiting about the center of gravity of the former rocky planet. The 5e16 kg of argon and all the other noble gases stay at the center, loosely bound by gravitation, forming a diaphanous sphere roughly 1e7 meters across, a couple atmospheres of pressure at the center, decreasing exponentially to the point where the density is below a few atoms per cubic meter, too few to interfere with the innermost orbiting nodes. In that scenario, the S-Brain is a couple light seconds radius, with the nodes are a few hundred quadrillion atoms each. Their mean distance from each other is a few tens of centimeters, with the nodes on the dark side receiving about a small fraction of a percent of the photons from the sun (the photons pass thru the S-Brain to reach the dark side). The entire S-Brain rotates at one rev per couple years, if I recall the botecs I made four years ago. The idea is that unlike an M-Brain, which maximizes the amount of energy available to each node, the S-Brain sacrifices total energy availability in exchange for reducing latency between nodes. As J. Andrew pointed out, and I also eventually realized independently, latency will be always be a limiting factor in parallel computing. In a kind of analogous way, see how decreased latency in information flow between people with the development of the internet has increased dramatically the growth environment of memes. Imagine if we didn't have computers, but rather we were all typing out our ideas on paper and mass mailing to each other. It would take years to discuss what we now cover in days. In contrast, see how information now flows without friction, and how ideas spring forth in such a tiny fraction of the time required in previous eras, how debate flowers everywhere where once it was restricted to the hallowed halls of the university, or the ivory towers of the think tank. Anders Sandberg had a talent for saying things in such a way as to inspire ideas in other people's minds. The idea for S-Brains sprang from some J-Brain ideas Anders posted, which in turn were inspired by Robert Bradbury's M-Brain notions. I feel I contributed something to the idea, so the dash brain can be attributed to Robert and the S can be for either Sandberg or spike. spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 16 03:18:27 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:18:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics In-Reply-To: <476468A7.1010808@lineone.net> Message-ID: <200712160318.lBG3INhH002474@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ben ... > > Fridges are a bit like life. They seem to reverse entropy, but really > they just redistribute it. Globally you get more of it, but locally, you > get ice cream. > > ben zed Ben, may I add this to my public domain collection of wise and cool sayings from ExI-chat? spike From stefan.pernar at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 03:51:08 2007 From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:51:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme vs.Rationality In-Reply-To: <4763B4F8.2090803@lineone.net> References: <4763B4F8.2090803@lineone.net> Message-ID: <944947f20712151951v74c706fbyaab6d2d0bd4a9bf2@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 15, 2007 12:05 PM, ben wrote: > "Stefan Pernar" wrote: > > > I do not see a difference in morality and rationality. My arguments are > > summed up in a paper ... > > You aren't going to get people to take your ideas seriously while you make > howlers like: "Evolution is the gradual accumulation of complexity". > > Seeing that right at the beginning greatly discouraged me from bothering > to read the rest. Hi Ben, not sure how to interprete your critique. I am probably wrong to assume that you reject evolution in favor of intelligent design. Can you elaborate in a bit more depth please? With that senetnce I wanted to emphazise the gradual nature of evolution: "Complexity cannot spring up in a single stroke-of chance: that would be like hitting upon the combination number that opens a bank vault. But a whole series of tiny chance steps, if non-randomly selected, can build up almost limitless complexity of adaptation. It is as though the vault's door were to open another chink every time the number on the dials moved a little closer to the winning number. Gradualness is of the essence. In the context of the fight against creationism, gradualism is more or less synonymous with evolution itself. If you throw out gradualness you throw out the very thing that makes evolution more plausible than creation." Many thanks, Stefan -- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefan.pernar at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 04:02:51 2007 From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:02:51 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme vs.Rationality In-Reply-To: <1197662062_520@S3.cableone.net> References: <8CA0BDF455A8E10-18C-19B3@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132114g4c1b6008v434cba147997794b@mail.gmail.com> <1197662062_520@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <944947f20712152002h343581eh3b859224267b72d0@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 14, 2007 5:03 PM, hkhenson wrote: > At 10:14 PM 12/13/2007, Stefan wrote: > > "One could then form the hypothesis that that is good what increases > fitness[18] or > put another way that that is good what increases a unit of > information's ability to ensure > its continued existence." > > I notice that you cite Hamilton, but don't give the formula, C < R x B > Yes - the Hamilton-Price equations on the genetic evolution of altruism. I will see if I can include that reference in my paper. I was aware of it but it did not come to mind in my thinking on the matter. One reason is that the statement "that is good what increases fitenss" extends to so much more than just reciprical altruism between potentially related individuals. I say that because it extends beyond genetics and applies to the realm of memetics as well. > > snip > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness > > This is where rational for the individual and rational for the gene > part company. > > I make the case that this ability to identify with unrelated others > (say in an army unit) is because we evolved in bands where the > average relatedness was high enough that taking a big chance of dying > to defend the band was cost effective from the gene's viewpoint. > Totally. What I claim is that this irrational behavior is induced by charismatic individuals able to manipulating others. > > From the individual's viewpoint, it's not rational to die to save > others. From the gene's viewpoint it is, if they are relatives and > the number you save in dying times the relatedness is more than > one. This makes the case that brain mechanisms built by genes will, > under particular circumstances, induce people to think and act > irrationally. > Now consider how much it increases the fitnes of that charismatic individual capable to rallying the troops for his own gain or the increase of fitness of a group that shares a mutually beneficial moral code (Christianity)... Kind regards, Stefan -- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Sun Dec 16 11:24:56 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:24:56 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? Message-ID: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> Can someone tell me why Americans refer to christmas as the 'holiday season'? The first time i met this it confused me, and i wondered if i'd somehow lost 6 months. The season in which people take their holidays is usually summer. Xmas is the time you stay at home and get stressed (unless you abdicate from the whole thing, which can be difficult to do, but is worth it). So do most Americans take their holidays around xmas instead of the summer, or what? Otherwise it seems daft. I mean, what do they call the time of year when they actually go on holiday? (or is there no particular favoured time of year for this in America?). Can somebody clear this up for me? Everytime i hear the phrase, i keep thinking "No, it's not! it's xmas!", because to me, the 'holiday season' is July-August. ben zed From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Dec 16 12:29:16 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:29:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? In-Reply-To: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> References: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> Message-ID: <012301c83fdf$46f509e0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> In America a holiday means more a special event day like Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving where you get a day off from work and family joins together to celebrate. The time you plan to use the majority of your time off to go where you want to go or just relax is thought of as your vacation. Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukah, and New Years are about a month apart and both give at least a day off from work and are usually spent with family. Christmas and Hanukah require gifting, decorations and preparation and they can be very stressful for some people with a lot of suicides occurring in this period due to loneliness failed expectations and the money pressures that the holidays bring. The onset of winter and less daytime sunlight also lead to decreased serotonin levels and more frequent depression. As a whole though most people enjoy the holiday season as it's called and many in the northern states take the longer school break that the children have as an opportunity to travel to and vacation in a warmer climate to get a break from the colder winter weather. Americans seldom say they are going to go on holiday. They always say they are going on vacation when they travel. Gary -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ben Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 6:25 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? Can someone tell me why Americans refer to christmas as the 'holiday season'? The first time i met this it confused me, and i wondered if i'd somehow lost 6 months. The season in which people take their holidays is usually summer. Xmas is the time you stay at home and get stressed (unless you abdicate from the whole thing, which can be difficult to do, but is worth it). So do most Americans take their holidays around xmas instead of the summer, or what? Otherwise it seems daft. I mean, what do they call the time of year when they actually go on holiday? (or is there no particular favoured time of year for this in America?). Can somebody clear this up for me? Everytime i hear the phrase, i keep thinking "No, it's not! it's xmas!", because to me, the 'holiday season' is July-August. ben zed _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Dec 16 12:45:34 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:45:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Spike said: >>I also eventually realized independently, latency will be always be a limiting factor in parallel computing. Will the advancement of Quantum computing and a Quantum entangled value being able to be set at one point and cause the other Quantum entangled value someplace else to match state eliminate the latency limitation. It seems that Quantum computing development is advancing much quicker due to cryptographic applications than computronium. Gary From nymphomation at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 12:49:10 2007 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (Nymph0) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:49:10 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? In-Reply-To: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> References: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> Message-ID: <7e1e56ce0712160449i6df47b66v940a1f123dd56680@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/2007, ben wrote: > Can someone tell me why Americans refer to christmas as the 'holiday > season'? Maybe because the word holiday originally meant meant 'holy day'? Christian activists co-oped earlier midwinter festivals which were literally holy days to the jews, pagans and others of the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday Heavy splashings, Thee Nymphomation www.solcrux.com From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 16 13:08:30 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:08:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <20071216130829.GO10128@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 07:45:34AM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > Will the advancement of Quantum computing and a Quantum entangled value > being able to be set at one point and cause the other Quantum entangled > value someplace else to match state eliminate the latency limitation. It doesn't. You still need a relativistic channel to tell the change in entangled pair state from noise. > It seems that Quantum computing development is advancing much quicker due to > cryptographic applications than computronium. Again, it doesn't. Read http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/ especially the archives to understand why not. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 citta437 at aol.com Sun Dec 16 13:20:12 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:20:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme/Selfish Gene Message-ID: <8CA0DFD85FE6606-2C4-14E6@webmail-md04.sysops.aol.com> Seien: "It sounds pretty damn important to me. It means the difference between making a bad decision and a good one. I can only presume by your eschewing of morality, and the notion that morality might be important, that you don' want it." _____________ What's to want? We are all energy in different forms such as thoughts/memes, feelings/emotions and consciousness. Who was it who said that humans feel significant not knowing they are mere specks of dust in the whole scheme of things/kinetic energy always in motion or something to that effect. The sense of self preservation is neither moral nor immoral. Its just energy's vibe in microscale expanding to macroscale proportions as ignorance of ignorance for lack of a better term. What I don't want are the effects of ignorance, feelings of aversion or attachments to theories of realities with no direct connection to reality. My point is how can the mind get directly connected to reality? In dementia, a degenerating disease of the brain, consciousness diminish gradually which we see as an end to being alive. Philosophers rationalize the human condition time and time again not knowing we are time itself. How to realize we are energies involve in endless interactions? Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From citta437 at aol.com Sun Dec 16 14:13:55 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:13:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] First there's extropy/singularity then entropy Message-ID: <8CA0E050753BECF-2C4-15D4@webmail-md04.sysops.aol.com> Kevin wrote:"I'm seeing a lot of talk of rationality and morality on these boards, but am I the only one here seeing an unaddressed normative framework involved here? For instance, aside from the apparent assumption that rationality and emotionalism are separate things, given the apparent claim that a well-balanced individual is the proper balance between these two allegedly separate things, who says what the balance is or even if there *is* a proper balance? At least, nature doesn't. I think when we make such claims we ought to make our normative framework, and our values, evident and not pretend they come from anywhere else other than our own judgments and evaluations. Perfection, too, isn't a property in nature but a human judgment." ___________ Hi, a couple or more posters here have addressed this entropic meme of morality within 2 or 3 days ago. Nature of which we are a part is a process of equilibrium. Extropy and entropy memes are energies in constant motion. The mind sees duality where there is none. I'd like to see AI growing in all directions and as fast as the speed of light if not faster before we run out of time. I'm not kidding, Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 15:57:25 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:57:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 15, 2007 11:45 PM, Kevin H wrote: > On 12/13/07, Stefan Pernar wrote: > > > > Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable over non > > existence > > > > Preferable according to whom? > Good question. And in what circumstances? I think counter-examples abound in most actual ethical systems. I think in 2007 we should stop the quest for the philosopher stone of a single postulate, or a small set thereof, that be more or less self-evident and shared by anybody, on which all the ethical and political constructions could be construed "geometically"; and accept instead that value choices are fundamentally primordial, so that what remains for the rational thought is to unveil their genealogy and internal consistency and practical consequences, to allow for a better informed choice. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Dec 16 16:12:21 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:12:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071216161223.UIN2633.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> >On 12/13/07, Stefan Pernar ><stefan.pernar at gmail.com> wrote: >Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable over >non existence > > >Preferable according to whom? Better to support human rights. The right for existence and the right for non existence. Individual choice is necessary for diversity amongst humans which holds compassion for all beliefs in all cultures throughout the world. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 16 16:18:50 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:18:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <200712161645.lBGGjU3L016308@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gary Miller > Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation > > Spike said: > > >>I also eventually realized independently, latency will be always be a > limiting factor in parallel computing. > > > Will the advancement of Quantum computing and a Quantum entangled value > being able to be set ... > ...It seems that Quantum computing development is advancing much quicker ... > Gary Hi Gary, I don't know enough about quantum computing to offer a strong proof, but my contention is that regardless of what advances there are in quantum computing and super low energy use computing, latency will always be a factor. We can suppose it is roughly analogous to why your local library is more useful to you than the Library of Congress in Washington, even after the advent of the internet. This notion is the driving logic behind S-brains. That design sacrifices total energy throughput (of the M-Brain) in favor of reduced latency. The notion that latency is a final limiting factor would also explain why the universe is paradoxically quiet: an S-brain doesn't value as highly information from another S-brain that is say ten years away, in comparison to the information from another S-brain that is one minute away. So my notion is that multiple S-Brains in a single star system would interact but would not put a lot of effort into sending signals our way. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Dec 16 16:59:34 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:59:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? Message-ID: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> If you were to design an environment which includes NBIC advances as they affect posthumanism, transhumanism, cyborgs, transhumans, posthumans, as contingent and overlapping spheres, what would it look like? Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 17:13:59 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:13:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <200712161113.59870.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 16 December 2007, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > If you were to design an environment which includes NBIC advances as > they affect posthumanism, transhumanism, cyborgs, transhumans, > posthumans, as contingent and overlapping spheres, what would it look > like? My first guess would be that it would look like today's cybernetic environment, except with many more nodes, twists and turns and many more energetic structures, all contributing in an ecological entropy maximization process via the creation of more information and more data structures, tools to process data and subjective intrepretations of the values. If the singularity is a complex system, then it would be recursively revising itself and exploring near and far possibility space. Is this what you are looking for? - Bryan From x at extropica.org Sun Dec 16 17:14:53 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:14:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > I think in 2007 we should stop the quest for the philosopher stone of a > single postulate, or a small set thereof, that be more or less self-evident > and shared by anybody, on which all the ethical and political constructions > could be construed "geometically"; and accept instead that value choices are > fundamentally primordial, so that what remains for the rational thought is > to unveil their genealogy and internal consistency and practical > consequences, to allow for a better informed choice. An excellent statement, but requiring a critical refinement. It is crucial that we recognize the fundamental intractability of predicting the extended consequences of our actions within a complex environment. Therefore, a more coherent meta-morality refers not to "practical consequences", but instead to increasingly understood **principles** of effective interaction (between agent and other ("other" being the agent's environment, including other agents)) tending to promote, with increasing efficacy, any particular values complex. With this refinement, we have a rough description of an evolving system of morality avoiding the inherent paradoxes of utilitarianism. Paradox is always a case of insufficient context. In the bigger picture, all the pieces must fit. In more concrete visual terms, a pragmatic model of morality is like recognition of a great tree, rooted in the physics of our world. From any and all of the diverse points out on the branches, subjective agents can look back toward the trunk and find increasingly convergent principles in common, supporting the growth of increasingly divergent individual expression. It is a tree of increasing probability, supporting growth of branches of increasing possibility. Like the thermodynamic "arrow of time" (also entailing a subjective POV), we can model an Arrow of Morality where we can never be certain of our destination, but we can be increasingly certain of our intended direction. From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 16 17:42:26 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:42:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] disappearing car door In-Reply-To: <20071214095845.GM10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712161742.lBGHgLXp029751@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [ExI] disappearing car door > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 04:36:53AM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > > My biggest concern would be what happens if your battery goes dead or is > > shorted out suddenly. > > My biggest concern would be side impacts... Eugen* Leitl I did the math and some measurements on my car. The best design I can imagine for a disappearing car door requires at least one horizontal hinge in the door, so that it works a little like a roll-up garage door that goes down instead of up. A two horizontal hinge design allows the door to roll down with less side clearance. Even then, the glass hasta be separate from the door, so that it either rolls up into the roof or swings outward from a hinge at the top. Unless I am overlooking something fundamental, the idea also requires a front wheel drive car, preferably one with large ground clearance. Otherwise the drive shaft goes where the bottom of the door needs to go. With those design compromises, I don't expect to see any disappearing door cars in our lifetimes. {8-[ spike From x at extropica.org Sun Dec 16 17:23:46 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:23:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: On 12/16/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > If you were to design an environment which includes NBIC advances as they > affect posthumanism, transhumanism, cyborgs, transhumans, posthumans, as > contingent and overlapping spheres, what would it look like? Natasha, do you really want a description of an environment that: "includes NBIC advances" as if we could actually imagine with significant certainty any such complex future scenario, or, "supports NBIC advances" in the roughly here and now? From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sun Dec 16 17:29:14 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:29:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? In-Reply-To: <7e1e56ce0712160449i6df47b66v940a1f123dd56680@mail.gmail.com> References: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> <7e1e56ce0712160449i6df47b66v940a1f123dd56680@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4765606A.10500@kevinfreels.com> It's simply a large grouping of multiple holidays in a fairly short period of time. You have the winter solstice holidays such as christmas, hanukkah, (partial list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winter_festivals#Muslim )and then the various pre-christian traditions that were christianized such as yule. Then you add the new years holiday following only a week behind and you have a perfect recipe for using the word "Holiday" in its plural form. In the US, the other major holidays all fall within their own month. Nymph0 wrote: > On 16/12/2007, ben wrote: > >> Can someone tell me why Americans refer to christmas as the 'holiday >> season'? >> > > Maybe because the word holiday originally meant meant 'holy day'? > Christian activists co-oped earlier midwinter festivals which were > literally holy days to the jews, pagans and others of the time. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday > > Heavy splashings, > Thee Nymphomation > > www.solcrux.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sun Dec 16 17:31:51 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:31:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? In-Reply-To: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> References: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> Message-ID: <47656107.8090400@kevinfreels.com> One other note. In the US the word "holiday" usually describes a commemorative event or person such as Independence day, mother's day, labor day, etc. When we take a week or two off of work to relax, it's referred to as a vacation. ben wrote: > Can someone tell me why Americans refer to christmas as the 'holiday > season'? > > The first time i met this it confused me, and i wondered if i'd somehow > lost 6 months. The season in which people take their holidays is usually > summer. Xmas is the time you stay at home and get stressed (unless you > abdicate from the whole thing, which can be difficult to do, but is > worth it). > > So do most Americans take their holidays around xmas instead of the > summer, or what? > > Otherwise it seems daft. I mean, what do they call the time of year when > they actually go on holiday? (or is there no particular favoured time of > year for this in America?). > > Can somebody clear this up for me? Everytime i hear the phrase, i keep > thinking "No, it's not! it's xmas!", because to me, the 'holiday season' > is July-August. > > ben zed > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From citta437 at aol.com Sun Dec 16 18:39:02 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:39:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Perfection a Stasis? Message-ID: <8CA0E2A1068AFCC-288-70A@webmail-dd18.sysops.aol.com> ">Bryan asked: What is a perfect human being? There could be no such thing. And this is a good thing. Striving, problem-solving and creating -- is crucial for evolution and perfection is a state of stasis that defies all rationale. With meaningful imperfections, Natasha ______________ Imho, both views of perfection and stasis have no foundation in reality. The mind is a closed box chained in ignorance like those mythical characters imprisoned in a dark cave watching their shadows dancing in the wall. They believed what they see and dared not leave for fear of facing reality symbolized by a bright light outside the door. The mind invents/constructs memes to give meaning to life. To directly experience reality, move on without attachments to memes/thoughts imho. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 16 18:47:27 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:47:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elo system for two-player game rankings In-Reply-To: <200712161645.lBGGjU3L016308@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712161847.lBGIlM0G024973@andromeda.ziaspace.com> A couple years ago Anders asked about rating systems that might be applicable to a web based simulation game he was designing. Chess players use the Elo system, which is described in detail, along with the equations for calculation here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4326 This system can be used for any two player game. I am working on a macro that would calculate Elos for boxers. [Am I the only one here who sees the interesting strategy in boxing? It isn't merely two enormous galoots pounding each other senseless to the point of drain brammage. That is merely a curiously entertaining side-effect.] Using the equations given in the article, one can take a subset of the players' records and still come up with a reasonably accurate estimate of their Elo over time. This can be proven thus: take the performances of the top rated chess players and look at just one annual tournament in which they met. Using this subset of data, one can use the Elo equations and calculate a ratings, then compare with actual ratings based on the full dataset. The rating system in dependent on time. If I had defeated Kasparov when he was an eight year old expert, for instance, its meaning to my rating is far different from if I defeated him now. (I see that Putin has defeated Kasparov: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/13/kasparov.election.ap/index.html ) One can take the professional records of one's favorite couple dozen boxers (which are readily available online, along with who managed to inflict their few defeats and the dates thereon) then use this data to create a three dimensional hash table. Any time-slice of the three dimensional data structure resembles a chess tournament hash table. Most of the hash table is empty at any time slice, but my claim is that I can derive a reasonable estimate of any boxer's Elo at any arbitrary date. This isn't ready for prime time, but I invite others to attempt to create such a system with your favorite game. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 16 18:48:51 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:48:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? In-Reply-To: <47656107.8090400@kevinfreels.com> References: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> <47656107.8090400@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071216124646.0228d160@satx.rr.com> ben wrote: > > Can someone tell me why Americans refer to christmas as the 'holiday > > season'? Well, let's see, could it be because these days are (duh) heavy-duty "holy days" for several key religions? Damien Broderick From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 16 18:56:48 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:56:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? References: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> <47656107.8090400@kevinfreels.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071216124646.0228d160@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003901c84015$6a2a3120$1b893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:48 PM Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com wrote: > ben wrote: > > > Can someone tell me why Americans refer to christmas as the 'holiday > > > season'? > > Well, let's see, could it be because these days are (duh) heavy-duty > "holy days" for several key religions? You're forgetting the secular "holiday" of New Years and the national holiday of Thanksgiving. Of course, the latter has a religious tinge. I also think in America today, despite the religious revivalism, most people think of "holiday" as a day off work. I don't see many of my neighbors whipping themselves or going to church everytime there's a holiday. :) Regards, Dan From stefan.pernar at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 20:06:58 2007 From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:06:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <944947f20712161206i39094f01gbab7bfa1da50a4a0@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 16, 2007 4:57 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Dec 15, 2007 11:45 PM, Kevin H wrote: > > > On 12/13/07, Stefan Pernar wrote: > > > > > > Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable over > > > non existence > > > > > > > Preferable according to whom? > > > According to the individual. For an in depth intuitive explanation please see here: http://rationalmorality.info/wiki/index.php?title=The_Moebius_Effect_%28book%29_understanding_choices I think in 2007 we should stop the quest for the philosopher stone of a > single postulate, or a small set thereof, that be more or less self-evident > and shared by anybody, on which all the ethical and political constructions > could be construed "geometically"; and accept instead that value choices are > fundamentally primordial, so that what remains for the rational thought is > to unveil their genealogy and internal consistency and practical > consequences, to allow for a better informed choice. > Hmm - I believe that such a quest can and will lead to a usable framework of morality. My next book is concerning itself with such a framework based on my paper on rational morality. Kind regards, Stefan -- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Sun Dec 16 20:07:16 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:07:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47658574.8000201@lineone.net> "spike" said: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ben ... > > > > Fridges are a bit like life. They seem to reverse entropy, but really > > they just redistribute it. Globally you get more of it, but locally, you > > get ice cream. > > > > ben zed > > Ben, may I add this to my public domain collection of wise and cool > sayings > from ExI-chat? > spike Woo-Hoo! I get to be the author of a 'wise and cool' saying! :-D Of course you can use it. I'm honoured. ben zed From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Dec 16 20:27:38 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:27:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: References: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <20071216202740.JOKX2677.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 11:23 AM 12/16/2007, you wrote: >On 12/16/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > If you were to design an environment which includes NBIC advances as they > > affect posthumanism, transhumanism, cyborgs, transhumans, posthumans, as > > contingent and overlapping spheres, what would it look like? > >Natasha, do you really want a description of an environment that: > >"includes NBIC advances" as if we could actually imagine with >significant certainty any such complex future scenario, Well it is past, present and future. If you have an environment (use a circle) and that environment is the "corpus" of "ideas" within which Human 2.0, Human 3.0, etc. are spawned and that environment contains all of transhumanism. The environment has overlapping characteristics of humanism (another circle when is part in and part out of the corpus of ideas), and another overlapping circle which is the environment of scientific ideas which are spawned or interconnect within this corpus of ideas (this circle when is part in and part out of the corpus of ideas), and another overlapping circle of science fiction which are spawned or interconnect within this corpus of ideas (another circle when is part in and part out of the corpus of ideas). What is this corpus of ideas called? It is not transhumanism, as transhumanism is one environment within it. You could call it posthumanism, but posthumanism, as described and defined by various folks, is not accurate and lacks vision and imagination, not to mention a bibliography of literature pertaining to biotechnology, nanotechnology, etc. In other words, if the singularity were a discontinuity of a series of reinforcing and balancing loops, what would that environment (corpus of ideas) be? (Sure it could be Extropy, but maybe not.) Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Dec 16 20:29:23 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:29:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <200712161113.59870.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <200712161113.59870.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071216202925.VHZY16876.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 11:13 AM 12/16/2007, you wrote: >On Sunday 16 December 2007, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > If you were to design an environment which includes NBIC advances as > > they affect posthumanism, transhumanism, cyborgs, transhumans, > > posthumans, as contingent and overlapping spheres, what would it look > > like? > >My first guess would be that it would look like today's cybernetic >environment, except with many more nodes, twists and turns and many >more energetic structures, all contributing in an ecological entropy >maximization process via the creation of more information and more data >structures, tools to process data and subjective intrepretations of the >values. If the singularity is a complex system, then it would be >recursively revising itself and exploring near and far possibility >space. Is this what you are looking for? Could be. Please read my response to "x". And then let's revisit your question. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pjmanney at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 20:29:38 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:29:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? In-Reply-To: <003901c84015$6a2a3120$1b893cd1@pavilion> References: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> <47656107.8090400@kevinfreels.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071216124646.0228d160@satx.rr.com> <003901c84015$6a2a3120$1b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <29666bf30712161229n6e3ad69ev7edb18bc7ab11657@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 16, 2007 10:56 AM, Technotranscendence wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:48 PM Damien Broderick > thespike at satx.rr.com wrote: > > ben wrote: > > > > Can someone tell me why Americans refer to christmas as the > 'holiday > > > > season'? > > > > Well, let's see, could it be because these days are (duh) heavy-duty > > "holy days" for several key religions? > > You're forgetting the secular "holiday" of New Years and the national > holiday of Thanksgiving. Of course, the latter has a religious tinge. > > I also think in America today, despite the religious revivalism, most > people think of "holiday" as a day off work. I don't see many of my > neighbors whipping themselves or going to church everytime there's a > holiday. :) We Yanks didn't always celebrate Christmas. The Puritans outlawed Christmas in Britain, believing Christmas was a Roman Catholic conceit and our own Puritans fined and jailed those who celebrated any "popish" rituals or exhibited "the Christmas spirit." Even after the 1660 Restoration in Britain, the colonies still didn't do Christmas. It was a work day, like any other. The US didn't get into Christmas as a holiday until the non-UK European immigrants brought their traditions, especially the German immigrants (decorated pine trees, etc.). The Dutch immigrants before them had Sinter Klaas, the gift giver, a derivation of Saint Nicholas. But the Dutch were almost completely located in the colony of New York (previously New Amsterdam) and were a minority (although a powerful, rich and culturally influential one) soon after the British claimed it for themselves. In 1809, the writer Washington Irving, a New Yorker of British and Dutch descent and America's first celebrity fiction author, made up a mishmash of Dutch, English and German traditions and wrote about them as true, nostalgic traditions in stories. They captured American's imaginations. Clearly, some people were having wholesome fun when the weather turned cold and many Americans didn't want to be left out! It was the Southern states in the 1830's that first embraced Christmas as a legal holiday. But the South had always celebrated Christmas more than the North, because the North had a greater Puritan influence. But by the mid-19th C., the traditions had gotten a firm hold throughout the country. My favorite historical Xmas story is how the image of Santa Claus, who supposedly was a symbol of a predominantly Southern holiday, is depicted instead with the Northern Army as a bizarrely effective piece of psychological warfare. In 1863, Abraham Lincoln asked the German born illustrator Thomas Nast, the first illustrator to capture what we think of as Santa Claus, to create it. Lincoln called the politicized Santa "the best recruiting sergeant the North ever had" (Shades of the present Jesus-is-my-asskicking-warrior US military ethos...) http://oha.alexandriava.gov/fortward/special-sections/christmas/images/fw-christmas-1862-sepia.gif Lincoln also called Nast, the country's first real political cartoonist, the best recruiting sargeant as well. BTW, it was Nast who depicted Santa's home at the North Pole "so no nation can claim him as their own" in the 1890 edition of Thomas Nast's "Christmas Drawings for the Human Race". How wonderfully un-American. PJ From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 16 20:37:29 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:37:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Second Law of Thermodynamics In-Reply-To: <47658574.8000201@lineone.net> Message-ID: <200712162037.lBGKbOwu025943@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ben > > ... > > > > > > > Fridges are a bit like life. They seem to reverse entropy, but really > > > they just redistribute it. Globally you get more of it, but locally, > you > > > get ice cream. > > > > > > ben zed > > > > > Ben, may I add this to my public domain collection of wise and cool > > sayings > > from ExI-chat? > > > spike > > > Woo-Hoo! > > I get to be the author of a 'wise and cool' saying! :-D > > Of course you can use it. I'm honoured. > > ben zed Ben, likewise with the term woo-hoo, I would donate it to the public domain, but I was not the originator. It was said best by Homer Simpson, and first by Tigger. Your comment is a good one to offer anyone puzzled by the creationists saying that life violates the second law of thermodynamics by decreasing entropy. It really doesn't. The earth-sun system is still increasing overall entropy, even while a group of S-Brains are forming. spike From benboc at lineone.net Sun Dec 16 20:37:59 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:37:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47658CA7.2000104@lineone.net> "Gary Miller" wrote: > In America a holiday means more a special event day like Christmas, Easter, > Thanksgiving where you get a day off from work and family joins together to celebrate. > The time you plan to use the majority of your time off to go where you want to go or just relax is thought of as your vacation. Aha, Thanks, Gary! That makes sense now. I knew that Americans use "Vacation" where Europeans say "Holiday", but i hadn't considered that Americans do use "Holiday" to mean a different thing. ben zed From benboc at lineone.net Sun Dec 16 20:33:06 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:33:06 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme vs.Rationality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47658B82.7030404@lineone.net> "Stefan Pernar" wrote: > > You aren't going to get people to take your ideas seriously while you make > > howlers like: "Evolution is the gradual accumulation of complexity". > > > > Seeing that right at the beginning greatly discouraged me from bothering > > to read the rest. > > Hi Ben, not sure how to interprete your critique. I am probably wrong to assume that you reject evolution in favor of intelligent design. Can you elaborate in a bit more depth please? With that senetnce I wanted to emphazise the gradual nature of evolution: > "Complexity cannot spring up in a single stroke-of chance: that would be like hitting upon the combination number that opens a bank vault. But a whole series of tiny chance steps, if non-randomly selected, can build up almost limitless complexity of adaptation. Stefan: No argument about the gradual nature of Evolution (and no, i'm not a creationist :-D ). What i was objecting to was the concept (which i think is a common misconception) that evolution is about the building up of complexity. Just think of parasitic worms, to take one example. Evolution has simplified them, not complexified them. The reason i called the statement "Evolution is the gradual accumulation of complexity" a howler, is that it seems to betray a misunderstanding of evolution. It's not _about_ 'building up complexity'. That does happen, but it doesn't have to. Different environments lead to different evolved characteristics. I doubt that you can explain viruses with a conception of evolution that only increases complexity and never reduces it. ben zed From scerir at libero.it Sun Dec 16 20:33:24 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:33:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com><200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> From: "Gary Miller" > Will the advancement of Quantum computing and a Quantum entangled value > being able to be set at one point and cause the other Quantum entangled > value someplace else to match state eliminate the latency limitation. Not sure I know what a 'latency limitation' is, but there are dreams about a possible instantaneous quantum computation, using teleportation http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109022 or other 'tenseless' tricks http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182 From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 21:34:26 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:34:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: <944947f20712161206i39094f01gbab7bfa1da50a4a0@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> <944947f20712161206i39094f01gbab7bfa1da50a4a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712161334k1a31aa04pec489949bfb98819@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 16, 2007 9:06 PM, Stefan Pernar wrote: > Hmm - I believe that such a quest can and will lead to a usable framework of > morality. My next book is concerning itself with such a framework based on > my paper on rational morality. Why, you might be interested, if you have at least a passive command of Italian, in a book I have already written trying to demonstrate exactly the opposite, that you can find in a full-text, heavily linked version, at http://www.dirittidelluomo.com. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 16 21:45:02 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:45:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071216154344.02316dc8@satx.rr.com> At 09:33 PM 12/16/2007 +0100, Serafino wrote: >other 'tenseless' tricks >http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182 This is very enticing: From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Dec 16 22:14:39 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:14:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com><200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com><012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> The latency limitation is the speed of light limitation of how long it takes information to move between each node in a network of processing units which makes up the theorized mbrain, jbrain, orbiting processor clusters. If the nodes are to function as a large distributed computer then the latency would form a processing bottleneck. If quantum entanglement could allow information to pass instantaneously without regard to light speed between nodes then there would be zero latency and latency would cease to be a bottleneck. As long as two nodes could shared a sufficient mass of entangled photons the hope would be that they would serve as a instantaneous communication channel. I have found papers attempting to disprove and prove the possibility and the equations are beyond the level of effort necessary for me to be sufficiently motivated to understand them. If it is possible though, I do not see it as a violation of the speed of light since the information is not traveling between the two particles. The particles being entangled are like the same particle appearing at two points in space simultaneously. If the information is moving between particles it is not moving through our space but taking a direct route through an alternate dimension. Gary Not sure I know what a 'latency limitation' is, but there are dreams about a possible instantaneous quantum computation, using teleportation http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109022 or other 'tenseless' tricks http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 22:29:43 2007 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:29:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: <944947f20712161206i39094f01gbab7bfa1da50a4a0@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> <944947f20712161206i39094f01gbab7bfa1da50a4a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 16, 2007 2:06 PM, Stefan Pernar wrote: > On Dec 16, 2007 4:57 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 2007 11:45 PM, Kevin H wrote: > > > > > On 12/13/07, Stefan Pernar wrote: > > > > > > > > Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable over > > > > non existence > > > > > > > > > > Preferable according to whom? > > > > > > According to the individual. For an in depth intuitive explanation please > see here: > > > http://rationalmorality.info/wiki/index.php?title=The_Moebius_Effect_%28book%29_understanding_choices > Well, I'll just tell you my view. It is only concrete human beings, like you and me, who make evaluations. So given that many people disagree on the worth of existence, I'd suggest that your premise is flawed. I've taken a cursory look at your paper and, like most ethical systems that I've seen proposed, the first thing I look at is how you move from natural statements to normative ones; that is, how do you bridge the gap between facts to value? To myself, I think the naturalistic fallacy is a basic logical error, one that I don't see addressed in your paper. And if you want to engage in this kind of ethical speculation you should be incredibly clear on how you derive values from facts and where you do so. Most ethical systems I've seen have been very obscure on this point, thus hiding their underlying invalidity even to their author. *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Dec 17 00:14:42 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:14:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? References: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> <47656107.8090400@kevinfreels.com><7.0.1.0.2.20071216124646.0228d160@satx.rr.com><003901c84015$6a2a3120$1b893cd1@pavilion> <29666bf30712161229n6e3ad69ev7edb18bc7ab11657@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002f01c84041$d2819a20$6601a8c0@brainiac> From: "PJ Manney" Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:29 PM > It was the Southern states in the 1830's that first embraced Christmas > as a legal holiday. But the South had always celebrated Christmas > more than the North, because the North had a greater Puritan > influence. But by the mid-19th C., the traditions had gotten a firm > hold throughout the country. Yes ... Christmas became a legal holiday in most states at this time as it was thought the time off would be a morale booster for soldiers fighting the Civil War. Olga From robotact at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 01:06:27 2007 From: robotact at gmail.com (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:06:27 +0300 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: On Dec 17, 2007 1:14 AM, Gary Miller wrote: > The latency limitation is the speed of light limitation of how long it takes > information to move between each node in a network of processing units which > makes up the theorized mbrain, jbrain, orbiting processor clusters. If the > nodes are to function as a large distributed computer then the latency would > form a processing bottleneck. > > If quantum entanglement could allow information to pass instantaneously > without regard to light speed between nodes then there would be zero latency > and latency would cease to be a bottleneck. As long as two nodes could > shared a sufficient mass of entangled photons the hope would be that they > would serve as a instantaneous communication channel. > > I have found papers attempting to disprove and prove the possibility and the > equations are beyond the level of effort necessary for me to be sufficiently > motivated to understand them. If it is possible though, I do not see it as > a violation of the speed of light since the information is not traveling > between the two particles. The particles being entangled are like the same > particle appearing at two points in space simultaneously. If the information > is moving between particles it is not moving through our space but taking a > direct route through an alternate dimension. > Aren't entangled particles just 'synchronized' for all purposes? They are guaranteed to show the same result, but result is random, you can't transfer information between observers by observation itself. How can it be used better than normal bit obtained from randomizer, copied, copies moved to different places, and then independently 'observed'? -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:robotact at gmail.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 01:50:09 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:20:09 +1030 Subject: [ExI] elo system for two-player game rankings In-Reply-To: <200712161847.lBGIlM0G024973@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712161645.lBGGjU3L016308@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712161847.lBGIlM0G024973@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0712161750xc487c3eq1e398b0ed2f7af49@mail.gmail.com> On 17/12/2007, spike wrote: > > > A couple years ago Anders asked about rating systems that might be > applicable to a web based simulation game he was designing. Chess players > use the Elo system, which is described in detail, along with the equations > for calculation here: > > http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4326 One of my favourite online games uses Elo, apparently, for the ongoing scoring of players: http://www.casualcollective.com/ There are a few games here, but the one that stands way out front is Multiplayer Desktop Tower Defense. If you haven't played it, you really should, it's an excellent brain workout. Warning: highly addictive. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Dec 17 02:58:23 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:58:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com><200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com><012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2><001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede><017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <018701c84058$b436a940$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Vladimir asked: >>Aren't entangled particles just 'synchronized' for all purposes? They are guaranteed to show the same result, but result is random, you can't transfer information between observers by observation itself. How can it be used better than normal bit obtained from randomizer, copied, copies moved to different places, and then independently 'observed'? >> I thought the point was that if you changed the state of one entangled particle the state of it's entangled twin would change as well even though they were seperated by great distances. And that the idea was that by establishing a binary threshold for 0 and 1 you would attempt to write a binary sequence to particle set 1 and the message would show up in the entangled particle set 2. But I admit the references which say this is impossible still seem to outnumber the ones which claim it is possible by about five to one. But on the other hand the papers which claim superluminal data transfer is possible are more recent. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:I9_orAI0CXQJ:wildcard.ph.utexas.edu/~su darshan/pub/1970_008.pdf+faster+than+light+data&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=49&gl=us http://casimirinstitute.net/coherence/Jensen.pdf http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/oleinik_on_the_possibility.pdf http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-7243.html From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 17 03:00:48 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:00:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Pride in Humanity? In-Reply-To: <8CA0BE4493DDA14-18C-1C14@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0BE4493DDA14-18C-1C14@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:14 PM, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > Pride in humanity is similar to god worship. Humans kill each other > out > of greed and ignorance and proud of it. What other specie is spared of > pride and irrationality/ignorance? Do you believe humanity has nought to be proud of? We do a bit more than practice greed and ignorance after all. If we have nothing at all to be proud of then I doubt we will work very hard for the preservation and advancement of our species. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 17 03:31:18 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:31:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The quest, a conscilience: re: Mechanical Mind In-Reply-To: <8CA0D3EF074C762-A3C-25C4@WEBMAIL-MB10.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0D3EF074C762-A3C-25C4@WEBMAIL-MB10.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1E65DFF6-1A3D-457F-8477-B5CC8E9D0912@mac.com> On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:35 AM, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > The philosophical question is why is it that the brain is genetically > wired for self-preservation? Hmm. You are asking why there is survival value in acting and wanting to act to survive? > - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 17 03:33:54 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:33:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200711291843.50390.kanzure@gmail.com> <1196391711_872@S3.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Thursday 29 November 2007, hkhenson wrote: >> To scope the problem, the area of the brain surface is about quarter >> of a square meter, the cortical columns are spaced about 0.03 mm in a >> hexagonal array. Figure about a thousand of them to the sq mm. There >> are a million sq mm to a sq m. So if you had 250 H+ programmers, each >> of them would have to be managing a million cortical column >> simulations. How complex is a simulation of a single cortical column? Sorry if I missed that critical bit of information. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 17 03:50:14 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:50:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <20071215174503.GO10128@leitl.org> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> <20071215170614.GN10128@leitl.org> <200712151117.17544.kanzure@gmail.com> <20071215174503.GO10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:17:17AM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > >> And what if we build our own fiber optics to connect the nodes >> together? > > I thought you were talking linking up volunteer's machines via > residential broadband. If it's a local cluster, e.g. Myrinet will > set you back some 1 k$/node. That leaves you with 2 k$/node, > or 2 MBuck/1 kNode. Don't forget that you'd need 200 k$/year > for juice, minus air conditioning and admining (allow for > 1 MBuck/year operational costs otherwise). Perhaps we could start by getting one of the existing compute farms with a lot of spare bandwidth interested. > > >> I wonder why I said we need self-rep, all we need is the ability to >> make >> the factories and then let them churn out the cpu nodes. Might take a > > We already have those -- they're called silicon foundries, and > take multiple gigabucks to build and run. They already exist and turn out a lot of product. How much product are we talking about? How far out of normal custom chip design and fabrication parameters? > > >> while for them to make enough nodes, operating at peak efficiency, >> but >> at least we'd be on track. > > Let's wait for desktop fabs, which will allow you to generate > dedicated hardware for neural emulation while being affordable > (0.1-1 M$). Maybe in another 25-30 years. > Most of us don't have that long. - samantha From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 03:53:35 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:53:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712162153.35546.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 16 December 2007, Samantha Atkins wrote: > How complex is a simulation of a single cortical column? ?Sorry if I > ? missed that critical bit of information. For a mouse, that's 100k neurons and 30 million synapses. - Bryan From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 04:03:45 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:03:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <20071215174503.GO10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712162203.45625.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 16 December 2007, Samantha Atkins wrote: > They already exist and turn out a lot of product. ?How much product ? > are we talking about? ?How far out of normal custom chip design and ? > fabrication parameters? Eugen says 250 million cpu nodes. And they wouldn't be too far off current chip designs at all. At the production rate of 100 nodes per hour, it'd take 280 years to get enough nodes. And by that time ... - Bryan From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 17 04:01:53 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:01:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <4FFAD648-BE42-496D-8B31-FA2904AE951F@mac.com> On Dec 16, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > If you were to design an environment which includes NBIC advances as > they affect posthumanism, transhumanism, cyborgs, transhumans, > posthumans, as contingent and overlapping spheres, what would it > look like? > I think I need a bit of translation of the question to begin to answer it. Since I presume NBIC advances are essential to arriving at actual transhumans and posthumans I don't see how "affect" is quite the right word since these states require NBIC advances. Or am I missing something? Clearly such states are contingent on some such advances but what is this about designing an environment which includes such advances? Are you asking for what such a society/ economy/gestalt may be like? And which things are you asking be considered as "spheres", overlapping or otherwise? And lastly what do you mean and not mean by "look" like? - samantha From stefan.pernar at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 05:25:45 2007 From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:25:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme vs.Rationality In-Reply-To: <47658B82.7030404@lineone.net> References: <47658B82.7030404@lineone.net> Message-ID: <944947f20712162125q124da69fk31b45882d57437f@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 16, 2007 9:33 PM, ben wrote: > "Stefan Pernar" wrote: > > > > > You aren't going to get people to take your ideas seriously while you > make > > > howlers like: "Evolution is the gradual accumulation of complexity". > > > > > > Seeing that right at the beginning greatly discouraged me from > bothering > > > to read the rest. > > > > Stefan: > No argument about the gradual nature of Evolution (and no, i'm not a > creationist :-D ). What i was objecting to was the concept (which i think > is a common misconception) that evolution is about the building up of > complexity. Just think of parasitic worms, to take one example. Evolution > has simplified them, not complexified them. > > The reason i called the statement "Evolution is the gradual accumulation > of complexity" a howler, is that it seems to betray a misunderstanding of > evolution. It's not _about_ 'building up complexity'. That does happen, but > it doesn't have to. Different environments lead to different evolved > characteristics. I doubt that you can explain viruses with a conception of > evolution that only increases complexity and never reduces it. > Good points and I agree fully. Let me think about how to reword that part. In my context I am of course more interested in the higher complexity organisms particularly in the area of cognition :-) -- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 17 05:41:38 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:41:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? In-Reply-To: <003901c84015$6a2a3120$1b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200712170541.lBH5fdCl006983@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence ... > You're forgetting the secular "holiday" of New Years and the national > holiday of Thanksgiving. Of course, the latter has a religious tinge. ... Dan So true Techno, and this has given me some food for thought. Thanksgiving is often observed by the nonreligious with feasting and football. These are two things I care little about, but I do recognize the value of giving thanks. Gratitude is a powerful emotion, one that drives happiness. It does in my own life. As Dan points out, the holiday called Thanksgiving in the states has a lotta religious overtones, but I want to free the concept of gratitude from religion. Religion Incorporated does not own gratitude. Religion does not own human decency, does not own honesty, caring, charity, any of the good stuff. Religion Incorporated can have the crusades, jihad, televangelists, pedophile priests, al qaeda, the dark ages, the taliban, etc, but we unbelievers want to take gratitude as our own. My extropian friends I do challenge you to practice a daily dose of gratitude. If we have religious people among us you may ignore this request, as you are perhaps already filled with gratitude to the deity of your choice, but for the rest of us, the atheists and agnostics, I challenge you to think every day of what you are thankful for, and who you are thankful for. It doesn't have to be a living person, but those are OK too, and even better if you know the person and just tell them you appreciate their having been born. I will start. I am thankful every day, every minute for the birth of my son. I am thankful for those who helped me get my thinking to where it is now, including but not restricted to: Bertrand Russell, Douglas Hofstadter, Steven Jay Gould, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Robert Pirsig, my many exi-chat friends including Anders, Amara, Damien, Max, J. Andrew, Gene, Keith, all of you who post smart and interesting stuff. I thank you all and the many more that I missed mentioning, and I thank evolution for waiting so long to produce me so I could find all these good folks on the internet. Be thankful! {8-] spike From stefan.pernar at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 06:02:31 2007 From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:02:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: <580930c20712161334k1a31aa04pec489949bfb98819@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> <944947f20712161206i39094f01gbab7bfa1da50a4a0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712161334k1a31aa04pec489949bfb98819@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <944947f20712162202ja5479c3wb885d7f156bac9d5@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 16, 2007 10:34 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Dec 16, 2007 9:06 PM, Stefan Pernar wrote: > > Hmm - I believe that such a quest can and will lead to a usable > framework of > > morality. My next book is concerning itself with such a framework based > on > > my paper on rational morality. > > Why, you might be interested, if you have at least a passive command of > Italian, in a book I have already written trying to demonstrate exactly the > opposite, that you can find in a full-text, heavily linked version, at > http://www.dirittidelluomo.com. > > Truly fascinating - thank you. Unfortunately my Italian is virtually non-existent. Do you happen to have a write up in English focusing on your key points? I will try bablefish and see what I can extract from that... -- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Dec 17 05:56:55 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:56:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms Message-ID: <007d01c84071$a195cb90$6601a8c0@brainiac> ... researchers are poised to cross a dramatic barrier: the creation of life forms driven by completely artificial DNA: http://tinyurl.com/2cbj2v washingtonpost.com Olga From scerir at libero.it Mon Dec 17 07:48:07 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:48:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com><200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com><012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2><001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <007c01c84081$2a21b4b0$e3941f97@archimede> From: "Gary Miller" > The latency limitation is the speed of light > limitation of how long it takes information > to move between each node in a network of > processing units which makes up the theorized > mbrain, jbrain, orbiting processor clusters. > If the nodes are to function as a large distributed > computer then the latency would > form a processing bottleneck. Ah, thanks. > If quantum entanglement could allow information > to pass instantaneously without regard to light > speed between nodes then there would be zero > latency and latency would cease to be a bottleneck. > As long as two nodes could shared a sufficient mass > of entangled photons the hope would be that they > would serve as a instantaneous communication channel. Quantum entanglement could allow instantaneous causation. Somebody said instantaneous uncontrollable information. But there is no general agreement about all that. > I have found papers attempting to disprove and prove > the possibility and the equations are beyond the level > of effort necessary for me to be sufficiently > motivated to understand them. If it is possible though, > I do not see it as a violation of the speed of light > since the information is not traveling between the two > particles. The particles being entangled are like the > same particle appearing at two points in space simultaneously. > If the information is moving between particles it is not > moving through our space but taking a > direct route through an alternate dimension. There is a zero interval path connecting the origin of the two entangled particles and events deciding on the settings of the detectors. Information is shared both forward and backward in time along light cones. See the 'mathpages', by Kevin Brown. In example see chapter 9 here http://www.mathpages.com/rr/rrtoc.htm and here http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath238.htm and, in general, also here http://www.mathpages.com/home/iphysics.htm More in general, about tachyons, luxons, tardions, vacuons, synchrons, see here http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/Generalized%20Wigner.pdf and here http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm For philosophical speculations see here http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503007 and here http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212078 From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 17 08:43:39 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:43:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:14:39PM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > The latency limitation is the speed of light limitation of how long it takes > information to move between each node in a network of processing units which Right you are. > makes up the theorized mbrain, jbrain, orbiting processor clusters. If the Not just theoretic computers. Very practical, today's cluster, especially geographically separated ones. > nodes are to function as a large distributed computer then the latency would > form a processing bottleneck. No conditionals about it. > If quantum entanglement could allow information to pass instantaneously But this is a very large if. This is equivalent to time travel, and violation of causality. > without regard to light speed between nodes then there would be zero latency > and latency would cease to be a bottleneck. As long as two nodes could > shared a sufficient mass of entangled photons the hope would be that they > would serve as a instantaneous communication channel. I'm not holding my breath for superluminal signalling. Time machines neither. > I have found papers attempting to disprove and prove the possibility and the > equations are beyond the level of effort necessary for me to be sufficiently Now if you would have found experimental results, things would be a lot more interesting. > motivated to understand them. If it is possible though, I do not see it as > a violation of the speed of light since the information is not traveling > between the two particles. The particles being entangled are like the same ?! > particle appearing at two points in space simultaneously. If the information > is moving between particles it is not moving through our space but taking a > direct route through an alternate dimension. We'll think of interpretations when we have observations violating Einstein's dictum (no superluminal information transfer). So far, there are none, zilch, zero. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 x at extropica.org Sun Dec 16 21:12:56 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:12:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <20071216202740.JOKX2677.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <20071216202740.JOKX2677.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: On 12/16/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > If you have an environment (use a circle) and that environment is the > "corpus" of "ideas" within which Human 2.0, Human 3.0, etc. are spawned and > that environment contains all of transhumanism. The environment has > overlapping characteristics of humanism (another circle when is part in and > part out of the corpus of ideas), and another overlapping circle which is > the environment of scientific ideas which are spawned or interconnect within > this corpus of ideas (this circle when is part in and part out of the corpus > of ideas), and another overlapping circle of science fiction which are > spawned or interconnect within this corpus of ideas (another circle when is > part in and part out of the corpus of ideas). > > What is this corpus of ideas called? So to paraphrase, it appears you're asking for a name representing a "meme-plex" comprising the various memetic domains supporting the advancement of NBIC technologies. I would refer to this as a wide arc of **extropic** thought. In more conventional terminology, I suppose it could be referred to as "technoprogressive", in the purer sense unencumbered with the connotations of left-wing politics, having quite successfully co-opted "progressive" for their own purposes. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 10:22:46 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:22:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The quest, a conscilience: re: Mechanical Mind In-Reply-To: <1E65DFF6-1A3D-457F-8477-B5CC8E9D0912@mac.com> References: <8CA0D3EF074C762-A3C-25C4@WEBMAIL-MB10.sysops.aol.com> <1E65DFF6-1A3D-457F-8477-B5CC8E9D0912@mac.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712170222o27924c91q8afafa509e4c4322@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 17, 2007 4:31 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:35 AM, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > > The philosophical question is why is it that the brain is genetically > > wired for self-preservation? > > Hmm. You are asking why there is survival value in acting and wanting > to act to survive? > Easy question. Because "survivalists" tend to perform better demographically (anti-survival memes, even though not genes, can occasionally spread faster than they adversely affect their bearers, but this does not disprove the general principle), and so they are by definition largely predominant in any vegetal or animal species, including our own. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 10:35:02 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:35:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: <944947f20712162202ja5479c3wb885d7f156bac9d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> <944947f20712161206i39094f01gbab7bfa1da50a4a0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712161334k1a31aa04pec489949bfb98819@mail.gmail.com> <944947f20712162202ja5479c3wb885d7f156bac9d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712170235s1841ba3ar505d8816e045d2e2@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 17, 2007 7:02 AM, Stefan Pernar wrote: Stefano Vaj: > Why, you might be interested, if you have at least a passive command of > > Italian, in a book I have already written trying to demonstrate exactly the > > opposite, that you can find in a full-text, heavily linked version, at > > http://www.dirittidelluomo.com. > > > > Truly fascinating - thank you. Unfortunately my Italian is virtually > non-existent. Do you happen to have a write up in English focusing on your > key points? > > Mmhhh. I am afraid not, but I think that some theoretical aspects are well raised by Posner in The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory, from a libertarian point of view, or by Slavoy Zizek in Against Human Rights, from a postmodernit, new-left point of view. Additional bibliography is available at the Web site of my book... Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Dec 17 11:05:57 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:05:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> References: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede><017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <01a501c8409c$ce200560$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Eugene said: >> We'll think of interpretations when we have observations violating Einstein's dictum (no superluminal information transfer). So far, there are none, zilch, zero. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography Wikipedia does say that in their article on Quantum Cryptography in the second protocol method they describe that the Keys are transmitted as quantum information. And that the receiver can deduce their key with above 50% probability (error rate 20% April 2007) from their measurement. So the key is information. It is a collection of measurements that evaluate to a string used to decode the longer textual message. So why not just transmit textual message several times each with 20% errorrate and compare the results to eliminate the errors not for encryption but data transfer. The article says that the errorrate is caused by imperfections in the transmission line and detectors. If this is correct then it should just require additional error correction protocol engineered (TCP/IP) into the hardware or software to ensure that error free information emerges. I know this sounds too simple so I must be missing something. But anything above 50% should be real data and it sounds like they can get 80% as of April right? The current reconciliation method that they use to correct for errors in key values is complex, but the probably do this on purpose to preserve the property of the encryption that makes someone attempting to listen to the encrypted channel detectable. Gary Wikipedia >> [edit] Entangled photons - Artur Ekert (1991) The Ekert scheme uses entangled pairs of photons. These can be made by Alice, by Bob, or by some source separate from both of them, including eavesdropper Eve, although the problem of certifying them will arise. In any case, the photons are distributed so that Alice and Bob each end up with one photon from each pair. The scheme relies on three properties of entanglement. First, we can make entangled states which are perfectly correlated in the sense that if Alice and Bob both test whether their particles have vertical or horizontal polarizations, they will always get opposite answers. The same is true if they both measure any other pair of complementary (orthogonal) polarizations. However, their individual results are completely random: it is impossible for Alice to predict if she will get vertical polarization or horizontal polarization. Second, these states have a property often called quantum non-locality, which has no analogue in classical physics. If Alice and Bob carry out polarization measurements, their answers will not be perfectly correlated, but they will be somewhat correlated. That is, there is an above-50% probability that Alice can, from her measurement, correctly deduce Bob's measurement, and vice versa. And these correlations are stronger - Alice's guesses will on average be better - than any model based on classical physics or ordinary intuition would predict. Third, any attempt at eavesdropping by Eve will weaken these correlations, in a way that Alice and Bob can detect. Privacy amplification and information reconciliation The quantum cryptography protocols described above will provide Alice and Bob with nearly identical shared keys, and also with an estimate of the discrepancy between the keys. These differences can be caused by eavesdropping, but will also be caused by imperfections in the transmission line and detectors. As it is impossible to distinguish between these two types of errors, it is assumed all errors are due to eavesdropping in order to guarantee security. Provided the error rate between the keys is lower than a certain threshold (20% as of April 2007[2]), two steps can be performed to first remove the erroneous bits and then reduce Eve's knowledge of the key to an arbitrary small value. These two steps are known as information reconciliation and privacy amplification respectively, and were first described in 1992[3]. Information reconciliation is a form of error correction carried out between Alice and Bob's keys, in order to ensure both keys are identical. It is conducted over the public channel and as such it is vital to minimise the information sent about each key, as this can be read by Eve. A common protocol used for information reconciliation is the cascade protocol, proposed in 1994 [4]. This operates in several rounds, with both keys divided into blocks in each round and the parity of those blocks compared. If a difference in parity is found then a binary search is performed to find and correct the error. If an error is found in a block from a previous round that had correct parity then another error must be contained in that block; this error is found and corrected as before. This process is repeated recursively, which is the source of the cascade name. After all blocks have been compared, Alice and Bob both reorder their keys in the same random way, and a new round begins. At the end of multiple rounds Alice and Bob will have identical keys with high probability, however Eve will have gained additional information about the key from the parity information exchanged. >> From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 17 11:16:25 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:16:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <01a501c8409c$ce200560$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> <01a501c8409c$ce200560$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <20071217111625.GB10128@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 06:05:57AM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > Wikipedia does say that in their article on Quantum Cryptography in the > second protocol method they describe that the Keys are transmitted as > quantum information. And that the receiver can deduce their key with above QC (which is fine cryptographic snake oil, but I digress) does indeed use entangled pairs, which indeed transfer information effectively instanteously. But, to tell it from random noise, the measurements need to be correlated by means of a classical, relativistic channel. If you don't have that channel, you could be observing a random number generator. There would be no means of extracting that information. Einstein still reigns supreme. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From scerir at libero.it Mon Dec 17 10:57:19 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:57:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation References: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede><017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <001701c8409b$98f1c870$aa951f97@archimede> Eugen: > We'll think of interpretations when we have > observations violating Einstein's dictum > (no superluminal information transfer). > So far, there are none, zilch, zero. It would be interesting to check where Einstein actually wrote that dictum (no FTL *information* trasfer). Is it possible that E. had in mind no FTL causation, no FTL influences, no FTL actions, no FTL passions, and that the dictum is a modern elaboration? s. >From the quantum mechanical perspective and, specifically, speaking of correlations between entangled entities, there are 4 possible theoretical domains (Cirelson's bounds). More or less so ... 1.Classical non-FTL correlation (ie two fragments of a bomb): bound <2 2.Quantum non-FTL correlation: bound >2 but <2 2^1/2 3.Super-Quantum non-FTL correlation: bound >2 2^1/2 but <2 2^1/2 2^1/2 4.Quantum FTL correlation: bound >2 2^1/2 2^1/2 Number 4. is completely unknown (does it correspond to a deterministic quantum mechanics?) . Number 1. is classical mechanics. Number 2. is the usual quantum mechanics (Bell's bound). Number 3. is rather unknown, in the sense that people do not understand if superquantum non-FTL correlations are really existing, or not, and why. From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Dec 17 11:57:14 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:57:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <4FFAD648-BE42-496D-8B31-FA2904AE951F@mac.com> References: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <4FFAD648-BE42-496D-8B31-FA2904AE951F@mac.com> Message-ID: <20071217115716.TLXL2677.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 10:01 PM 12/16/2007, -samantha wrote: >On Dec 16, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > > > If you were to design an environment which includes NBIC advances as > > they affect posthumanism, transhumanism, cyborgs, transhumans, > > posthumans, as contingent and overlapping spheres, what would it > > look like? > > > >I think I need a bit of translation of the question to begin to answer >it. Since I presume NBIC advances are essential to arriving at >actual transhumans and posthumans I don't see how "affect" is quite >the right word since these states require NBIC advances. Or am I >missing something? Clearly such states are contingent on some such >advances but what is this about designing an environment which >includes such advances? Are you asking for what such a society/ >economy/gestalt may be like? And which things are you asking be >considered as "spheres", overlapping or otherwise? And lastly what >do you mean and not mean by "look" like? I think I answered these questions in my reply to x. If not, please let me know. In my research, posthumanism has claimed the environment in which future humans are concerned. Since I do not agree with the academic interpretation of posthumanism*, it is my research responsibility to develop a different perspective on this environment. *The posthumanism interpretation is based on cybernetics and disembodiment. There is no depth regarding biotechnology and nanotechnology, for example. Further, the concept of "continued existence" or "regenerative existence" is not the motor driving this realm, nor is it a desired state or goal. Natasha >- samantha > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.2/1185 - Release Date: >12/15/2007 12:00 PM From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Dec 17 12:05:31 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:05:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: References: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <20071216202740.JOKX2677.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <20071217120532.MAID25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 03:12 PM 12/16/2007, x wrote: >In more conventional terminology, I suppose it could be referred to as >"technoprogressive", in the purer sense unencumbered with the >connotations of left-wing politics, having quite successfully co-opted >"progressive" for their own purposes. No one own techno, progressive or democracy, so I don't see a problem. :-) When people lack visionary ideas, they fight and squabble. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 17 12:51:15 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:51:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] simulation linear vs cube In-Reply-To: <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <1197895867_39006@S3.cableone.net> At 03:14 PM 12/16/2007, Gary wrote: >The latency limitation is the speed of light limitation of how long it takes >information to move between each node in a network of processing units which >makes up the theorized mbrain, jbrain, orbiting processor clusters. If the >nodes are to function as a large distributed computer then the latency would >form a processing bottleneck. I have discussed this problem for years, here, on the sl4 list and other places without coming to a useful conclusion. Without some trick to get round the speed of light, the time required to synch processes goes up by the linear dimensions of network of processing units. The number of them inside the dimensions goes up by the cube of the linear dimension. The problem is we don't have more than an intuitive idea of how often mental processes have to synch but there seems to be a tradeoff between having a lot of processing power and knowing what it is doing unless . . . . >If quantum entanglement could allow information to pass instantaneously >without regard to light speed between nodes then there would be zero latency >and latency would cease to be a bottleneck. As long as two nodes could >shared a sufficient mass of entangled photons the hope would be that they >would serve as a instantaneous communication channel. >I have found papers attempting to disprove and prove the possibility and the >equations are beyond the level of effort necessary for me to be sufficiently >motivated to understand them. If it is possible though, I do not see it as >a violation of the speed of light since the information is not traveling >between the two particles. The particles being entangled are like the same >particle appearing at two points in space simultaneously. If the information >is moving between particles it is not moving through our space but taking a >direct route through an alternate dimension. That has far deeper consequences than just computation. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 17 13:00:29 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:00:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200711291843.50390.kanzure@gmail.com> <1196391711_872@S3.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197896422_40505@S4.cableone.net> At 08:33 PM 12/16/2007, you wrote: >On Dec 15, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > > On Thursday 29 November 2007, hkhenson wrote: > >> To scope the problem, the area of the brain surface is about quarter > >> of a square meter, the cortical columns are spaced about 0.03 mm in a > >> hexagonal array. Figure about a thousand of them to the sq mm. There > >> are a million sq mm to a sq m. So if you had 250 H+ programmers, each > >> of them would have to be managing a million cortical column > >> simulations. > >How complex is a simulation of a single cortical column? Sorry if I >missed that critical bit of information. I don't know, but it's been done and reported on. Keith From citta437 at aol.com Mon Dec 17 14:31:19 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:31:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality Message-ID: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> Practices/behaviors are driven by a subconscious desire for preservation of the status quo. Gobal warming i.e. is seen as detrimental for the life in this planet by scientists and rationalists alike. Irrational behavior/ignorance that cause global warming is on the rise. 1. Perhaps this is caused by lack of emphasis on science education? 2. The media's emphasis on irrational behavior by idolizing celebrities? 3. Capitalists' greed that capitalizes on ignorance itself? 4. All of the above? 5. others? What are the chances to reverse irrational behaviors in the human species? To say the opposite acts of irrationality would tilt the balance towards rational behavior/compassion is a straw man's argument. I see the evidence of irrational behavior is caused by lack of emphasis on science education and integrating biological sciences with the humanities. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 17 15:03:19 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:03:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation linear vs cube In-Reply-To: <1197895867_39006@S3.cableone.net> References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1197895867_39006@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <20071217150318.GF10128@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:51:15AM -0700, hkhenson wrote: > Without some trick to get round the speed of light, the time required > to synch processes goes up by the linear dimensions of network of > processing units. The number of them inside the dimensions goes up > by the cube of the linear dimension. The problem is we don't have This is why (the CPU left unchanged) it is possible to use neural emulation over WAN, even 50 ms, 50 kByte/s WAN. Just make the damn array large enough that processing it takes forever, so that exchanging the interfaces won't be the bottleneck. (Of course for practical reasons we wouldn't want to swap the array to rotating bits, since that incurs a six orders of magntide random access penalty, at which point we could as well become lumberjacks, or shepherds, so it would take lots of crunch on each element of that array before you can do that). > more than an intuitive idea of how often mental processes have to > synch but there seems to be a tradeoff between having a lot of > processing power and knowing what it is doing unless . . . . -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 16:10:19 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:10:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? In-Reply-To: <002f01c84041$d2819a20$6601a8c0@brainiac> References: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> <47656107.8090400@kevinfreels.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071216124646.0228d160@satx.rr.com> <003901c84015$6a2a3120$1b893cd1@pavilion> <29666bf30712161229n6e3ad69ev7edb18bc7ab11657@mail.gmail.com> <002f01c84041$d2819a20$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <29666bf30712170810u63b6db5ema74ab1d2100bb81b@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 16, 2007 4:14 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > Yes ... Christmas became a legal holiday in most states at this time as it > was thought the time off would be a morale booster for soldiers fighting the > Civil War. As was Thanksgiving, which wasn't made a national holiday until Lincoln made it so in 1863, again for Civil War morale. The date was solidified by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, as a psychological and monetary boost for the Great Depression. Obviously US independence day (Fourth of July) and Memorial Day are war/morale related. Mother's Day was concieved to unite women against war, in the post Civil War era and ratified during WWI. Father's Day was right on the heels of Mother's Day, first in response to a mine explosion(!), but celebrated politically during WWI and made official under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon during Vietnam. Labor Day was in response to the tremendously violent labor unrest during the 1880's, however, the US's Labor Day was untethered from the international Labor Day of May 1st in fear of solidifying socialist connotations and promoting unrest and is celebrated in September. I never thought about it before, but it's looking like US holidays were all made to lift our spirits during bad times -- usually wars -- and to promote national solidarity, even if the symbolic connection is tenuous (Mother's Day???). I wouldn't be surprised if you look at other nations' holidays, a similar pattern would emerge. When times are tough, give 'em a day off and a greeting card. :-/ What holiday(s) do you all suppose will be created during our time? Another interesting note: The first Thanksgiving wasn't in the Massachusetts Bay Colony between the Puritan Pilgrim colonists and the natives in 1621. It was in Canada in 1578. Not only is their dollar stronger, their holiday is older! To quote the South Park boys, "Blame Canada!" ;-) PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 17 17:08:58 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:08:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> References: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071217110313.02198c48@satx.rr.com> At 09:43 AM 12/17/2007 +0100, my brilliant e-pal Eugen Leitl wrote: >We'll think of interpretations when we have observations violating >Einstein's dictum (no superluminal information transfer). So far, there are >none, zilch, zero. This is simply not true, but since apparently nobody trotting out this mantra will read (for example) OUTSIDE THE GATES OF SCIENCE, there's no point in my saying so in this forum. Damien Broderick From citta437 at aol.com Mon Dec 17 17:21:28 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:21:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Synergetic energy Message-ID: <8CA0EE864C85D59-17E4-1A72@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> Science and technology discovered what seem to be an expanding universe of reality. To name a few: 1. The recent discovery of skin cells to grow with an injection of a virus to mimic the growth of embryonic stem cells. 2. The use of bionanotechnology to replace drugs or surgery to diagnose and repair tissue damage. 3. The theory of Parallel Universe based on quantum theory? Some biologists said that the theory of evolution ties all scientific disciplines to build a technology to expand our understanding of an expanding reality. Have we already found the formula to unite gravity with quantum mechanics? Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 17 16:57:58 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:57:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <20071217115716.TLXL2677.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha- 39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <20071216165941.ZLPI25689.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <4FFAD648-BE42-496D-8B31-FA2904AE951F@mac.com> <20071217115716.TLXL2677.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <1197910674_2403@S1.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 17 18:29:56 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:29:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] But speaking of psi... Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071217122126.023ba920@satx.rr.com> A new paper co-authored by the important cognitive scientist Stephen Kosslyn argues that their fMRI study shows that psi does not exist, or at any rate was not detectable by these means: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20:1, pp. 182?192 "Using Neuroimaging to Resolve the Psi Debate" Samuel T. Moulton and Stephen M. Kosslyn Abstract Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., ??mind reading??), also known as psi. Despite widespread public belief in such phenomena and over 75 years of experimentation, there is no compelling evidence that psi exists. In the present study, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used in an effort to document the existence of psi. If psi exists, it occurs in the brain, and hence, assessing the brain directly should be more sensitive than using indirect behavioral methods (as have been used previously). To increase sensitivity, this experiment was designed to produce positive results if telepathy, clairvoyance (i.e., direct sensing of remote events), or precognition (i.e., knowing future events) exist. Moreover, the study included biologically or emotionally related participants (e.g., twins) and emotional stimuli in an effort to maximize experimental conditions that are purportedly conducive to psi. In spite of these characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses?although differences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the expected effects on patterns of brain activation. These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena. ==================================== Given that the authors note: "Out of 3687 recorded responses, they correctly guessed the psi stimulus 1842 times (50.0%). None of the results from any individual participant deviated from what would be expected on the basis of chance variation alone" it is not surprising that they found no notable fMRI correlates. I will be interested to see what shows up if a study along these lines is conducted that first achieves a significant difference from chance expectation. Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 17 18:59:00 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:59:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071217110313.02198c48@satx.rr.com> References: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20071217110313.02198c48@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20071217185900.GL10128@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:08:58AM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:43 AM 12/17/2007 +0100, my brilliant e-pal Eugen Leitl wrote: > This is simply not true, but since apparently nobody trotting out Whoa! I don't think I've missed any paper on superluminal signalling, but apparently I have. Any references? > this mantra will read (for example) OUTSIDE THE GATES OF SCIENCE, For those of us who don't have your book on the bookshelf, can you provide a relevant snip? > there's no point in my saying so in this forum. Them's fightin' words. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 george at betterhumans.com Mon Dec 17 19:08:27 2007 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:08:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone Message-ID: The Toronto Transhumanist Association is hosting a new event: Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone (be sure to join the TTA Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2260302573) Date: Saturday, January 12, 2008 Time: 5:00pm - 7:00pm Location: Centre for Inquiry Ontario Street: 216 Beverley St. City/Town: Toronto, ON Event Description: - NASA and the advent of cybernetics (Clynes and Kline) - why is space so inhospitable and dangerous to humans? - what have we done to date to help humans work in space (e.g.space-suits, zero-g bathrooms, etc.) A look at the kinds of modifications that might be required for humans to properly adapt to space (cybernetic, genetic, etc) - why do we need humans in space? why can't robots do these tasks? - how can we help humans work in space without having to modify them? - in which ways could we modify humans to help them live, work and thrive in space (genetic, cybernetic, etc.) - what are some of the more radical possibilities for enhancement? - should we re-engineer humans to help them adapt to different environments and not just space (ie Mars)? - why are we poorly adapted to Mars and how could we be modified to help us live there? Talmon is currently the Vice President of NSD-Fusion GmbH. (www.nsd-fusion.com) The company is developing IEC Fusion reactors to address various terrestrial markets as both Neutron and Proton Generators. Several space applications are envisioned for later development. He completed his Bachelor of Commerce at Ryerson University, his Master of Science in Space Studies at the International Space University in Strasbourg, France. During his graduate studies he interned at the X Prize Foundation, Los Angeles office, under Dr. Peter Diamandis. He often speaks at universities and conferences on both the topic of his business and more generally on entrepreneurship in the space industry. Talmon has also been a practitioner of the martial arts for over a decade and has been studying gymnastics for almost two years. Hope to see you there! George Dvorsky President, Toronto Transhumanist Association From hibbert at mydruthers.com Mon Dec 17 18:42:01 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:42:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <200712162153.35546.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712162153.35546.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4766C2F9.4010106@mydruthers.com> > On Sunday 16 December 2007, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> > How complex is a simulation of a single cortical column? Sorry if I >> > missed that critical bit of information. > > For a mouse, that's 100k neurons and 30 million synapses. That's true if you think it makes sense to simulate at the biological level. I think it makes more sense to simulate at the functional level. The place I'd start is with a very careful read of Jeff Hawkins' "On Intelligence". http://books.google.com/books?id=Qg2dmntfxmQC Hawkins proposes a pretty thorough model of how the cortical columns work individually, and how they work together to produce a predicting machine that is likely to support intelligence. You could try to construct such a thing yourself, or you could look into the results that his institute has produced. I think they're either selling or open-sourcing their models. Someone here surely knows more. A simulation at this level would be a lot cheaper, and if Hawkins is right, would capture the essential emergent properties of the cortex' building blocks. Chris -- All sensory cells [in all animals] have in common the presence of ... cilia [with a constant] structure. It provides a strong argument for common ancestry. The common ancestor ... was a spirochete bacterium. --Lynn Margulis (http://edge.org/q2005/q05_7.html#margulis) Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From x at extropica.org Mon Dec 17 19:23:30 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:23:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071217110313.02198c48@satx.rr.com> References: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20071217110313.02198c48@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/17/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > This is simply not true, but since apparently nobody trotting out > this mantra will read (for example) OUTSIDE THE GATES OF SCIENCE, > there's no point in my saying so in this forum. I may or may not have the mantra, but I do have the book. From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 17 19:49:57 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:49:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <4766C2F9.4010106@mydruthers.com> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712162153.35546.kanzure@gmail.com> <4766C2F9.4010106@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <20071217194957.GQ10128@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:42:01AM -0800, Chris Hibbert wrote: > The place I'd start is with a very careful read of Jeff Hawkins' "On > Intelligence". Sorry, the book is not even wrong. His stuff is a) not new and b) so far can't even reproduce hoary old PDP models. > Hawkins proposes a pretty thorough model of how the cortical columns > work individually, and how they work together to produce a predicting > machine that is likely to support intelligence. You could try to > construct such a thing yourself, or you could look into the results that > his institute has produced. I think they're either selling or > open-sourcing their models. Someone here surely knows more. > > A simulation at this level would be a lot cheaper, and if Hawkins is > right, would capture the essential emergent properties of the cortex' It would be nice if there was something to be right on. Unfortunately, there isn't. > building blocks. What irks me most is that there's this pall of standstill spreading over multiple fields, and for a long while now. That might be purely subjective, but I'm afraid it goes beyond that. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 17 20:57:38 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:57:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] superluminal signalling In-Reply-To: <20071217185900.GL10128@leitl.org> References: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20071217110313.02198c48@satx.rr.com> <20071217185900.GL10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071217142716.02556670@satx.rr.com> At 07:59 PM 12/17/2007 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: >Whoa! I don't think I've missed any paper on superluminal signalling, >but apparently I have. Any references? It is generally accepted that non-inferential veridical foreknowledge (deviating from sheer guesswork significantly far from mean chance expectation) would require something like superluminal signalling: that is, access to states beyond the light cone. This has been demonstrated (it seems) in the lab, as well as by fairly rigorous non-lab means, and discussed in > >OUTSIDE THE GATES OF SCIENCE > >For those of us who don't have your book on the bookshelf, can >you provide a relevant snip? Well, here's an extract; the doubtful will need to go to the primary sources: <[Dr. Dean] Radin used one of the simplest possible methods, measuring shifts in skin conductivity in fingers or palms when the wired subjects were affronted by computer images of violent or erotic scenes, and those reactions in turn were compared with the physical response elicited by soothing images and no images at all. When the data from many subjects were added together and averaged, in order to remove idiosyncratic responses and the intrusion of random noise, it turned out that the average response (presponse) to neutral or pleasant images followed pretty much the curve one would expect. The image flashes on the screen for three seconds, and while subjects watch the blank screen that follows, their skin conductivity rises slightly, drops away again, flutters along in its normal quietly wandering path. After emotionally charged topics, though, skin conductance soars to a quick peak moments after the image has flashed up, then again ebbs away as the subject recovers from the brief startle or shock. All this is only to be expected by any physiologist. Radin's and Bierman's remarkable claim, though, is that the emotional images appear to cause a smaller anticipatory surge *before* they are displayed--in some cases even before the computer has *chosen* them from a random pool. It's precognition on a small scale, registered by tiny currents participants can't even feel. This paradigm was eventually extended from simple lie detection devices that look for modulations in galvanic skin response to the more complex brain scanning devices used by medical physiologists, brain surgeons, and cognitive scientists [...]. The great thing about this approach is that a huge trove of data already exists, precisely the research materials of scientists looking for almost anything except psi. When Radin and his colleagues accessed this material, their findings had been replicated in advance, mostly. Rather suitably, Dick Bierman re-examined old studies on phobias and gambling behaviors, and found small but significant pre-stimulus rises in the ways people reacted to, for example, calm images versus pictures of animals or erotic scenes (even among the phobic, the naughty pictures cause more of a leap than the scary animal shots, probably something Darwin would have predicted). An excellent description of such presentiment research can be found in Dean Radin's book Entangled Minds (2006), where he quotes Nobel prizewinner Kary Mullis who visited his lab in 1999: "It's spooky. You sit there and watch this little trace, and about three seconds, on average, before the picture comes on, you have a little response in your skin conductivity which is in the same direction that a large response occurs after you see the picture... That, with me, is on the edge of physics itself, with time." After a dry run on his own brain, Dick Bierman went more high-tech, using a non-invasive instrument called Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent fMRI. This provides pretty color-coded pictures of blood oxygen levels in the brain as a subject responds to certain stimuli, or performs a simple task. Bierman chose the by-now-standard tripolar workhorse of three kinds of visual stimulus--calming, violent, erotic--drawn from an equally standard image inventory. He was flashed a sequence of images for 4.2 seconds each, from a selection of 18 violent, 18 erotic and 48 calming images. Oddly enough, there was no presentiment elevation before either the calm or the violent pictures, but the lift created by the erotic pictures was improbable by chance at the level of some 1 in 320, certainly significant. Encouraged, he applied the test to six male and four female volunteers, segregating their results according to sex. The average male reaction resembled his own. Again, no special arousal prior to violent images, but a barely significant response to the erotic pictures. The females did react to the erotic stimuli, but even more strongly to the violent ones. What this tells us about our cultural conditioning and our inherited propensities might be worth musing upon. Given the very small number of subjects, it is remarkable that Bierman got any kind of significance at all from his results, but in fact the combined erotic target results were improbable at the level of 1 in 250. > More recent unpublished work (which I've read, but can't yet discuss) by Dr. Edwin May--former scientific director of the US Star Gate Program--and his colleagues, confirms these experiments. Now, of course none of this is *proof* of time reversed information flows, but these phenomena certainly suggest that it's real. Or, of course, we're all in a leaky sim... Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 17 21:13:26 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:13:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071217151126.022b76a8@satx.rr.com> At 09:33 PM 12/16/2007 +0100, Serafino wrote: >there are dreams about a possible instantaneous >quantum computation, using teleportation >http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109022 This is not time-reversed. As a friend commented: Do every possible calculation (for the class of problem at hand), generating a giant lookup table cross-referencing possible inputs to their solutions. ->When you have an actual problem, simply look it up in the lookup table, and there's your solution. In other words, it's conceptually on a par with having a pregenerated table of logarithms at hand. The magic of quantum superposition makes it possible to implement this scheme with problems that would conventionally entail an impractically huge computer to do the calculations and hold the lookup table; on the other hand, you only get to use the table once.> Drat. Damien Broderick From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Dec 17 21:20:00 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:20:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality Message-ID: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> Terry stated: >> I see the evidence of irrational behavior is caused by lack of emphasis on science education and integrating biological sciences with the humanities. >> When even supposedly rational scientists don't agree on the evidence that the current warming s not caused by a natural cycle in the sun's emissions how can one blame the lay public for not backing a strategy that would have a devastating impact upon the US economy which is already in dire straits. Evidence exists that the temperature on other planets is rising too. I consider myself both reasonably well informed and have a decent background in science. I understand computer models and how easily they variables can be manipulated to demonstrate whatever outcome author seeks to prove. I understand that the Earth has undergone many major climatic changes during it's history. I think it is irrational of you to think that everyone will agree with you just because you feel that Global warming is caused by human beings and can be reversed by human beings limiting carbon dioxide emissions. I also think it very arogant to believe that anyone who does not agree with you is either lacking in science education or putting greed ahead of the planets welfare. Gary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon Dec 17 22:51:08 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:51:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Entanglement (was: simulation) References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com><200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com><012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2><001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <00ae01c840ff$63b7fee0$58064e0c@MyComputer> "Gary Miller" Wrote: > quantum entanglement could allow information to > pass instantaneously without regard to light speed Unfortunately that is incorrect. It is true that you can change something on the other side of the universe instantly, but you need more than that to send information, you also need a standard to measure that change against; otherwise you're just changing one random sequence to a different random sequence. Think of quantum entanglement as 2 coins, I have one and you have the other, no matter how far apart we are if I flip my coin and it comes up heads then when you flip your coin it will always come up heads, if my coin is tails then so will your coin when you flip it. As marvelous as this fact is there is no way I can use the coins to send you a message because I have no control over my coin, it could come out heads or tails, so you see just randomness in the coin toss just like I do. It is only when we communicate through conventional means do we realize than my apparently random sequence of coin tosses and your apparently random sequence of coin tosses are identical. So you can't use quantum entanglement to send messages faster than light, but you can use it to encrypt messages in a code as secure as the laws of physics. Or you could say that you can send information faster than light but the message is encoded and the key to decode it can only be sent slower than light. John K Clark From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 23:32:10 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:32:10 +1100 Subject: [ExI] But speaking of psi... In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071217122126.023ba920@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071217122126.023ba920@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 18/12/2007, Damien Broderick wrote: > "Using Neuroimaging to Resolve the Psi Debate" > Samuel T. Moulton and Stephen M. Kosslyn > In the present study, > functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used in an > effort to document the existence of psi. If psi exists, it occurs in > the brain, and hence, assessing the brain directly should be > more sensitive than using indirect behavioral methods (as have > been used previously). That's a strange claim. It's like saying that assessing the brain directly is a more sensitive way of determining what someone is saying than listening to him. -- Stathis Papaioannou From sentience at pobox.com Mon Dec 17 23:43:14 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:43:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] psi or bad statistics? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071217142716.02556670@satx.rr.com> References: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20071217110313.02198c48@satx.rr.com> <20071217185900.GL10128@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20071217142716.02556670@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <47670992.7010400@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > > Well, here's an extract; the doubtful will need to go to the primary sources: > > <[Dr. Dean] Radin used one of the simplest possible methods, > measuring shifts in skin conductivity in fingers or palms when the > wired subjects were affronted by computer images of violent or erotic > scenes, and those reactions in turn were compared with the physical > response elicited by soothing images and no images at all. When the > data from many subjects were added together and averaged, in order to > remove idiosyncratic responses and the intrusion of random noise, it > turned out that the average response (presponse) to neutral or > pleasant images followed pretty much the curve one would expect. The > image flashes on the screen for three seconds, and while subjects > watch the blank screen that follows, their skin conductivity rises > slightly, drops away again, flutters along in its normal quietly > wandering path.> It's a remarkable, amazing fact about psychic powers that they seem to work as well backward in time as forward; as well for psi-miss as psi-hit; as well for manipulation as prediction; as well when the telekinesis is exerted after the experiment as before it; and of course, the effect size gets smaller and smaller (but still statistically significant) as the samples get larger and larger. Now it seems unlikely that anything a brain can really do would have such properties, but they are all naturally expected in association with the amazing magical power known as "bad statistics", which works as well backward in time as forward, as well for misses as hits, etc. The particular statistical flaw in Radin's experiments would seem to be described here: http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/publications/2002/expectationbias_PA2002.pdf It's amazing what subtle statistical flaws you can uncover when you know a priori that the effect is not real. This problem would almost certainly had gone undetected if Radin had been performing a more conventional medical experiment. The psionicists have a legitimate complaint that they are being held to higher standards than the rest of science. Bad statistics are an increasingly huge problem for the rest of science, too, but unlike psionics we don't know a priori that the detected effects are unreal. For example, it's now suspected that half of all published medical studies in major journals have irreproduceable results. (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/false-findings-.html) We should hold all science to the same strict standards that would be required to eliminate ESP. I've been advocating that p<0.001 should replace p<0.05 as the margin of statistical significance. Physics journals routinely require p<0.0001. It would be better by far to do fewer medical experiments with more subjects and have nearly all the published reports be valid. But there's a Nash equilibrium for the bad behavior, where you use the lower standard and make sure of a publication. I myself now put no more than a 50% probability on any published finding that is statistically significant at p<0.05 rather than p<0.001. Less, if the finding seems iffy in other ways. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From citta437 at aol.com Tue Dec 18 01:07:09 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:07:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Subjective and Objective reality Message-ID: <8CA0F2972D8F981-E8C-E66@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> ""The Universe and Multiple Reality by M. R. Franks (New York: iUniverse, 2003) ISBN 0-595-29472-3 According to above author ?There is no one reality. Each of us lives in a separate universe. That's not speaking metaphorically. This is the hypothesis of the stark nature of reality suggested by recent developments in quantum physics. Reality in a dynamic universe is non-objective. Consciousness is the only reality.? ______________ The above is an introduction to his book published in 2003 and four years after, the scientific community stated that Parallel Universe do exist in reality. If consciousness is the only reality as Franks stated, he must be stating what Buddhist Philosophers were teaching all along for 2000 years. My understanding is that subjective interpretation of reality goes against objective reality, a direct experience of events as it occurs here and now not information as memories and memes which are past events that no longer exist. Consciousness as emergent property of the brain arise from quantum interactions in the brain matter unseen by the naked eye. We cannot see gravity either but we see the effect of masses of energy interacting in the universe. At what point did gravity and quantum processes intersect? Where is the evidence of mutiple or parallel universes? ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 18 01:18:24 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:18:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] psi or bad statistics? In-Reply-To: <47670992.7010400@pobox.com> References: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20071217110313.02198c48@satx.rr.com> <20071217185900.GL10128@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20071217142716.02556670@satx.rr.com> <47670992.7010400@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071217191435.021a0f08@satx.rr.com> At 03:43 PM 12/17/2007 -0800, Eliezer wrote: >The particular statistical flaw in Radin's experiments would seem to >be described here: > >http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/publications/2002/expectationbias_PA2002.pdf You did notice that this paper was co-authored by Prof. Dick Bierman, who did substantial experimental work in presponses, showing significant effects, both before and after this critique? As Dean Radin comments: "Of course Dick and I were aware of this purported bias from the very beginning of this line of research, over a decade ago. And of course we've checked it thoroughly. It is based on what amounts to a physiological gambler's fallacy. Dick and I, and Ed May and Rollin McCraty and others who've actually collected data have checked to see whether the proposed anticipatory biases actually appear in the data. The answer is no. We've all published our findings." Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Tue Dec 18 01:25:12 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:25:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] psi or bad statistics? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071217191435.021a0f08@satx.rr.com> References: <001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071217084339.GY10128@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20071217110313.02198c48@satx.rr.com> <20071217185900.GL10128@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20071217142716.02556670@satx.rr.com> <47670992.7010400@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071217191435.021a0f08@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <47672178.7060403@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 03:43 PM 12/17/2007 -0800, Eliezer wrote: > >>The particular statistical flaw in Radin's experiments would seem to >>be described here: >> >>http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/publications/2002/expectationbias_PA2002.pdf > > You did notice that this paper was co-authored by Prof. Dick Bierman, > who did substantial experimental work in presponses, showing > significant effects, both before and after this critique? As Dean > Radin comments: > > "Of course Dick and I were aware of this purported bias from the very > beginning of this line of research, over a decade ago. And of course > we've checked it thoroughly. It is based on what amounts to a > physiological gambler's fallacy. Dick and I, and Ed May and Rollin > McCraty and others who've actually collected data have checked to see > whether the proposed anticipatory biases actually appear in the data. > The answer is no. We've all published our findings." I see. The flaw must be somewhere else, then. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From citta437 at aol.com Tue Dec 18 01:42:42 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:42:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fermi's Paradox or Multiple Universes Message-ID: <8CA0F2E6A192121-E8C-1030@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> "FREE PREVIEW Scientific American Magazine - May, 2003 Parallel Universes Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations By Max Tegmark COSMOLOGICAL DATA support the idea that space continues beyond the confines of our observable universe. The WMAP satellite recently measured the fluctuations in the microwave background (left). The strongest fluctuations are just over half a degree across, which indicates--after applying the rules of geometry--that space is very large or infinite (center). (One caveat: some cosmologists speculate that the discrepant point on the left of the graph is evidence for a finite volume.) In addition, WMAP and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey have found that space on large scales is filled with matter uniformly (right), meaning that other universes should look basically like ours. Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on. The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 1028 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelg?nger any less real. The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. There are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one but infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices. __________________ Cosmologists call Parallel universe as multiple universes or string theories. What is the implication of these theories with Fermi's Paradox? If there is a Parallel universe then there is intelligence parallel to humans or an intelligent civilization in a universe same as ours that have the same laws of physics and quantum mechanics. Our universe has several big bangs/singularities, black enery and black holes as well. If these were all true as cosmologists claimed then space is infinitely large and nobody should be worried about aging and death for matter/energy has no beginning and no end. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 02:10:11 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:10:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <20071217194957.GQ10128@leitl.org> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712162153.35546.kanzure@gmail.com> <4766C2F9.4010106@mydruthers.com> <20071217194957.GQ10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <62c14240712171810v34b989b3q2b72c5bb0c67726c@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 17, 2007 2:49 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > What irks me most is that there's this pall of standstill spreading > over multiple fields, and for a long while now. That might be purely > subjective, but I'm afraid it goes beyond that. Maybe that's at a right-angle to the Singularity: rather than a hard takeoff, the curve suddenly flatlines. If you believe the ancient Mayans, it'll be December 21, 2012 :) From brent.allsop at comcast.net Tue Dec 18 02:32:18 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:32:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Subjective and Objective reality In-Reply-To: <8CA0F2972D8F981-E8C-E66@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0F2972D8F981-E8C-E66@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <47673132.9010207@comcast.net> Much of that sounds absurd to me. Wouldn't the meaning of "lives in a separate universe" be that we can't communicate / see each other? So why say something so obviously wrong? Also, what do you mean by "Consciousness as emergent property"? This is all very close to the "Hard Problem" of consciousness. There has been some quite impressive thinkers contribute their belief about this in the canonizer resulting in a nice emerging survey of the field here: http://test.canonizer.com/topic.asp/23 Is what you mean by "emergent" covered by any of the theories of consciousness described there? I don't believe it emerges at all, but is simply a property of nature, just like causal properties, as described in this theory: http://test.canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/2 Brent Allsop citta437 at aol.com wrote: > ""The Universe and Multiple Reality > by M. R. Franks > (New York: iUniverse, 2003) > ISBN 0-595-29472-3 > > According to above author ?There is no one reality. Each of us lives in > a separate universe. That's not speaking metaphorically. This is the > hypothesis of the stark nature of reality suggested by recent > developments in quantum physics. Reality in a dynamic universe is > non-objective. Consciousness is the only reality.? > ______________ > > The above is an introduction to his book published in 2003 and four > years after, the scientific community stated that Parallel Universe do > exist in reality. > > If consciousness is the only reality as Franks stated, he must be > stating what Buddhist Philosophers were teaching all along for 2000 > years. My understanding is that subjective interpretation of reality > goes against objective reality, a direct experience of events as it > occurs here and now not information as memories and memes which are > past events that no longer exist. > > Consciousness as emergent property of the brain arise from quantum > interactions in the brain matter unseen by the naked eye. We cannot see > gravity either but we see the effect of masses of energy interacting in > the universe. At what point did gravity and quantum processes > intersect? > > Where is the evidence of mutiple or parallel universes? > ________________________________________________________________________ > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - > http://webmail.aol.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 02:45:21 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:45:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> Message-ID: <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 17, 2007 4:20 PM, wrote: > I think it is irrational of you to think that everyone will agree with you > just because you feel that Global warming is caused by human beings and can > be reversed by human beings limiting carbon dioxide emissions. I also think > it very arogant to believe that anyone who does not agree with you is either > lacking in science education or putting greed ahead of the planets welfare. If we can give up our oil addiction and guilt the world into believing in the "green" program, we can further raise the price of the dirty habit for those who can't afford the switch to carbon-free alternatives. (You know, like charging $4.50 for the same box of cigarettes that was < $2.00 only ten years ago: the more people quit, the more they can charge the remaining recalcitrant smokers) I have little doubt the US will tap Alaskan oil fields, but not before the selling price is five times what it is now. In order to make that happen, some changes are obviously required. Americans will not pay that much to drive, it wouldn't be worth it to go to work - so an artificial 50% increase now is just enough pain to adopt hybrid and electric vehicles so we can tolerate another 300+% increase tomorrow. Consider the way we manage genetically modified corn: (keeping farmers dependent on returning to the source labs each year to resupply the expensive higher yield corn) http://www.ibiblio.org/InterGarden/agriculture/feedback/dirtfarmer/msg00100.html While looking for a public link to backup my suggestion that GMO corn subsidies may also be creating a dependence on first-world labs rather than self-sufficiency literally 'in the field', i found this interesting link: (which is no longer available on the site from which it appeared to originate) [once the Borg (Google) assimilates (caches) your web content, you can never take it down] http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:9pDSe_yfdzsJ:www.cgfi.org/materials/speeches/yield_ag.htm ----- Will the World Throw Away High Yield Agriculture? Alex A. Avery Speech to the National Potato Promotion Board, Denver, Colorado The Rev. Thomas Malthus' famous question about whether humanity can continue to feed all the people was posed exactly 200 years ago. It has taken us nearly all of that 200 years to be sure of an affirmative answer. Only recently have we been certain that the opening of the 21st century should see a new and fully-sustainable balance between food, population and the environment because of: * Radically-declining birth rates virtually all over the world; * Enormous advances being made in the scientific knowledge of how to boost food production; * Vastly more affluence than any generation before has had, and thus more capital to invest in the roads, storage facilities, ships and research labs that encourage food production, distribution and preservation; * An array of technologies?contraceptives, biotechnology, computers, satellite communications, cryogenics and a host of other technical advances?that can help to achieve a constructive balance between human needs and the ecology. Compare this situation with any year before 1960. Before that year, massive famines seemed certain for much of the world; poverty was the global norm; the Green Revolution had not yet demonstrated its power. By comparison, the world today has a virtual certainty of food production success. If humanity is to starve or displace wildlife in the 21st century, with today's technology and a declining population growth rate, it could only be because we lack the political will. However, that may be the case. Today, the real question is not whether the world can produce enough food for a peak population of 8.0-8.5 billion people. It can. We could already produce enough to satisfy minimal caloric requirements for that many people if known technologies were fully extended, and production was divided equally among all consumers. The world's recent famines have been due to "mistakes of government," such as civil wars and Mao Tse-tung's ill-considered communal farms. Little hunger has been due to the lack of available food. Forty percent of the world's current crop output, in fact, goes to livestock and poultry feed so that affluent people can eat high-quality diets full of meat, milk, and eggs. In a hunger emergency, we can eat both the feedstuffs and the livestock, and later worry about rebuilding the flocks and herds. The Food Challenge is Affluence The food challenge of the 21st century, in fact, is not the challenge of population growth, but the challenge of affluence. Virtually all the people of the 21st century will be affluent by today's standards and able to afford education, nice clothes and TV sets. Such people are unwilling to accept minimal diets. The same modern couples who are willing to practice family planning, with two children instead of 15, demand that their two children get rich diets high in meat protein for growth, and milk calcium for strong bones. Affluent people insist on fresh fruits and vegetables all year round. Such diets take far more resources than boiled rice or corn-flour tortillas. There is no vegetarian trend in the world; instead we are seeing the strongest surge of demand for resource-costly foods in all history. Currently, only about 4 percent of the First World's population are even vegetarian, and most of these vegetarians consume lots of resource-costly eggs and dairy products. There will even be a pet food challenge. The U.S. has 113 million pet cats and dogs for 270 million people. All over the world, ownership of companion animals and pet food sales rise with incomes. Already, China's one-child policy is stimulating pet ownership. It is reasonable to project that China in 2050 will have more than 500 million cats and dogs. And, woe unto the public official who stands between a pet owner and Fluffy's favorite food. The debate in development economics is whether the challenge of affluence requires a 250 percent increase in the world's food output, or a 300 percent increase. The universal human hunger for high-quality protein, combined with the pet factor, convinces us that the world must be able to triple, certainly more than double, its farm output in the next 40 years. What About Potatoes? As you all are likely well aware, the market of the future for North American potato growers is Asia, as Asia is the future market for almost all North American farmers. Whereas in Ireland, potatoes were the food of the poor, in Asia, potatoes are percieved as a luxury food?sold almost entirely as french fries in Western-style fast food outlets, such as Kentucky Fried Chicken or McDonalds. However, as Asia's economy grows, fast food is loosing its label as a "luxury" food and is entering the mainstream of Asian society. So we can look to the fast food sectors as an indicator of where the market for potatoes is likely to go in the next several decades. The Fast Food Industry is skyrocketing in Asia. One Hong Kong-based market analysis firm, Asian Market Intelligence, estimates China's fast food sector have nearly $5 billion US dollars in sales in 1997, 20% from Western fast food outlets. Even better, the fast food sector has grown at an average rate of 50 percent annually in recent years. But this hardly does justice to the phenomenal growth in the frozen french fry market in recent years. The US agricultural attache in China reports that China's direct purchases of frozen french fries have increased ten-fold in the past three years, and re-exports through Hong Kong have tripled. McDonalds and KFC account for two thirds of the market share in french fries, demonstrating the close connection between french fry consumption and fast food chains. Even more promising, from a long-term perspective, China's supermarkets are beginning to stock frozen french fries for home consumption. This trend is especially marked in the north, where deep frying at home is common. These trends indicate that french fries and potato products are making significant cultural inroads in Asia. A wave of young Chinese consumers raised on "treats" of McDonalds and other fast food is transforming the Chinese market. These trends will only increase in both scope and depth. More restaurants beyond simply fast food will start serving french fried potatoes, just as salsa and nachos have extended their base beyond Mexican restaurants. Already, french fries have moved out of simply Western-style fast food restaurants, and into Chinese fast food outlets. Currently, China is estimated to import as much as 20,000 tons of french fries in 1997, with greater than 95 percent of this coming from the United States. China recently decided to lower import duties on french fries and the sector is making improvements in infrastructure to ensure the maintainence of high quality. China, although it produces potatoes, has yet to produce a quality potato with the proper characteristics for french fries. Even in Japan, where Western foods have been popular for several decades, french fry consumption has been increasing recently. Because of the rising popularity of hamburger joints, french fry imports have been rising at 7-10 percent annually. This is a 250,000 to 300,000 ton potato import market, with almost 90 percent of these coming from the United States. If China consumed half of the Japanese French fry consumption, it would be a 2 million ton potato import market. Is that possible? You bet, but it will take time for the Chinese to reach that level of individual income and for Chinese tastes to be Westernized to the level of the Japanese. However, it is not just the Chinese who will be our ultimate consumers. Asia includes three of the four largest nations: China, India, and Indonesia. And let's not forget Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan, and Pakistan. The opportunity for export growth is simply astonishing. Legislating Scarcity? But at the same time that this enormous opportunity is emerging overseas, there are significant uncertainties arising here at home. Many thought just a couple of years ago that the only thing we had to worry about was opening up the trade barriers. Once we got that, we'd be OK. After all, we'd just solved that darned old "Delaney Clause" mess with the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and the Freedom to Farm bill was going to get the government off our backs. Well, as Dennis and I were saying then, "hold on a minute." Everyone realized fairly quickly that the FQPA was going to cause some problems. Beyond the basic problems I have with methedology in assessing exposure of pesticides and the aggregate/cumulative risk cup analysis done by the EPA, the process is happening quite fast and growers are going to have to watch the process like a hawk from this point onward. When Tim asked me to speak here today, he wanted me to cover the current FQPA situation and where it is going. The simple answer is that it's going fast and loose. The EPA is basing their pesticide review decisions on old data in some cases. As a result, the agency is not fully accounting for how important some of these compounds really are to potato growers. Methamidophos or Monitor is one example. The fungicide TPTH was saved because potato growers demonstrated that it was a key chemical to many growers. But the EPA's estimates were inaccurate and if the industry hadn't been watching closely, it would have been lost. It's that simple. Does that mean that you will be able to save every chemical currently allowed? Don't bet on it. At this point, Carol Browner has only a short time left. With Al Gore in the Presidential race, things could change rapidly. That is exactly how the FQPA was enacted in the first place. My advice and the advice of many I've spoken to is to watch the agency like a hawk. More importantly, if there are data gaps on the use of specific chemicals undergoing review that are important to the potato industry, GET THE DATA!! With FQPA already the law, the only significant defense you guys have is solid data. The more data the better because in the absence of data, the EPA will make "default" assumptions about pesticide exposure. I must add, that potato growers have a few things in their favor over growers of some other crops. While the market for pesticides is larger in corn or soybeans, your market is no small potatoes. You are an important market for fungicides and insecticides, a market that the chemical companies want to keep. That means, under FQPA's unified risk cup, where chemicals with similar modes of action and from other crops are combined when calculating consumer exposure and risk. As the risk cup gets full, manufacturers will have to dump pesticide uses in order to keep the risk cup from overflowing. Potatoes, while not the biggest, will likely be behind many other commodities when it comes time to ditching uses. To make things doubly uncertain, on top of FQPA, biotechnology is now controversial. We went from getting rid of Delaney and going after trade access, to overly stringent pesticide laws and a consumer confusion crisis in three years. The Chinese curse of "May you live in Interesting times" is definitely upon us. For those of you who think that pesticide issues are completely separate from biotechnology issues, let me clarify things for you: it is all part of one, much larger conflict. Robert Shapiro, head of Monsanto, actually believed when they started developing biotech crops that the activists would see the virtue in biotech crops and would eventually support the technology. After the biotech fiasco broke in Europe, Shapiro was so niave that Monsanto's advertising campaign gave out the web site addresses of the opposition! The promise of biotechnology is immeasurable. We couldn't begin to forecast what developments will be coming in twenty years if biotech is allowed to move forward and there is even modest consumer acceptance. Already we have the New Leaf and New Leaf Plus potatoes. I'm told that the New Leaf Plus is good, but not perfect. There may be some yield drag. But the trial results I've seen so far look pretty good. A drastic reduction in the average amount of insecticide sprays and excellent virus protection. One set of photos even showed pheasant tracks in a NLP potato field, and the researcher mentioned that it was the first time in here over ten year career that she'd seen such tracks. In the pipeline are a whole range of biotech potato improvements, ranging from greater virus and fungus resistant varieties to bruise resistant potatoes. The reality is, however, that if we fail to communicate the benefits and need for biotechnology, we risk loosing it to over regulation and consumer fear. It was no surprise that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were vehemently against the new agricultural technology. It was a surprise, however, that many in agriculture were caught off guard by the environmentalist opposition. Where have such people been during the last 20 years. There hasn't been a single new agricultural advancement in this century that hasn't been opposed by some group, mostly environmentalists. In the early part of this century, some, despite the high risk of milk-borne tuberculosis, vehemently opposed milk pasteurization. Then it was hybrid corn. The it was insecticides, especially DDT. Then it was herbicides. Now it's biotechnology. As proof that the opposition is to modern agriculture, not social or human health concerns, I call your attention to the comments of two prominent critics of biotechnology in response to the announcement of the development of the Golden Rice by scientists funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Golden rice is rice engineered to contain Beta carotene, the precursor to Vitamin A, and inactivates a protein in rice, phytase, that inhibits iron availability. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the research to develop golden rice because Vitamin A deficiency and iron deficiency plague many rice-based cultures. It is estimated that 4 million children go blind each year because of vitamin A deficiency. An estimated 2 billion women suffer birth complications as a result of iron deficiency. Golden rice was developed as a humanitarian effort to relieve these simple dietary deficiencies. The International Rice Research Institute is now developing regional varieties of rice which incorporate golden rice's traits and will then give the germplasm to national governments for free. But just look at the response from environmentalists and activists. Margaret Mellon is with the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington, D.C. She claims that golden rice is simply a ploy by the agribusiness community to put a humanitarian face on a dangerous technology. She says "there are ten simple things we can do to solve these problems without biotechnology, from building roads and distributing iron tablets to encouraging people to grow gourds." Let me get this straight, instead of allowing people access to a rice seeds they could grow themselves which would alleviate all of these problems, we're supposed to just build an entire network of roads and infrastructure so that we can distribute pills and pumpkin seeds? News flash, Ms. Mellon, if they had such diverse backyard gardens and infrastructure, they likely wouldn't be nutritionally deficient to begin with. Vandana Shiva, an Indian "community activist," is even more silly. She states that all we have to do is get poor Asians to eat more meat, milk, eggs, dairy products, and green leafy vegetables. Even sillier, she suggests that golden rice is dangerous because it could poison people with too much vitamin A! These are people suffering from chronic vitamin A deficiency. Besides, Ms. Shiva is extremely ignorant of the physiological realities. The golden rice contains only Beta carotene, not vitamin A. Beta carotene is a precursor to vitamin A, which means it is extremely difficult to overdose on Beta carotene. One nutritionist I spoke to said that a person would have to eat 10 times the normal amount of rice each day for months before any problems would show, and even then, they would have ample warning that something is wrong because their skin would begin to turn orange well before toxic levels of vitamin A occurred. The activists opposition to golden rice exposes their real colors. They aren't against bad biotechnology, the activists are against all biotechnology. How else to explain their opposition to golden rice. It can't be because they fear it will be used as a tool of multinational corporations to monopolize agriculture?it was funded by a philanthropic charitable foundation and will be given away to farmers free. It can't be because they fear environmental or ecological consequences?the golden rice contains no new plant genes, only existing genes from wild plants. The only explanation is that these people are luddite elitists pandering to their own paranoia. "Golden rice" will offer improved health to billions of women and children in rice-eating countries who could not have been helped through factory-food additives?at a tiny cost to society and no cost to them. We must stop hoping and waiting for people to realize how important these technologies are for us and the planet and begin communicating on a level that consumers understand. Land?the Scarcest Natural Resource We in agriculture have a duty to help people understand that the intense increase in food demand I spoke of earlier will force even greater competition between farming and wildlife for land. ? Agriculture already uses about 37 percent of the earth's land surface, and any land not already in a city or a farm is wildlife habitat. ? If the world has 30 million wildlife species (a reasonable biologist's "guesstimate") then 25-27 million of them are probably in the tropical rain forests, with most of the remainder in such critical habitats as wetlands, coral reefs and mountain microclimates. These are places we have not farmed, and should not farm. Through pesticide use, fertilizers, confinement meat production and modern food processing, modern high-yield farming has already saved millions of square miles of wildlife habitat. Our peer-reviewed estimate is that the modern food system is currently saving something on the order of 15-20 million square miles of wildlands from being plowed for low-yield food production. That makes it the greatest conservation triumph in modern history. Thus the key to conserving the natural world in the 21st century will be what the Hudson Institute calls "high-yield conservation." Meeting both the food and forestry challenges, while leaving room for nature, will depend on our ability to continue increasing the yields per acre from plants, animals and trees on our best land, and transporting to where the people are demanding it. Our success will also depend heavily on how urgently we explore such high-tech methods as biotechnology in food and forestry. Hamstringing High-Yield Conservation Yet the world's most advanced societies are attempting to legislate low-yield agriculture. All over the First World, government funding for agricultural research is being cut back, or shifted to low-yield "sustainable" farming. Governments in affluent countries subsidize low-yield organic farming, while regulators respond to public opinion by depriving the world's high-yield farmers of time-tested pesticides and raising the safety hurdles to unjustifiably high levels. In Africa, which has not yet had its Green Revolution, aid donors are demanding that farmers increase food production without modern pest protection or plant nutrients. Large numbers of well-fed, affluent, influential people are opposing biotechnology, the most important unexploited advance in humanity's knowledge of how to increase food production rapidly. There is serious question whether the power of biotechnology will be marshaled in agriculture soon enough to make its undoubtedly huge contribution to simultaneously saving people and wildlife. Are modern societies attempting to surrender the planet back to hunger, malnutrition and massive losses in wildlife habitat? And if so, why? The Environmentalist Campaign Against Modern Farming The opponents of modern, high-yield agriculture and biotechnology are, ironically, gathered under the banner of environmentalism. ? With the help of Rachel Carson's brilliantly-flawed book, Silent Spring, eco-activists long maintained that modern farmers are poisoning children with cancer-causing chemicals. After 50 years of widespread pesticide use and billions of research dollars, science is still looking for the first case of cancer caused by pesticide residues. The U.S. National Research Council, the Canadian Cancer Institute and other medical authorities are trying to tell the public that the cancer fears are unfounded. ? For fifty years, wildlife groups have universally claimed that modern farm chemicals were poisoning wildlife on a massive scale. However, the wildlife losses to today's narrowly-targeted and rapidly-degrading chemicals are trivial -- especially when compared with the millions of square miles of wildlife habitat saved by farmers' high yields. ? Eco-activists claim that more food means more people. But we are clearly in the first era of human history when more food has not meant more population. Births per woman in the Third World are down from 6.5 in 1960 to 3.0 today, and the birth rates have fallen fastest in the countries where the crop yields have risen most rapidly. ? Environmentalists claim that modern farming is destroying the soil with rampant erosion. But farmers have used herbicides and tractors to invent conservation tillage, which cuts soil erosion per acre by 65 to 95 percent. A recent soil erosion study in Wisconsin finds that the farmers there are suffering only 5 percent as much erosion as they did during the "Dust Bowl" days of the 1930s. ? Environmentalists oppose liberalized farm trade, though this is the only hope for much of Asia's wildlife. We must now realize that modern agriculture is being targeted, not because it is bad for the environment, but because modern farming 1) represents the greatest success of technological abundance; and 2) because farming controls much of the world's land and water. The environmental movement seems to want managed scarcity for a few people. It seems to want more bison and prairie dogs?and fewer corn plants?on American land even if that sacrifices wildlands and biodiversity elsewhere. The Future with Biotechnology The world is in the early phases of exploring biotechnology's potential?the "biplane stage," to draw the analogy with airplanes. But already we see enough to know that biotechnology will be enormously important to conservation. Saving Wild Species with Aluminum-tolerant Crops Two researchers from Mexico discovered a way to overcome the aluminum toxicity that cuts crops yields by up to 80 percent on the acid soils characteristic of the tropics. Noting that some of the few plants that succeed on the world's acid savannas secrete citric acid from their roots, they took a gene for citric acid secretion from a bacterium and put it into tobacco and papaya plants. Presto, they had acid-tolerant plants. The acid ties up the aluminum ions, and allows the plants to grow virtually unhindered. The Mexican researchers have since gotten the citric acid gene to work in rice plants, and hope that it can be used widely in crop species for the tropics. Acid-soil crops have enormous potential for wildlife conservation. Acid soils make up 30 to 40 percent of the world's arable land, and about 43 percent of the arable land in the tropics. Thus far, they have been one of the major barriers to providing adequate food in the very regions that are critical to wildlands conservation, the Third World tropics. These are the very areas where the populations are growing most rapidly, where incomes are rising most rapidly, where the food gaps are expanding most rapidly -- and where most of the world's biodiversity is located. Raising Yields with Wild-Relative Genes Two researchers from Cornell University reasoned that more than a century of inbreeding the world's crop plants had significantly narrowed the genetic base of our crops. They also reasoned that the world's gene banks contained a large number of genes from wild relatives of our crop plants. They selected a number of genes from wild relatives of the tomato family, a crop where yields have been rising by about 1 percent per year. The wild-relative genes produced a 50 percent gain in yields and a 23 percent gain in solids. The same researchers selected two promising genes from wild relatives of the rice plant -- a crop where no yield gains had been achieved since the Chinese pioneered hybrids some 15 years ago. Each of the two genes produced a 17 percent gain in the highest-yielding Chinese hybrids; the genes are thought to be complementary, and capable of raising rice yield potential by 20 to 40 percent. Improved Meat Animals with Biotech Heretofore, methods for introducing new genes into livestock had a low efficiency -- less than 10 percent. However, in the 24 November issue of The Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers report a new method for producing transgenic animals that approaches 100 percent efficiency. Researchers put the foreign gene into the animal's egg before it was fertilizer rather than shortly after. Obviously, this is another important step in creating animals with greater tolerance for pests and diseases, better feed conversion ratios and other practical advantages. Saving Forests with Biotech Trees The world could increase its forest harvest ten-fold if we planted just 5 percent of today's wild forests in high-yield tree plantations. Such plantations are good-but-not-great wildlife habitat because they are not "fully natural," but they could apparently take all of the logging pressures off 95 percent of the natural forests. Trees have always been difficult to improve through crossbreeding because the time frames are so long. Biotechnology is already helping to provide the higher-yielding trees through cloning and tissue culture -- which permit us to rapidly copy the fastest-growing, most pest-resistant trees in a species. When we master the tools of biotechnology more fully, we should be able to increase forest growth rates, drought tolerance, pest resistance and other important traits more directly, and even more effectively. A Global Trend Toward More Activists It is the nature of activists to push for something different. In Peru, activists demanded an end to the chlorination of drinking water because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found chlorine, at high levels, could cause cancer in laboratory rats. Peruvian officials took the chlorine out of the water, and the cities promptly suffered a cholera epidemic that killed 7,000 people. I don't blame the activists. I blame the people who trusted the activists, and the people who should have represented the other side of the question. I also blame the press, which should have sought out the broader reality. Like it or not, the world is on a trend to have more activists, in more countries. Democracy and affluence encourage activists and the free, open debate of public questions. The internet and instant global communication will also spur the creation of more activists. If modern agriculture is to succeed, it must learn to succeed in an activist-rich environment. It's not just agriculture, of course. Global warming activists have created global summits, an international treaty, and captured the political soul of a major U.S. presidential candidate?with less evidence than they've had of harm from modern agriculture. But the activists have come so far, won so much power and prestige around the world that they can't stop. The Achilles Heel of High-Yield Agriculture?Regulation It is true that the Green Movement has rarely won an election, anywhere in the world. But the desire to preserve Nature is so urgent in First World cities that the Greens haven't needed to win elections. Environmental concern is so widespread that politicians race each other to embrace key points of environmental strategy. In America, Wirthlin polling a few years ago indicated that 75 percent of the public agrees with the statement, "We cannot set our environmental standards too high?regardless of cost." Because of the high public approval for the environment, we have an Environmental Protection Agency with virtually no Congressional oversight. The bureaucrats who work for EPA read newspapers and polling results. They assume that they can regulate "environmentally offending" industries, such as agriculture, in virtually any way they choose. Modern farming's reputation with the urban public is now so bad that it can no longer persuade the Congress to block unfavorable legislation, or force Federal agencies to modify unfavorable regulations and rulings. Not even farm-state politicians will commit political suicide on behalf of farming. Betrayed by Modern Journalism? Unfortunately, today's mainstream media are not living up to their professional obligations for objectivity and resarch. Somewhere during the Vietnam era, journalists got the idea that refereeing the game of life was not as satisfying as playing on the winning team. Among the causes they have adopted as their own in recent decades is the environment. Recently, our Center put out a press release noting that the water quality in North Carolina's Black River has improved over the last 15 years, even though the hog population in its watershed had quintupled to one of the highest densities in the U.S. Of the 300+ media outlets we sent the press release to, one lone skeptical reporter called to inquire further. She asked whether the hog industry had sponsored the study. No, we told her, the data was from the State environmental agency. "But that's not what my readers want to hear," she lamented, then hung up. That's how far behind the public affairs curve modern agriculture currently finds itself. This is not a problem that can be dealt with by writing press releases, or by hosting community tours of farms and milk processing plants. Can We Educate the Public on High-Yield Conservation?in Time? Someone must tell the urban public about the environmental benefits of high-yield modern farming. I submit that it will have to be agriculture. Agriculture and agricultural researchers must talk about saving wildlands and wild species with better seeds. We must talk about conquering soil erosion with high yields (so there's less farmland to erode) and conservation tillage (which radically reduces erosion per acre of farmland). We must talk about preventing forest losses to slash-and-burn farming (the cause of destruction for two-thirds of the tropical forest we've lost). We must point out that where high-yield farming is practiced, the amount of forest is expanding. We must point out that the losses in wildlife habitat overwhelmingly occur where the farmers get low yields. Agriculture and its researchers also need to point up the high risks of organic food. The Centers for Disease Control has been afraid to publicize it, but their own data seem to show that people who eat organic and "natural" foods are significantly more likely to be attacked by the virulent bacteria, E. coli O157:H7. Consumer Reports wrote that free-range chickens carried three times as much salmonella contamination. The facts are clear: organic food is fertilized with animal manure?a major reservoir of bacterial contamination?and composting is neither careful enough nor hot enough to kill all of the dangerous organisms. We must analyze every eco-activist proposal in terms of its land requirements: * Organic farming for the world would mean clearing at least 5 million square miles of wildlife for clover and other green manure crops. * Free-range chickens for the U.S. would take wildlands equal to all of the farmland in Pennsylvania. * Reducing fertilizer usage in the Corn Belt would mean clearing many additional acres of poorer-quality land in some distant country to make up for the lost yield. * Blocking free trade in farm products and farm inputs will probably mean clearing tropical forest for food self-sufficiency in Asia. It should not be solely up to agriculture to prevent such a needless disaster. Agriculture has no history of public affairs campaigns or any real experience in conducting them. However, I see no other entity with the knowledge, the financial requirements and the direct interest to do it. I doubt that the National Academy of Sciences or the National Research Council can turn public opinion around. The NRC's recent report, Carcinogens and Anti-carcinogens in the Human Diet, is a landmark. It essentially says pesticide residues are no threat to public health. But the public is not reading the document, and the media are not reporting it. Moreover, a significant number of NAS members are encouraging the attacks on high-yield farming. How can we present the environmental case for high-yield agriculture if the journalists will not write it and politicians fail to support it? Modern agriculture must take its case directly to the people, through advertising. My model is the American Plastics Council, which spends about $20 million per year to keep plastics virtually out of the environmental discussions in America. The Weyerhaeuser Company is another good example of positive imaging; Weyerhaeuser has been telling me for decades that it's the tree-growing company. Not the tree-cutting company, not the tree-using company, but the tree-growing company. David Brinkley, the most respected journalist in America today, has also shown us the way. ADM, the big corn and soybean processor, sponsors the Brinkley ads and they are doing a fabulous job. * Brinkley notes that farmers are still the most indispensable people. * He shows a cute little girl in Taiwan, and points out that her mother wants her to have meat and milk in her diet so she will grow strong and vigorous. Who could oppose that? * The ads show families of deer and wild birds, and note that "the higher yields achieved by modern farmers are providing food -- and in some cases even shelter --for families around the world." Many of the firms with billions of dollars invested in modern agriculture are already talking to urban America. DuPont and Dow have whole rosters of consumer products and millions of dollars worth of consumer advertising. Cooperatives like Land-o-Lakes and Countrymark have consumer ad budgets too. Wildlands conservation would be a winning message with both their customers and their farmer members. So far, agriculture has failed to accept the challenge, and the momentum for high-yield conservation is waning. We are not increasing public investments in high-yield research. We are not creating support for the farm community. The regulators are continuing to strangle farm productivity. In the long run, of course, farmers and farm researchers will be vindicated even without a public affairs campaign. But that vindication could come too late for the wildlands and the wild species?and too late for most of today's high-tech farmers and agribusinesses. At this point, it looks as though we will fail to meet the food challenge of the 21st century?not for lack of time, but for lack of realism in our public life. Our forefathers would have been ashamed for us. ### Alex Avery is Director of Research and Education at the Center for Global Food Issues. He received his bachelors degree in biology and chemistry from Old Dominion University. Previous to joining the Center, Alex was a McKnight research fellow at Purdue University conducting basic plant research. Alex represented the Center at the United Nations World Food Summit in Rome in 1996. He is co-author of the Hudson Institute briefing paper Farming to Sustain the Environment, which addresses issues of agricultural sustainability from a practical and global perspective. Alex has written on agricultural, food safety, regulatory and global population issues for major newspapers, including The Washington Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Fort Worth Star-Telegram and the Des Moines Register. He has also been published in USA Today magazine, Regulation magazine, Feed Management, and scientific publications such as Environmental Health Perspectives and the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. His article on international food regulations will appear in the Wiley Encyclopedia of Food Science & Technology, second edition. In addition to his publications, Alex has spoken to a wide range of groups, including the Australian Weed Science Society, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Phytopathological Society, as well as numerous industry and university audiences. From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 18 03:59:23 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:59:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <1197910674_2403@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200712180426.lBI4Q2Ns004284@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson ... ...I am motivated to do so because I am a matter chauvinist.? I have a (probably irrational) dislike for putting my "state vector" through an optical fiber... Ja Keith but consider where that state vector is going thru now. ...In spite of my distaste for such a future, my honest estimate for the post singularity population of _physical state_ humans is zero.? :-(? ...Keith So why the sad face Keith? Humans have some very interesting information content but we are a loooong ways from being maximized in information per unit matter. We can cut away major pieces of a human without significantly altering the amount of information therein. Meat isn't such a great way to contain consciousness, but rather only the best way we currently know. I suspect when we do figure it out, it will be the biggest AHA Insight we have ever enjoyed. May we all live to see it. spike From hibbert at mydruthers.com Tue Dec 18 04:07:50 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:07:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation In-Reply-To: <20071217194957.GQ10128@leitl.org> References: <1196373944_16551@S4.cableone.net> <200712151053.24899.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712162153.35546.kanzure@gmail.com> <4766C2F9.4010106@mydruthers.com> <20071217194957.GQ10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <47674796.9080109@mydruthers.com> I wrote: >>> The place I'd start is with a very careful read of Jeff Hawkins' >>> "On Intelligence". And Eugen replied: > Sorry, the book is not even wrong. This doesn't give me enough information to tell whether to believe you or what I read earlier. What's the simple demonstration that it's "not even wrong"? Is there a better model for how intelligence emerges from collection of neurons or for how the cortical columns work together to produce interesting behavior? The book starts by arguing that if we are to understand how the brain works, we need to realize that the cortex consists of mostly uniform components at the level of the columns, that they usually perform functions determined by where they are located in the brain, but that when there's damage, any particular area might take on a function performed elsewhere. Then he looks at what is know of the structure of the columns and comes up with an architecture that, IMHO, would work as a matter of remembering inputs, predicting their recurrence, and feeding the predictions back to the earlier stages to serve as a gauge of surprise. > His stuff is a) not new and b) so far can't even reproduce hoary old > PDP models. The claim that it's not new isn't relevant if the theories are clearly, demonstrably wrong. If the theory is useful, it may be a valid criticism of the author or the book, but not of the theory. I read lots of books that present material discovered or developed by someone else. They don't always give appropriate credit, but sometimes turn out to be the primary citation on the subject later. I prefer authors who give appropriate credit, but if they explain a subject well, I value them even if they don't give credit. Why is it important that it be able to reproduce the "hoary old PDP models"? (I assume you mean neural nets? I found more than one expansion in the context of neurophysiology.) >>> A simulation at this level would be a lot cheaper, and if Hawkins >>> is right, would capture the essential emergent properties of the >>> cortex' building blocks. > It would be nice if there was something to be right on. Unfortunately, > there isn't. What do you mean? There's no useful level to simulate between neurons and brains? I'm guessing, and not finding any plausible expansion for "there isn't anything to be right on". > What irks me most is that there's this pall of standstill spreading > over multiple fields, and for a long while now. That might be purely > subjective, but I'm afraid it goes beyond that. I can't tell what you're trying to say here. * "Hawkins didn't add anything new to the field, nor has anyone else in years." * "Everyone thinks there's no progress here, but they're missing the real work." * something else entirely Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com http://mydruthers.com From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 18 04:56:52 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:56:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ac clarke is 90 In-Reply-To: <007d01c84071$a195cb90$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200712180523.lBI5NUwL012486@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/12/17/people.arthurcclarke.ap/index.ht ml >From the article: "Sometimes I am asked how I would like to be remembered," Clarke said. "I have had a diverse career as a writer, underwater explorer and space promoter. Of all these I would like to be remembered as a writer." Don't worry Dr. Clarke, you will be. spike From scerir at libero.it Tue Dec 18 07:28:26 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:28:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com><200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com><012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2><001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede><017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <018701c84058$b436a940$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <003e01c84147$94b03b00$56941f97@archimede> Gary Miller: > But I admit the references which say this is impossible still seem to > outnumber the ones which claim it is possible by about five to one. But on > the other hand the papers which claim superluminal data transfer is possible > are more recent. [...] > http://casimirinstitute.net/coherence/Jensen.pdf That one has been discussed here some time ago. Cramer is now performing his experiment, similar to Jensen's experiment. Two-photon interference and one-photon interference are obviously different phenomena. In the first case we need a coincidence detection unit of some sort (two clocks at least). In the second we do not need any coincidence device. It seems to me that these position/momentum correlated photons 'signaling' machines are based on a sort of ... fusion ... of the one-photon and the two-photon interference phenomena. You perform a specific measurement on the idler photons and, at a distance, *without checking the coincidences*, you imagine that an interference pattern will appear, or disappear, at a distance, at the signal wing. Now it is known, since long time, there is an 'luciferine' complementarity principle between the one-photon and the two-photon interference. In the sense that the more you can see the first interference, the less you can see the second interference, and viceversa. See, i.e., these papers: M.A.Horne, A.Shimony, A.Zeilinger, 'Two-Particle Interferometry', Phys.Rev.Lett. 62, 2209 (1989). M.A.Horne, A.Shimony, A.Zeilinger, 'Two-Particle Interferometry', Nature, 347, 429 (1990). D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Horne and A. Zeilinger, 'Multiparticle Interferometry and the Superposition Principle', Physics Today 46 8, (1993). and these specific experiments ... http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112065 http://josab.osa.org/abstract.cfm?id=35389 Since the complementarity principles, in general, presuppose a 'smooth' transition from the visibility of a phenomenon to the visibility of the other, here we can also expect a smooth transition from the visibility of a single-photon interference to the visibility of a two-photon interference, and viceversa. If there is an intermediate situation in which both interferences are (badly) visible, and if - in this intermediate and desperate situation - is still possible to imagine 'signaling' experiments is difficult to say. (I think we'll see that soon, since Cramer is playing with his lasers now). "Pronouncements of experts to the effect that something cannot be done have always annoyed me." - Leo Szilard From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 18 11:02:12 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:02:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Entanglement (was: simulation) In-Reply-To: <00ae01c840ff$63b7fee0$58064e0c@MyComputer> References: <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <00ae01c840ff$63b7fee0$58064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20071218110212.GV10128@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:51:08PM -0500, John K Clark wrote: > So you can't use quantum entanglement to send messages faster than light, > but you can use it to encrypt messages in a code as secure as the laws of That's a pretty weak sort of security, I'm afraid. Also, QC is crypto snake oil: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/snakeoil_resear.html http://www.google.com/search?&q=quantum+cryptography+snake+oil It (maybe) solves a non-problem, badly, and for a hefty price. > physics. Or you could say that you can send information faster than light > but the message is encoded and the key to decode it can only be sent > slower than light. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Dec 18 15:09:48 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:09:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> > > If we can give up our oil addiction and guilt the world into believing > in the "green" program, we can further raise the price of the dirty > habit for those who can't afford the switch to carbon-free > alternatives. (You know, like charging $4.50 for the same box of > cigarettes that was < $2.00 only ten years ago: the more people quit, > the more they can charge the remaining recalcitrant smokers) Has there been any research that shows that this method actually reduces the number of smokers? Or do they just alter other parts of their lives to compensate? Except for myself, everyone I know that smoked 10 years ago still does. I quit because of my father's emergency bypass surgery and subsequent coma. (He still smokes). I know that several years ago when the gas prices spiked for a while, a lot of people switched to driving smaller vehicled and SUVs took a beating in the US. Since then it appears on the surface that people have went back to buying the SUVs despite gas being twice what it was 7 years ago. Instead they have found other ways to deal with it such as cutting back entertainment, buying cheaper Chinese made products, and cancelling their gym memberships. > I have > little doubt the US will tap Alaskan oil fields, but not before the > selling price is five times what it is now. In order to make that > happen, some changes are obviously required. Americans will not pay > that much to drive, Prove it. I think you are wrong. Americans have a love affair with the independence that driving a car brings. They cannot all afford to go out and buy a new vehicle. The average commute is 45 minutes meaning that they can't just walk to work. Most of the working population has a car payment that goes along with the car and that would still have to be paid whether or not they were driving the car. The cars they have now would lose their value and they would not be able to trade them without incurring a huge additional amount of debt which is already a severe problem in the US. The problem is on the manufacturing end. If someone suddenly started releasing cars that were comfortable, attractive, safe (both real and perceived), that would do 75 mpg - or even 100, they would jump on it. But even then you have the used car problem to address. Any real alternative to make a difference will have to include all the used vehicles already out there. Also, this still doesn't address the problem. The oil in Alaska, if not purchased by the US will be bought from us by other countries. It will be sold to whomever is willing to pay the most. > it wouldn't be worth it to go to work - so an > artificial 50% increase now is just enough pain to adopt hybrid and > electric vehicles so we can tolerate another 300+% increase tomorrow. > More money needs to be spent on R&D to make these products available. I like where you are going with this though. How about a $1.50 per gallon gas guzzler tax on all passenger vehicles that get less than 30 mpg and use that money to directly fund alternative R&D. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 18 16:06:25 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:06:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Entanglement (was: simulation) References: <017901c84031$0e3b4680$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2><00ae01c840ff$63b7fee0$58064e0c@MyComputer> <20071218110212.GV10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <015c01c8418f$f8e89520$b5084e0c@MyComputer> "Eugen Leitl" > QC is crypto snake oil It most certainly is not snake oil, nor does Schneier say so in the article you mention, nor is he even talking about Quantum Cryptography in that article. However Schneier DOES talk about it in his book "Applied Cryptography"; from page 554: "Quantum Cryptography taps the natural uncertainty of the quantum world. With it you can create a communication channel where it is imposable to eavesdrop without disturbing the transmission." John K Clark From stefan.pernar at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 16:17:48 2007 From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:17:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> <944947f20712161206i39094f01gbab7bfa1da50a4a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <944947f20712180817u72f33f84m3f590d05808a9248@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 16, 2007 11:29 PM, Kevin H wrote: > On Dec 16, 2007 2:06 PM, Stefan Pernar wrote: > > > On Dec 16, 2007 4:57 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 2007 11:45 PM, Kevin H wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/13/07, Stefan Pernar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable > > > > > over non existence > > > > > > > > > > > > > Preferable according to whom? > > > > > > > > > According to the individual. For an in depth intuitive explanation > > please see here: > > > > > > http://rationalmorality.info/wiki/index.php?title=The_Moebius_Effect_%28book%29_understanding_choices > > > > Well, I'll just tell you my view. It is only concrete human beings, like > you and me, who make evaluations. So given that many people disagree on the > worth of existence, I'd suggest that your premise is flawed. > Thanks for the feedback. I argue that those who are not in favour of existence are being irrational. My reason is that those that are against their own existence would consequently have to remove themselves from existence (i.e. commit suicide) or remove others from existence (i.e. kill others), who could alternatively become helpfully allies. I see no practical purpose whatsoever in killing others unless it is the only way to prevent them from killing even more others. > I've taken a cursory look at your paper and, like most ethical systems > that I've seen proposed, the first thing I look at is how you move from > natural statements to normative ones; that is, how do you bridge the gap > between facts to value? > Could you please give me an example where I do that? I would like to make sure that is not the case. > To myself, I think the naturalistic fallacy is a basic logical error, one > that I don't see addressed in your paper. > I will look into the naturalistic fallacy and how I can address it in my paper. Good point. > And if you want to engage in this kind of ethical speculation you should > be incredibly clear on how you derive values from facts and where you do > so. Most ethical systems I've seen have been very obscure on this point, > thus hiding their underlying invalidity even to their author. > -- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 18 16:24:49 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:24:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Entanglement (was: simulation) In-Reply-To: <015c01c8418f$f8e89520$b5084e0c@MyComputer> References: <20071218110212.GV10128@leitl.org> <015c01c8418f$f8e89520$b5084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20071218162449.GF10128@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:06:25AM -0500, John K Clark wrote: > It most certainly is not snake oil, nor does Schneier say so in the article The commercial QC products have however a strong taste of snake oil, and Bruce Schneier does indeed blast several crypto snake oil salesmen (not difficult to find in the search term I posted). > you mention, nor is he even talking about Quantum Cryptography in that > article. However Schneier DOES talk about it in his book "Applied > Cryptography"; from page 554: The book is from 1996. No QC products were available at that time on the market. No dubious claims needed to be disputed. http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0711.html#5 Switzerland Protects its Vote with Quantum Cryptography This is so silly I wasn't going to even bother blogging about it. But the sheer number of news stories has made me change my mind. Basically, the Swiss company ID Quantique convinced the Swiss government to use quantum cryptography to protect vote transmissions during their October 21 election. It was a great publicity stunt, and the news articles were filled with hyperbole: how the "unbreakable" encryption will ensure the integrity of the election, how this will protect the election against hacking, and so on. Complete idiocy. There are many serious security threats to voting systems, especially paperless touch-screen voting systems, but they're not centered around the transmission of votes from the voting site to the central tabulating office. The software in the voting machines themselves is a much bigger threat, one that quantum cryptography doesn't solve in the least. Moving data from point A to point B securely is one of the easiest security problems we have. Conventional encryption works great. PGP, SSL, SSH could all be used to solve this problem, as could pretty much any good VPN software package; there's no need to use quantum crypto for this at all. Software security, OS security, network security, and user security are much harder security problems; and quantum crypto doesn't even begin to address them. So, congratulations to ID Quantique for a nice publicity stunt. But did they actually increase the security of the Swiss election? Doubtful. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?... http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14833/53/ http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/... http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/... http://feeds.arstechnica.com/~r/arstechnica/BAaf/~3/... http://cwflyris.computerworld.com/t/2191514/92085/... http://technology.newscientist.com/article/... Me on quantum cryptography: http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0312.html#6 Me on voting: http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0411.html#1 http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0411.html#2 http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0312.html#9 http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0012.html#1 > "Quantum Cryptography taps the natural uncertainty of the quantum world. > With it you can create a communication channel where it is imposable to > eavesdrop without disturbing the transmission." My copy is away at work, but if he said that he was wrong. http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn2111-quantum-cloning-nears-perfection-limit.html etc. It is important to use holistical analysis of security claims in order to evaluate them. Just pointing and muttering "entanglement" "secure by physical law" is not only highly misleading, it is outright wrong in some cases. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Tue Dec 18 16:31:17 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Joshua Cowan) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:31:17 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: Snip: Kevin Freels asks: >Has there been any research that shows that this method actually reduces >the number of smokers? Or do they just alter other parts of their lives to >compensate? I'm not sure what you mean by your second question but, yes, there's been public health research that shows raising the price of smokes decreases the number of smokers. This effect is not population wide, as you might imagine, those most price sensitive and who have been smoking the fewest number of years are most likely to quit when faced with a price hike. In other words, this approach is most successful with adolescents (especially when combined with peer pressure memes) and least successful with high income long-time smokers. Needless to say, raising the tax on cigs also enlarges the black market but overall, the number of smokers do decrease. Josh From citta437 at aol.com Tue Dec 18 17:05:58 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:05:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] No one owns a mind Message-ID: <8CA0FAF64C73C41-A70-2C5E@FWM-M18.sysops.aol.com> ">In more conventional terminology, I suppose it could be referred to as >"technoprogressive", in the purer sense unencumbered with the >connotations of left-wing politics, having quite successfully co-opted >"progressive" for their own purposes. No one own techno, progressive or democracy, so I don't see a problem. :-) When people lack visionary ideas, they fight and squabble. Natasha ___________ In a larger sense, no one owns a mind much less ideas and thoughts. Behind every scientific theories and technologies there are galaxies of interacting cells in the brain with no one in absolute control. Read anatomy and physiology of the brain. Our brains depend on neurotransmitors and hormones secreted by the different organ system in our body. This self-organizing system/brain matter is flexible from childhood and gets less flexible as we aged due to genetic and environmental phenomena. How does mind as consciousness arise from this complex electrical interactions? Energy expands like our universe in cosmic scale. A formulaic equation of quantum gravity= energy times itself to the power of what? Its mind boggling to me enough to drive a robot insane. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From citta437 at aol.com Tue Dec 18 17:59:44 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:59:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/Consciousness re:subjective and objective Message-ID: <8CA0FB6E7FB22E8-A70-3065@FWM-M18.sysops.aol.com> "Narrower definitions Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia. According to these, qualia are: ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience. intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things. private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible. directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale. If qualia of this sort exist, then a normally-sighted person who sees red would be unable to describe the experience of this perception in such a way that a listener who has never experienced color will be able to know everything there is to know about that experience. Though it is possible to make an analogy, such as "red looks hot", or to provide a description of the conditions under which the experience occurs, such as "it's the color you see when light of 700 nm wavelength is directed at you," supporters of this kind of qualia contend that such a description is incapable of providing a complete description of the experience. Another way of defining qualia is as "raw feels". A raw feel is a perception in and of itself, considered entirely in isolation from any effect it might have on behavior and behavioral disposition. In contrast, a "cooked feel" is that perception seen as existing in terms of its effects. According to an argument put forth by Saul Kripke in "Identity and Necessity" (1971), one key consequence of the claim that such things as raw feels can be meaningfully discussed ? that qualia exist ? is that it leads to the logical possibility of two entities exhibiting identical behavior in all ways despite one of them entirely lacking qualia. While very few ever claim that such an entity, called a philosophical zombie, actually exists, the mere possibility is claimed to be sufficient to refute physicalism. Those who dispute the existence of qualia would therefore necessarily dispute the existence of philosophical zombies. There is an ancient Sufi parable about coffee that nicely expresses the concept: "He who tastes, knows; he who tastes not, knows not." John Searle has rejected the notion that the problem of qualia is different from the problem of consciousness itself, arguing that consciousness and qualia are one and the same phenomenon." ____________________ How can a robot function with consciousness or a sense of qualia? To send a robot to Mars is already feasible. What is missing is an apparatus which discern subjective from objective facts. Memory is a property of a computer-like brain and human brain value the past as if it is the present fact. There exist a gap between synaptic connections where neuron's reactions show a time lapse of some mm/second. See the function of the amygdala and hippocampus that's genetically involved in emotions and feellngs. These two regions of the brain has direct connection outside while the neo-cortex, center for memory and speech do not have direct connection outside. Their main functon is to interpret what is seen or felt according to what is stored in the memory center. Consciousness/qualia is subject to these quantum interactions between neurons so much so that stimulati received from the amygdala and hippocampus which secretes hormones and neuro-amines to kick up the response mechanism of fear or fight and flight reactions subject to the memory/image interpreted by the neo-cortex. When the subjective and objective processes meet depends on a lot of random processes in the micro and macro world of interacting forces of energy. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 18 18:24:23 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:24:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Dollar a gallon gas was Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <1198002259_1533@S3.cableone.net> At 08:09 AM 12/18/2007, Kevin Freels wrote: snip >More money needs to be spent on R&D to make these products >available. I like where you are going with this though. How about a >$1.50 per gallon gas guzzler tax on all passenger vehicles that get >less than 30 mpg and use that money to directly fund alternative R&D. There does not seem to be very many mechanical/electrical/chemical engineers on the list at the moment. Or else they are not posting. The problems of expensive gas and too much carbon being dumped into the atmosphere are an engineering ones. There is at least one obvious solution. True it might cost what the Iraq war cost, but the ROI has just got to be better. Keith From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 20:16:04 2007 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:16:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs In-Reply-To: <944947f20712180817u72f33f84m3f590d05808a9248@mail.gmail.com> References: <8CA0BEEF31038C5-18C-2104@webmail-dd06.sysops.aol.com> <944947f20712132118o5c83b582od4d935870246c646@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20712160757j33798brcbf4f194bf5a781e@mail.gmail.com> <944947f20712161206i39094f01gbab7bfa1da50a4a0@mail.gmail.com> <944947f20712180817u72f33f84m3f590d05808a9248@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2007 9:17 AM, Stefan Pernar wrote: > On Dec 16, 2007 11:29 PM, Kevin H wrote: > > > On Dec 16, 2007 2:06 PM, Stefan Pernar wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 2007 4:57 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2007 11:45 PM, Kevin H wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 12/13/07, Stefan Pernar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable > > > > > > over non existence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Preferable according to whom? > > > > > > > > > > > > According to the individual. For an in depth intuitive explanation > > > please see here: > > > > > > > > > http://rationalmorality.info/wiki/index.php?title=The_Moebius_Effect_%28book%29_understanding_choices > > > > > > > Well, I'll just tell you my view. It is only concrete human beings, > > like you and me, who make evaluations. So given that many people disagree > > on the worth of existence, I'd suggest that your premise is flawed. > > > > Thanks for the feedback. I argue that those who are not in favour of > existence are being irrational. My reason is that those that are against > their own existence would consequently have to remove themselves from > existence ( i.e. commit suicide) or remove others from existence (i.e. > kill others), who could alternatively become helpfully allies. I see no > practical purpose whatsoever in killing others unless it is the only way to > prevent them from killing even more others. > Okay, I have two counterarguments. First, your argument is question begging. If not being in favor of existence was rational, then it would make sense that killing yourself or killing others would be rational too. You're assuming what you're trying prove: that being against existence is irrational. But despite all of this, you're beginning to evaluate another person's evaluation. First, as your basic premise, you assume that existence is preferable to non-existence. Now when I say that some people don't prefer existence over non-existence, you then say they're not being rational. Yet, if it was the case that non-existence was preferable to existence, then such a person could accuse you of irrationality by the same form of argument that you accuse them. But the second counterargument is the more serious. In the book *Beyond Good and Evil* Nietzsche goes to great lengths to criticize the belief in opposite values. Here you pose the evaluation of existence in only two modes: favor or disfavor. If you favor existence, then you say you can base an entire ethical system on it; but if you disfavor existence, you conclude that such a person is or ought to be suicidal or homicidal. Yet, I suggest other than two modes of evaluation of existence, there's an entire spectrum of evaluations on existence. For example: happiness, boredom, dread, horror, anguish, anxiety, pleasure, expectation, excitement, and so on--all of these are possible evaluations of existence. And these modes can't be reduced to your simplistic dichotomy. > Could you please give me an example where I do that? I would like to make > sure that is not the case. > Well, at this point you do it in this premise that we're speaking of. You say that existence *is* preferable to non-existence, not that existence is subject to people's evaluations, but that this evaluation is the correct one irregardless of evaluative standpoint. Hopefully this is helpful for your edification. Best regards, *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 18 20:39:16 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:39:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Entanglement (was: simulation) References: <20071218110212.GV10128@leitl.org><015c01c8418f$f8e89520$b5084e0c@MyComputer> <20071218162449.GF10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <001701c841b6$19327690$f6044e0c@MyComputer> "Eugen Leitl" > if he [Schneier] said that He did. > he was wrong. No he was not wrong, nor is he saying anything different today. In one of the very pages you recommend Schneier says: "It's not that quantum cryptography might be insecure; it's that we don't need cryptography to be any more secure." And I agree it is overkill, and I agree there are much easier ways to keep things secret; but that is a very long way from saying it's snake oil and putting it in the same category as cold fusion, flying saucers, Bigfoot and ESP crap. And it's only overkill if your opponent does not have a working quantum computer; if they do then there will be no choice, it will be quantum cryptography or nothing. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 18 20:56:33 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:56:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/Consciousness re:subjective and objective References: <8CA0FB6E7FB22E8-A70-3065@FWM-M18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <004901c841b8$884ec270$f6044e0c@MyComputer> Wrote: > John Searle has rejected the notion that the problem of qualia is > different from the problem of consciousness itself, arguing that > consciousness and qualia are one and the same phenomenon." I am somewhat disturbed to find myself agreeing with John Searle on this point. I say disturbed because the man decisively proved in his famous Chinese Room thought experiment that John Searle is not a very smart man. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robotact at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 21:05:25 2007 From: robotact at gmail.com (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:05:25 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Entanglement (was: simulation) In-Reply-To: <001701c841b6$19327690$f6044e0c@MyComputer> References: <20071218110212.GV10128@leitl.org> <015c01c8418f$f8e89520$b5084e0c@MyComputer> <20071218162449.GF10128@leitl.org> <001701c841b6$19327690$f6044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2007 11:39 PM, John K Clark wrote: > And it's only overkill if your opponent does not have a working > quantum computer; if they do then there will be no choice, it will be > quantum cryptography or nothing. > Quantum computers are not omniscient oracles. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:robotact at gmail.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Dec 18 22:12:50 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:12:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476845E2.6060704@kevinfreels.com> Isn't it time for someone to break out the midgets to Mars plan? "No modification necessary!" > - what are some of the more radical possibilities for enhancement? > - should we re-engineer humans to help them adapt to different > environments and not just space (ie Mars)? > > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Dec 18 23:04:51 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:04:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47685213.1030900@kevinfreels.com> > > I'm not sure what you mean by your second question but, yes, there's been > public health research that shows raising the price of smokes decreases the > number of smokers. This effect is not population wide, as you might imagine, > those most price sensitive and who have been smoking the fewest number of > years are most likely to quit when faced with a price hike. In other words, > this approach is most successful with adolescents (especially when combined > with peer pressure memes) and least successful with high income long-time > smokers. Needless to say, raising the tax on cigs also enlarges the black > market but overall, the number of smokers do decrease. > > Josh > > Thanks. I wasn;t sure. Looks like most of the people I am around are in fact older with higher incomes and less likely to quit. Do you have any links to any of these studies? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Dec 18 22:59:47 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:59:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> citta437 at aol.com wrote: > Practices/behaviors are driven by a subconscious desire for > preservation of the status quo. Many behaviors are driven by other factors such as survival, mating, and comfort. Many people have various ideas on what their status quo is and whether or not they wish to keep it. > Gobal warming i.e. is seen as > detrimental for the life in this planet by scientists and rationalists > alike. First you are assuming that everyone believes we're in a period of man-made global warming. Then you assume we can actually do anything about it. Next you assume that global warming is bad. A little warming might be good. > Irrational behavior/ignorance that cause global warming is on > the rise. > Where did this statement come from? Is behavior causing GW? Is it "Ignorance" causing GW? And then is ignorance really on the rise? > 1. Perhaps this is caused by lack of emphasis on science education? > My kids have learned all about global warming. In 1st grade my daughter was scared to death that we were going to die when the planet died. Why teach a kid this? We made it through ice ages and warming periods without our technology. Surely we can make it through more. What we need to teach more of is critical thinking. Skills that teach children to question everything and ask for proof would be a terrific step forward except then they would quickly lose control of the kids since most teachers can't justify things like having kids write their name in the upper right hand corner in cursive on every page in black ink only. > 2. The media's emphasis on irrational behavior by idolizing celebrities? > There's that "irrational behavior" again. Irrational is not the same as "wrong" thinking. A good many people think through what they do rationally and come up with different answers based on their own objectives and the information they use to draw their conclusions. While I agree there is some irrational thinking in the media - Rosie O'Donnell comes to mind - I don't think that the large part is necessarily irrational and is more or less uninformed. Even then there is a good deal of media and celebrity that are doing good things all the time. > 3. Capitalists' greed that capitalizes on ignorance itself? > Greed is not necessarily a good thing. If someone didn't want to get rich off their inventions and have the ability to do so, I think you would have far less invention and discovery. Even many who don't do things for the money still do it for other greed and need type reasons such as self-esteem. When you eliminate greed, all that is left is altruism and that alone wouldn't get us very far. Of course, there are those that play to the ignorance of others. Did you know that your bag of chips from WalMart has less chips in it than the same size bag at the grocery store? Check the written label on the content. That should be a motivation to not be ignorant and think critically, not a problem with greed itself. Wrong type greed is usually punished as a violation of morals and ethics. > What are the chances to reverse irrational behaviors in the human > species? I am not sure you would want to. Irrational behavior is a reality that is a large part of us that is probably necessary. We are complex beings and we have our emotions, preferences, and such. I am sure that getting my girlfriend pregnant at 17 wasn't very rational, but my 18 year old son is terrific and I wouldn't have it any other way - even if my life would have been "better" without him being born. > I see the evidence of irrational behavior is caused by lack of emphasis > on science education and integrating biological sciences with the > humanities. > > Sorry that you are drawing your conclusions so readily without a bit more investigation. Seems to me you have started with a conclusion and now you are working to prove it instead of trying to find out what is really going on. You assume there are problems that need fixing so let me ask you - what proof do you have that life now is not already better than it has been in the past and that it is headed in the wrong direction? From citta437 at aol.com Tue Dec 18 23:27:43 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:27:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Moral Behavior Message-ID: <8CA0FE4B9303E62-DC8-804@FWM-M18.sysops.aol.com> " Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable > > > > > > over non existence > > > > > > > > > > Preferable according to whom? > > > According to the individual. _________________ Moral behavior is a dichotomy. Where in nature does duality exist? Preferences of existence over non existence are produced by a mind attached to a brain matter dependent on energy in all it's forms. Preferences/desires are movements of the mind which in turn depends on the brain matter as energy. Thoughts of existence are thoughts. There are many thoughts coming and going living in temporary existence. We are all thoughts/energy whether we like it or not. Hence, to exist or not to exist as energy is a question arising out of chaos/mental distress. To chose what is right or wrong is already a mistake. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 23:37:28 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:37:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712181537k76d17092wdbed7bb9fdffd1b6@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 18, 2007 10:09 AM, Kevin Freels wrote: > little doubt the US will tap Alaskan oil fields, but not before the > selling price is five times what it is now. In order to make that > happen, some changes are obviously required. Americans will not pay > that much to drive, > Prove it. I think you are wrong. Americans have a love affair with the > independence that driving a car brings. They cannot all afford to go out and > buy a new vehicle. The average commute is 45 minutes meaning that they can't [snip] > were comfortable, attractive, safe (both real and perceived), that would do > 75 mpg - or even 100, they would jump on it. But even then you have the used > car problem to address. Any real alternative to make a difference will have > to include all the used vehicles already out there. > > Also, this still doesn't address the problem. The oil in Alaska, if not > purchased by the US will be bought from us by other countries. It will be > sold to whomever is willing to pay the most. exactly. We love to drive, and we'll pressure politicians to keep gas prices under $100 a tank - but if the price raises enough to hurt, people will be motivated to think in the "right" direction (towards alternatives) Suppose it takes 15 years for the lowest income car owners to buy used hybrids manufactured this year. By that point, the US can sell their oil reserves at grossly inflated prices to less developed nations because the "average" US car driver is less dependent on it, while those countries lagging in the conversion have no choice but to pay... > > it wouldn't be worth it to go to work - so an > artificial 50% increase now is just enough pain to adopt hybrid and > electric vehicles so we can tolerate another 300+% increase tomorrow. > > More money needs to be spent on R&D to make these products available. I > like where you are going with this though. How about a $1.50 per gallon gas > guzzler tax on all passenger vehicles that get less than 30 mpg and use that > money to directly fund alternative R&D. Yeah, because people like to voluntarily accept unequal taxes :) From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Wed Dec 19 00:34:33 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Josh Cowan) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:34:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <47685213.1030900@kevinfreels.com> References: <47685213.1030900@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: Hi Kevin, I can't find the study I paraphrased (different job and it wasn't on the two back up CD's I thought would have it) but there are plenty of other studies out there. You might start with: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6607090_ITM The above study is far from perfect and is adolescent focussed but does show the effect I referenced. Cheers, Josh On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:04 PM, Kevin Freels wrote: > >> I'm not sure what you mean by your second question but, yes, there's >> been >> public health research that shows raising the price of smokes >> decreases the >> number of smokers. This effect is not population wide, as you might >> imagine, >> those most price sensitive and who have been smoking the fewest >> number of >> years are most likely to quit when faced with a price hike. In other >> words, >> this approach is most successful with adolescents (especially when >> combined >> with peer pressure memes) and least successful with high income >> long-time >> smokers. Needless to say, raising the tax on cigs also enlarges the >> black >> market but overall, the number of smokers do decrease. >> >> Josh >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1352 bytes Desc: not available URL: From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Wed Dec 19 00:43:21 2007 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:43:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] $25,000 Matching Grant Fund Drive In-Reply-To: <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> References: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: Dear Extropians; I know many of you are already members of the WTA and some of you have already made a contribution to the new $25,000 Matching Grant Fund Drive we've initiated, but for those who haven't yet joined, now's the time to do so and to help our organization really grow! Bill Faloon of Life Extension Foundation and Brian Cartmell of Cartmell Holdings, LLC, have generously offered to help us kick off our first fundraising event by matching your donations up to $25,000 until January 31, 2008. We need 250 members to give $100 each, so your donations can be doubled. This is a unique opportunity we cannot afford to miss! This money will fund three projects necessary for the WTA's survival against a well-funded, organized, and vocal opposition. We intend to spread our memes through: 1) H+ Quarterly Digital Magazine Featuring stories, interviews, news, and an events calendar, to be edited by the visionary journalist R.U. Sirius. It will be a fresh, fun and powerful medium for presenting all of our ideas to our membership and the general public. 2) Website Redesign, Logo and Branding A desperately needed "extreme makeover" to get our ideas out there! 3) Student Outreach Road Show Organize a one-day event at a top university to trial-run this concept, for educational exploration and membership growth. Through members' generous efforts, we will be offering a special H+ T-shirt for each $100 donation, and autographed copies of Citizen Cyborg, Ending Aging, or The Singularity is Near for $250 donations. I know that this time of year you receive many requests for donations. But this is the first time the WTA has asked for this kind of support from our members. We need you now. Please help. To make these projects a reality, make your secure donation at our website, www.transhumanism.org/match. You may also send a check to WTA, PO Box 128, Willington, CT 06279. The World Transhumanist Association is a 501(c)(3) organization and your contribution will be tax- deductible to the extent allowed by law. Help Transhumanism grow!! Sincerely, James Clement Executive Director World Transhumanist Association P.S. Please forward this to your family, friends and like-minded associates. We need their help, too! From pjmanney at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 00:46:45 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:46:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] research question Message-ID: <29666bf30712181646u28a6f094ye913f00d06654cea@mail.gmail.com> This question is about DNA identification. I've read everything I could find on the 'net and no one answers this one: How long does it take for a DNA sample to be identified? From the sample arriving at a lab, to the lab being able to confirm or deny the identity comparing it to an existing sample, to the standard of deciding a paternity suit or a crime investigation. I'm looking for sample in>data out time. Is it minutes? Hours? Days? Thanks! PJ From brent.allsop at comcast.net Wed Dec 19 02:17:30 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:17:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/Consciousness re:subjective and objective In-Reply-To: <8CA0FB6E7FB22E8-A70-3065@FWM-M18.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0FB6E7FB22E8-A70-3065@FWM-M18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <47687F3A.6020605@comcast.net> citta437 at aol.com wrote: > "Narrower definitions > Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to > qualia. According to these, qualia are: > ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any > other means than direct experience. > intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not > change depending on the experience's relation to other things. > private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are > systematically impossible. > ineffable, intrinsic, private. Those 3 sound accurate to me. > directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to > experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all > there is to know about that quale. > Is this the 4th? - to directly experience a quale in consciousness is to know all there is to know about that quale? That, also, sounds right to me. As in once the properly enhanced formerly merely abstract knowledge AI is turned on, it may finally say something like: "oh THAT is what salt tastes like." right? Thereby the ineffable will have been effed, enabling all its formerly merely abstracted representations of such to finally be grounded and truly phenomenally known. > If qualia of this sort exist, then a normally-sighted person who sees > red would be unable to describe the experience of this perception in > such a way that a listener who has never experienced color will be able > to know everything there is to know about that experience. Though it is > possible to make an analogy, such as "red looks hot", or to provide a > description of the conditions under which the experience occurs, such > as "it's the color you see when light of 700 nm wavelength is directed > at you," supporters of this kind of qualia contend that such a > description is incapable of providing a complete description of the > experience. > I am a supporter, and I do precisely this. > Another way of defining qualia is as "raw feels". A raw feel is a > perception in and of itself, considered entirely in isolation from any > effect it might have on behavior and behavioral disposition. In > contrast, a "cooked feel" is that perception seen as existing in terms > of its effects. > That is a bit imprecise and confusing way of getting close to the idea that there are behavioral properties of matter, and in addition, also ineffable properties that exist in our consciousness. > According to an argument put forth by Saul Kripke in "Identity and > Necessity" (1971), one key consequence of the claim that such things as > raw feels can be meaningfully discussed ? that qualia exist ? is that > it leads to the logical possibility of two entities exhibiting > identical behavior in all ways despite one of them entirely lacking > qualia. I believe this is possible. Except when you ask the zombie what is red like for it, if it's behavior is to be the same, it must lie about the true nature of it's knowledge, perhaps using some abstracted lookup table, rather than appealing to true phenomenal awareness or experience. > While very few ever claim that such an entity, called a > philosophical zombie, actually exists, the mere possibility is claimed > to be sufficient to refute physicalism. Those who dispute the existence > of qualia would therefore necessarily dispute the existence of > philosophical zombies. > Count me as one of these very few that claim that such an entity is possible, but highly inefficient, since it always requires much more to lie, than it does to simply phenomenally know. > There is an ancient Sufi parable about coffee that nicely expresses the > concept: "He who tastes, knows; he who tastes not, knows not." > John Searle has rejected the notion that the problem of qualia is > different from the problem of consciousness itself, arguing that > consciousness and qualia are one and the same phenomenon." > I agree with Searl on this, and like John Clark's comment, think his "Chinese Room" idea is completely idiotic and completely obfuscates and distracts us from the simple idea of the difference between phenomenal properties vs cause and effect behavioral properties, and their abstract representations. This also making me somewhat embarased to say I agree with Searl. > ____________________ > > How can a robot function with consciousness or a sense of qualia? To > send a robot to Mars is already feasible. What is missing is an > apparatus which discern subjective from objective facts. Memory is a > property of a computer-like brain and human brain value the past as if > it is the present fact. There exist a gap between synaptic connections > where neuron's reactions show a time lapse of some mm/second. See the > function of the amygdala and hippocampus that's genetically involved in > emotions and feellngs. These two regions of the brain has direct > connection outside while the neo-cortex, center for memory and speech > do not have direct connection outside. Their main functon is to > interpret what is seen or felt according to what is stored in the > memory center. Consciousness/qualia is subject to these quantum > interactions between neurons so much so that stimulati received from > the amygdala and hippocampus which secretes hormones and neuro-amines > to kick up the response mechanism of fear or fight and flight reactions > subject to the memory/image interpreted by the neo-cortex. When the subjective and objective processes meet depends on a lot of random processes in the micro and macro world of interacting forces of energy. > > When you bring up all this, especially stuff like random quantum interactions, as Chalmers points out, all such is merely dealing with the easy problem of consciousness, or how particular behavior occurs. And as Chalmers also points out, all this has nothing to do with any phenomenal properties such matter behaving in such a way may or may not have. Though understanding all such is important, this is just detracting when it comes to the simple idea of the difference between a behavioral property (whether quantum or classical) and a phenomenal property. Brent Allsop From x at extropica.org Wed Dec 19 02:20:31 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:20:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] $25,000 Matching Grant Fund Drive In-Reply-To: References: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: On 12/18/07, James Clement wrote: > Dear Extropians; > > I know many of you are already members of the WTA and some of you have > already made a contribution to the new $25,000 Matching Grant Fund Drive > we've initiated, but for those who haven't yet joined, now's the time to do > so and to help our organization really grow! I'll speak up here to say that I contributed a few days ago to the WTA Matching Grant Fund, while I've refused on the basis of principle every year until now. I see real change already happening with James Clement as executive director, and I see the potential for more positive change with others who are poised to join the board. I figure my $100 (possibly matched) can make a positive statement this year. And if I don't see improvements as expected, I can make another positive statement by **not** contributing next year. I know many of us here are passionate supporters of transhumanist and extropian values, and this is a chance to do a bit more than talk. Get involved, please. From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 19 03:03:30 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:03:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <200712180426.lBI4Q2Ns004284@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1197910674_2403@S1.cableone.net> <200712180426.lBI4Q2Ns004284@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1198033405_13829@S3.cableone.net> At 08:59 PM 12/17/2007, you wrote: >bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson >... > >...I am motivated to do so because I am a matter chauvinist. I have a >(probably irrational) dislike for putting my "state vector" through an >optical fiber... > >Ja Keith but consider where that state vector is going thru now. Getting there with half your packets missing has got to be worse problem than the airlines loosing your luggage. >...In spite of my distaste for such a future, my honest estimate for the >post singularity population of _physical state_ humans is zero. :-( >...Keith > >So why the sad face Keith? Humans have some very interesting information >content but we are a loooong ways from being maximized in information per >unit matter. I know it's heresy to say so here, but I am not even sure that's a desirable goal, at least not for humans. >We can cut away major pieces of a human without significantly >altering the amount of information therein. Meat isn't such a great way to >contain consciousness, but rather only the best way we currently know. I >suspect when we do figure it out, it will be the biggest AHA Insight we have >ever enjoyed. May we all live to see it. Or die trying. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 19 03:13:37 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:13:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] $25,000 Matching Grant Fund Drive In-Reply-To: References: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <1198034011_12541@S4.cableone.net> At 05:43 PM 12/18/2007, James Clement wrote: >Dear Extropians; snip >This money will fund three projects necessary for the WTA's survival against >a well-funded, organized, and vocal opposition. What! Not only is the WTA almost unknown but who in the heck would be opposing it? I.e., you have risen to a higher level than I thought if anyone cares enough to oppose you. Keith From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 19 03:24:49 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:24:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone In-Reply-To: <476845E2.6060704@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <200712190324.lBJ3Ot39029852@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Freels > Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon > Firestone > > Isn't it time for someone to break out the midgets to Mars plan? "No > modification necessary!" > > > > - should we re-engineer humans to help them adapt to different > > environments and not just space (ie Mars)? Kevin waves the bait. Whenever one is tempted to ridicule this idea of very small people to Mars, just keep repeating to yourself like a mantra: The mass of a mission to Mars scales as the cube of the linear dimension of the astronaut. spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 19 03:45:18 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:45:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <200712190345.lBJ3jNsb016938@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Freels ... > > 1. Perhaps this is caused by lack of emphasis on science education? > > > My kids have learned all about global warming. In 1st grade my daughter > was scared to death that we were going to die when the planet died. Why > teach a kid this?... Kevin this is one of the most important lessons your daughter will receive: healthy skepticism. First grade now, so she's about six. Ten years from now when kids gain the capacity for critical thinking, she will find that the beach is still in the same place as it was when she was six. Twenty years from now it will still be right there. We and the planet will still be very much alive. Winter will still come every year and the snow will still fly. Summers will still be happy times of fun and bikinis. The stunning brilliant display of leaves will still fall in autumn, flowers will still bloom gloriously in the spring, even when she is an old lady. > ... What we need to teach more of is critical thinking... Although perhaps not the intended lesson, your daughter's teachers did exactly that. The global warming message weakens itself by underestimates of the time scale involved, overstatement of the risks, and by understatement of the benefits. Seldom do I see in the mainstream media a list of all the things that will improve if we get global warming, even though it looks to me to outweigh the negatives. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 04:51:44 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:51:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <1198033405_13829@S3.cableone.net> References: <1197910674_2403@S1.cableone.net> <200712180426.lBI4Q2Ns004284@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1198033405_13829@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <62c14240712182051u1d877ef5i4028c00a943bd4bf@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 18, 2007 10:03 PM, hkhenson wrote: > >altering the amount of information therein. Meat isn't such a great way to > >contain consciousness, but rather only the best way we currently know. I > >suspect when we do figure it out, it will be the biggest AHA Insight we have > >ever enjoyed. May we all live to see it. > > Or die trying. Or possibly vitrify the meat so we can one day wake up post-Singularity and say, "So that's how they did that?" hmm... I guess if you can't laugh at yourself, you should learn to laugh collectively at all of humanity :) From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 04:56:12 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:56:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <200712190345.lBJ3jNsb016938@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> <200712190345.lBJ3jNsb016938@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712182056l36d2bf96s20f1ec24e65b010@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 18, 2007 10:45 PM, spike wrote: > The global warming message weakens itself by underestimates of the time > scale involved, overstatement of the risks, and by understatement of the > benefits. Seldom do I see in the mainstream media a list of all the things > that will improve if we get global warming, even though it looks to me to > outweigh the negatives. So how much Canadian tundra farmland have you invested in? can we rebrand the meme as a Global Warming Opportunity? From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 19 05:19:21 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:19:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does theenvironment look like? In-Reply-To: <62c14240712182051u1d877ef5i4028c00a943bd4bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712190519.lBJ5JQeG004038@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty ... > > >... May we all live to see it. > > > > Or die trying. > > Or possibly vitrify the meat so we can one day wake up > post-Singularity and say, "So that's how they did that?" Are you sure you would know? Perhaps they would keep the thawstronauts thinking they are still meat, cured by advanced medical techniques. > hmm... I guess if you can't laugh at yourself, you should learn to > laugh collectively at all of humanity :) I can already do both, Mike. My strategy is to laugh with myself, at humanity. Then when I get tired of that, I do it the other way around. Derisively of course. Its the best kind of laughter, so long as it is *sincerely* derisive. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 19 05:54:48 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:54:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <200712190345.lBJ3jNsb016938@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712190345.lBJ3jNsb016938@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6E5A79E2-76D1-46B0-89FC-26845F46BD50@mac.com> On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:45 PM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Freels > ... >>> 1. Perhaps this is caused by lack of emphasis on science education? >>> >> My kids have learned all about global warming. In 1st grade my >> daughter >> was scared to death that we were going to die when the planet died. >> Why >> teach a kid this?... > > Kevin this is one of the most important lessons your daughter will > receive: > healthy skepticism. First grade now, so she's about six. The trouble is the "program" is not taught with any room for skepticism. It is taught the same way Jesuits taught religion, young and integrated into as much as possible. It is taught along with ABCs. This is a crime imho. > Ten years from > now when kids gain the capacity for critical thinking, she will find > that > the beach is still in the same place as it was when she was six. This you do not know. > >> ... What we need to teach more of is critical thinking... > > Although perhaps not the intended lesson, your daughter's teachers did > exactly that. > No. She taught a dogma to a defenseless mind. And I say that as someone who believes GW is real and dangerous. But I don't believe it is predominantly caused by human activity or that curtailing certain human activities is an adequate or even doable way to address it. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 19 05:57:31 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:57:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <62c14240712182056l36d2bf96s20f1ec24e65b010@mail.gmail.com> References: <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> <200712190345.lBJ3jNsb016938@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <62c14240712182056l36d2bf96s20f1ec24e65b010@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1A0BE3B1-12A7-4DD7-BB47-5B93D2A70CE5@mac.com> On Dec 18, 2007, at 8:56 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Dec 18, 2007 10:45 PM, spike wrote: >> The global warming message weakens itself by underestimates of the >> time >> scale involved, overstatement of the risks, and by understatement >> of the >> benefits. Seldom do I see in the mainstream media a list of all >> the things >> that will improve if we get global warming, even though it looks to >> me to >> outweigh the negatives. > > So how much Canadian tundra farmland have you invested in? Hehehe. I once saw a major oil company property built on tundra disappear in an early and warmer than normal spring when the "tundra" turned to bog. No thank you. I would not invest until things stabilize a bit. - samantha > From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 19 06:02:07 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:02:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <62c14240712182056l36d2bf96s20f1ec24e65b010@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712190602.lBJ62C6P019791@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty ... > > ... Seldom do I see in the mainstream media a list of all the > things > > that will improve if we get global warming, even though it looks to me > to > > outweigh the negatives. > > So how much Canadian tundra farmland have you invested in? Not Canadian, but 118 acres of Oregon farmland. This had little to do with the warming planet or the rising tide, but rather in anticipation of the flood of Taxifornians fleeing the state because of its claim on one's pension. Oregon, Nevada and Arizona real estate looks to me to be a great investment op. > ...can we rebrand the meme as a Global Warming Opportunity? I thought we already did. Someone commented earlier about opposition to global warming legislation because of capitalistic greed, but I see *plenty* of opportunities for satisfying one's capitalistic greed assuming the passage of global warming legislation. If one pays attention, one can profit mercilessly regardless of whether global warming comes along or not. Consider for instance a suggestion posted earlier regarding a tax on guzzlebuggies, with the profits used to fund energy conservation research. I would argue that such money is poorly spent, for the principles of energy conservation are already well known. More research is not necessary, for we have known for a long time what is required. We just don't want to do it. It requires us to go slower in lighter vehicles. Nothing high tech or even particularly expensive required. Consider this alternate idea: we figure out a way to build roads parallel to the existing ones that are safe for ultra-light-weight and slow vehicles, such as bicycles, scooters and golf-cart-like electric vehicles. People would ride those things to work now if it could be done safely; I would. It might be as simple as sacrificing the currently poorly utilized carpool lanes to make them slow high-mileage, low visibility, low protection ape-hauler lanes. We would need to come up with a series of overpasses to cross the exit lanes, or somehow slow all the exit traffic to 30 mph (50 kph). But these high mileage ape haulers could be limited to 200kg, so that the overpasses could be light, cheap to build and practical. If we were clever we could come up with a very light fully enclosed (for weather protection) electric vehicle, which could still come in under 200kg, assuming we are willing to sacrifice top speed to about 35 mph. We can do this, we really can. Gene posted an astute notion a couple months ago about how more powerful engines require heavier structure, which in turn requires more power to accelerate hard, and so on up the weight escalator. We can go back down that same escalator, if we accept a vehicle that carries only one ape, with very little cargo capacity, that accelerates in a leisure fashion and isn't particularly rugged. It need not be our only ape hauler, but would be acceptable for daily commuting, which tends to be relatively short range and consistent in length. Many conservationists get stuck on the idea of mass transit, but my argument is that light slow individual vehicles are preferable by most people to buses, at least in the states where the suburbs are too spread out to make buses practical. Furthermore, I still have never heard a good solution to the problem that crazy and homeless people get on the bus and ride around all day. It is free for them: if they don't pay, what can you do? Nothing, for a homeless or crazy person is perfectly judgment proof. They have a nice soft climate controlled seat, all to themselves because they smell bad, and we can shout obscenities constantly, most of the time to an empty bus. (Oops did I say we? I meant THEY of course.) I know of no good way to keep the buses and trains from becoming rolling homeless shelters and insane asylums. But we could work a deal to set up slow lanes along the freeways and expressways. Many of the apes would opt for high mileage vehicles. And if we manage to do that, the sheer profit potential is stunning. We don't need to sacrifice capitalistic greed to transition to entirely renewable energy sources. It makes ones butt hurt just thinking of the money to be made during the transition. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 19 06:03:36 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:03:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] $25,000 Matching Grant Fund Drive In-Reply-To: References: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <65EFFF2F-8930-4544-9A0D-6417694CA437@mac.com> On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:43 PM, James Clement wrote: > Dear Extropians; > > I know many of you are already members of the WTA and some of you have > already made a contribution to the new $25,000 Matching Grant Fund > Drive > we've initiated, but for those who haven't yet joined, now's the > time to do > so and to help our organization really grow! > > Bill Faloon of Life Extension Foundation and Brian Cartmell of > Cartmell > Holdings, LLC, have generously offered to help us kick off our first > fundraising event by matching your donations up to $25,000 until > January 31, > 2008. > > We need 250 members to give $100 each, so your donations can be > doubled. > This is a unique opportunity we cannot afford to miss! > > This money will fund three projects necessary for the WTA's survival > against > a well-funded, organized, and vocal opposition. We intend to spread > our > memes through: > What well funded opposition is that, the so-called "bio-ethicists" and their ilk? When WTA stops preaching socialism as the one true way toward an ethical transhumanist future I may donate. Have there been developments in that direction? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 19 06:21:55 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:21:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Moral Behavior In-Reply-To: <8CA0FE4B9303E62-DC8-804@FWM-M18.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA0FE4B9303E62-DC8-804@FWM-M18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2007, at 3:27 PM, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > " Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable >>>>>>> over non existence >>>>>>> >>>>> Preferable according to whom? > >>>> According to the individual. > _________________ > > Moral behavior is a dichotomy. Where in nature does duality exist? Perhaps you make it a meaningless question by the manner of asking. Life vs. Death is a pretty primary duality very much found in nature. > > Preferences of existence over non existence are produced by a mind > attached to a brain matter dependent on energy in all it's forms. Yada, yada, yada. This noise [above] is also all mind. Mind is [can be] a tool of survival. The "preference" for survival long predated what we think of as mind. > > Preferences/desires are movements of the mind which in turn depends on > the brain matter as energy. This sentence is devoid of meaning. Do you think it becomes rooted in science by mentioning the "brain matter" clumsy phrase and even clumsier "as energy"? This base idea is straight yoga sutra. > Thoughts of existence are thoughts. DUH. But existence itself, is that but a though? Does thought then only exist in thought thus swallowing its own tail? > There > are many thoughts coming and going living in temporary existence. Our "living" is in temporary existence or the "many thoughts" or both, oh grasshopper? > We > are all thoughts/energy whether we like it or not. What is the importance of liking or not liking what is, if in fact the above says anything real? > Hence, to exist or not to exist as energy is a question arising out of > chaos/mental distress. Huh? To exist or cease to exist is a fundamental state and in many respects when thought through clearly a most fundamental choice. To not grapple with the question at all is imho to not be fully alive or human. > To chose what is right or wrong is already a > mistake. So would you have us be a choiceless creature being carried along to destruction or continued unchosen and undirected existence by whatever eddies we might find ourselves caught up in? Would you call that being more enlightened? If so, you can have it. If not please say what you actually mean instead of parading this rather empty pseudo- mystical prattle. - samantha From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Wed Dec 19 06:26:33 2007 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:26:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] $25,000 Matching Grant Fund Drive In-Reply-To: <65EFFF2F-8930-4544-9A0D-6417694CA437@mac.com> References: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> <65EFFF2F-8930-4544-9A0D-6417694CA437@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha asked the following two questions: 1) What well funded opposition is that, the so-called "bio-ethicists" and their ilk? Among others (annual budget in parenthesis): Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity: $751,000 (2006); Center for Bioethics and Culture: $117,000 (2006); Center for Genetics and Society: $923,000 (2006); Ethics and Public Policy Center (publishes New Atlantis): $1,900,000 (2006), and Discovery Institute: $3,000,000 (2006) 2) When WTA stops preaching socialism as the one true way toward an ethical transhumanist future I may donate. Have there been developments in that direction? As of the 2005 Survey (we're doing a new survey right now), 22% of the WTA members were Libertarian, 39% were socialist, and 16% were Other. The WTA has no official position regarding economic/political ideology - and individual Board members do not speak for the organization as a whole. If you want the WTA to represent YOUR views, the best way is to become a paid, participating member and vote in the Board Members of your choice. However, I'd like to think that we can all work together to spread our Transhumanist memes and learn to live with our differences. James Clement Executive Director World Transhumanist Association From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 19 06:38:06 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:38:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <6E5A79E2-76D1-46B0-89FC-26845F46BD50@mac.com> Message-ID: <200712190638.lBJ6cBtA011313@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality > > > On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:45 PM, spike wrote: > ... > > healthy skepticism. First grade now, so she's about six. > > The trouble is the "program" is not taught with any room for > skepticism. It is taught the same way Jesuits taught religion, young > and integrated into as much as possible. It is taught along with > ABCs. This is a crime imho... Samantha the important difference is that religion incorporated carefully divests itself of direct falsifiability, thus the term "religion." Global warming would have a number of predictions that we can verify. I did notice that the GW people have mostly fled from the more-and-better-hurricane theory that was so popular in the 2005 season. We have had two years in a row that were duds in that department. The storms will eventually return, as will the hurricane fans. > > Ten years from > > now when kids gain the capacity for critical thinking, she will find > > that > > the beach is still in the same place as it was when she was six. > > This you do not know... Granted I don't know that teenagers will gain critical thinking, but I can calmly assure you madam that the beach aint moving in our lifetimes, or Mike's daughter's. It's still right where it was when you and I were her age, and it will be right there when she is our age. As you say, this I don't know, but of this I am quite confident. Even if I am wrong and somehow *all* the ice on the planet melts and the seas suddenly rise a 100 meters, this is not the end of the road for humanity. It really isn't, far from it. We can work that problem. Think of all the new building contracts. We could build cities right this time. > >> ... What we need to teach more of is critical thinking... > > > > Although perhaps not the intended lesson, your daughter's teachers did > > exactly that. > > > > No. She taught a dogma to a defenseless mind... It is a defenseless mind now, but shortly it will be a defenseful mind, more so perhaps as a result of all these teachings. Isn't that the way it often works with the Jesuit education you cited earlier? I am tempted to claim that in at least some cases, being taught nonsense early in life may help some minds to search out the truth. Minds realize they have cognitive dissonance, and must reason out a consistent picture. These minds eventually come to a greater understanding than they would have had they not suffered from the cognitive dissonance from the initial falsehoods. You and I are two examples of people who escaped from religion incorporated, and were motivated to learn the real story, thus eventually discovering science incorporated. > And I say that as > someone who believes GW is real and dangerous... GW as in Global Warming or George W? How could it be that dangerous when we have all that empty real estate up there in Canada, Alaska and Siberia waiting patiently for this globe to thaw a bit and all the animals to come back? There were once dinosaurs up there. Now these places are mostly a frozen wasteland. > But I don't believe it > is predominantly caused by human activity or that curtailing certain > human activities is an adequate or even doable way to address it. > > - samantha Indeed? Are you referring to the disappearing ice caps on Mars? I find that most intriguing. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural-and not a human-induced-cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory." spike From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 19 06:50:30 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:50:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <62c14240712181537k76d17092wdbed7bb9fdffd1b6@mail.gmail.com> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> <62c14240712181537k76d17092wdbed7bb9fdffd1b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Dec 18, 2007 10:09 AM, Kevin Freels wrote: >> little doubt the US will tap Alaskan oil fields, but not before the >> selling price is five times what it is now. To the best of current petrol company estimates from actual exploration there is not all that much oil in Alaska to be tapped. >> In order to make that >> happen, some changes are obviously required. Americans will not pay >> that much to drive, What I expect to see is telecommuting finally come into its own. Many billions of dollars of productivity are lost commuting not to mention the waste in fuel and belching nasties into the air. >> >> Prove it. I think you are wrong. Americans have a love affair with >> the >> independence that driving a car brings. They cannot all afford to >> go out and >> buy a new vehicle. I used to drive 50 minutes each way to work. I can assure you that although I love to drive I was not in the least unhappy to no longer need to take such a commute. The mileage I put on my car fell drastically. I do love to drive and love my independence of movement but the vast majority of my driving was commute. I suspect that is true for a lot of people. >> The average commute is 45 minutes meaning that they can't > [snip] >> were comfortable, attractive, safe (both real and perceived), that >> would do >> 75 mpg - or even 100, they would jump on it. I think many would jump on really effective telecommuting even faster. But I did buy a Prius largely because of my former long commute. >> But even then you have the used >> car problem to address. Any real alternative to make a difference >> will have >> to include all the used vehicles already out there. Massive upgrades of electricity production (nuclear, solar, wind, wave, etc.) and affordable electric cars and conversion kits will do the trick eventually. If I can pay to convert for less than I spend a year on gas and pay it over time then I would be a fool not to. >> >> >> Also, this still doesn't address the problem. The oil in Alaska, if >> not >> purchased by the US will be bought from us by other countries. It >> will be >> sold to whomever is willing to pay the most. > There is no great bonanza of oil in Alaska. > exactly. We love to drive, and we'll pressure politicians to keep gas > prices under $100 a tank - but if the price raises enough to hurt, > people will be motivated to think in the "right" direction (towards > alternatives) Alternatives such as the electric car we already had were not killed by the people but by existing corporations with an interest in the status quo. The people being motivated by themselves can do very little. A few innovators with sufficient funding and large scale build out of alternative infrastructure are needed. There are many pieces to this puzzle and many are easy to sidetrack. > Suppose it takes 15 years for the lowest income car > owners to buy used hybrids manufactured this year. By that point, the > US can sell their oil reserves at grossly inflated prices to less > developed nations because the "average" US car driver is less > dependent on it, while those countries lagging in the conversion have > no choice but to pay... It is more likely to be the other way around since the developing nations have less pre-existing inertia from massive investments in petrochemical based internal combustion driven transportation and its supporting infrastructure. Some of those less developed nations are also where much of the proven reserves are. The US is pretty well tapped on oil unless we figure out some miraculous way to tap oil shale. > >> >> it wouldn't be worth it to go to work - so an >> artificial 50% increase now is just enough pain to adopt hybrid and >> electric vehicles so we can tolerate another 300+% increase tomorrow. >> I doubt there is much "artificial" about the increase. Want to know how fast the US$ is going down the toilet? Watch the price of oil. Add to this the unpleasant likelihood that Peak Oil is largely real and increasing competition for oil from little places like China. What is artificial and for a limited time only is how little the price of gas has gone up in response. Fortunately most gas is refined and stored before the peak driving season every year in the US. So much of the hike in oil prices did not hit us yet. Wait until next summer. Also there is some likelihood of the price being artificially kept down in that the "crack spread" between what oil can be bought for and refined and what the resulting product brings on the market is narrowing too much to be very healthy for refiners. This could be bad in that we are a bit short in the refinery department as it is and it takes considerable time and expense to bring new ones online. >> More money needs to be spent on R&D to make these products >> available. I >> like where you are going with this though. How about a $1.50 per >> gallon gas >> guzzler tax on all passenger vehicles that get less than 30 mpg and >> use that >> money to directly fund alternative R&D. As it is largely not the fault of these car owners that would be grossly unjust as are most government appropriations. >> > > Yeah, because people like to voluntarily accept unequal taxes :) Different subject. I dream of a time when we refuse to accept taxes at all. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 19 07:07:14 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:07:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <200712190638.lBJ6cBtA011313@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712190638.lBJ6cBtA011313@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <17685827-2EE4-42EE-952D-2D6328C2A817@mac.com> On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:38 PM, spike wrote: > >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality >> >> >> On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:45 PM, spike wrote: >> > ... >>> healthy skepticism. First grade now, so she's about six. >> >> The trouble is the "program" is not taught with any room for >> skepticism. It is taught the same way Jesuits taught religion, young >> and integrated into as much as possible. It is taught along with >> ABCs. This is a crime imho... > > Samantha the important difference is that religion incorporated > carefully > divests itself of direct falsifiability, thus the term "religion." > Global > warming would have a number of predictions that we can verify. I > did notice > that the GW people have mostly fled from the more-and-better-hurricane > theory that was so popular in the 2005 season. We have had two > years in a > row that were duds in that department. The storms will eventually > return, > as will the hurricane fans. > The point is that most people will not question what they were taught early enough with sufficient authority. Religion is extremely falsifiable. But people taught it early enough do fantastic contortions to keep from seeing just how false it is on examination. It is not good science to point to some prediction of some people based on some understanding of GW not coming true in order to discredit GW in its entirety. > >>> Ten years from >>> now when kids gain the capacity for critical thinking, she will find >>> that >>> the beach is still in the same place as it was when she was six. >> >> This you do not know... > > Granted I don't know that teenagers will gain critical thinking, but > I can > calmly assure you madam that the beach aint moving in our lifetimes, > or > Mike's daughter's. It's still right where it was when you and I > were her > age, and it will be right there when she is our age. > The planet is heating up. The question is what we can do about it. If we do not slow it down sufficiently then the coastlines will eventually move. > As you say, this I don't know, but of this I am quite confident. > Even if I > am wrong and somehow *all* the ice on the planet melts and the seas > suddenly > rise a 100 meters, this is not the end of the road for humanity. No expects all the ice to melt. If enough melts it would falsify your assurance the coastline won't change though. > It really > isn't, far from it. We can work that problem. Think of all the new > building contracts. We could build cities right this time. This is a bit of a different subject, the consequences for humanity. Those depend on a lot of factors including what effects of increased warming are predominant and how well we humans respond and can respond. > > >>>> ... What we need to teach more of is critical thinking... >>> >>> Although perhaps not the intended lesson, your daughter's teachers >>> did >>> exactly that. >>> >> >> No. She taught a dogma to a defenseless mind... > > It is a defenseless mind now, but shortly it will be a defenseful > mind, more > so perhaps as a result of all these teachings. Dunno. There are too many people walking around believing unbelievable stuff against all evidence just because it was taught early enough with enough reinforcement. > Isn't that the way it often > works with the Jesuit education you cited earlier? Actually no. Atheists, agnostics and even people that switch religious brands are a minority. > I am tempted to claim > that in at least some cases, being taught nonsense early in life may > help > some minds to search out the truth. Sort of like breaking a wing on a baby bird and tossing it out of the nest results in the ones that survive being stronger?? Minds are too important. > Minds realize they have cognitive > dissonance, and must reason out a consistent picture. Most real people, not abstract "minds", don't get that far. They just muddle through with whatever krap they were stuffed with. > These minds > eventually come to a greater understanding than they would have had > they not > suffered from the cognitive dissonance from the initial falsehoods. > You and > I are two examples of people who escaped from religion incorporated, > and > were motivated to learn the real story, thus eventually discovering > science > incorporated. > We are unfortunately all too rare. Most of the people I know who have escaped deep childhood religious indoctrination are also out a fair ways on the rightmost tail of the IQ curve. >> And I say that as >> someone who believes GW is real and dangerous... > > GW as in Global Warming or George W? > Both would be accurate of both my belief and reality. :-) But I was talking global warming here. > How could it be that dangerous when we have all that empty real > estate up > there in Canada, Alaska and Siberia waiting patiently for this globe > to thaw > a bit and all the animals to come back? I don't think you are so unaware of the dangers that it would be worth my time to answer a question like that. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 19 07:10:40 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:10:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] $25,000 Matching Grant Fund Drive In-Reply-To: References: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> <65EFFF2F-8930-4544-9A0D-6417694CA437@mac.com> Message-ID: <06A639E2-EE96-4E79-B0AC-5B93467B74CD@mac.com> On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:26 PM, James Clement wrote: > Samantha asked the following two questions: > > 1) What well funded opposition is that, the so-called "bio- > ethicists" and > their ilk? > > Among others (annual budget in parenthesis): Center for Bioethics > and Human > Dignity: $751,000 (2006); Center for Bioethics and Culture: $117,000 > (2006); > Center for Genetics and Society: $923,000 (2006); Ethics and Public > Policy > Center (publishes New Atlantis): $1,900,000 (2006), and Discovery > Institute: > $3,000,000 (2006) > > 2) When WTA stops preaching socialism as the one true way toward an > ethical > transhumanist future I may donate. Have there been developments in > that > direction? > > As of the 2005 Survey (we're doing a new survey right now), 22% of > the WTA > members were Libertarian, 39% were socialist, and 16% were Other. > The WTA > has no official position regarding economic/political ideology - and > individual Board members do not speak for the organization as a whole. Official or not it was a very strong spin for much of its life. More than spin there was an active hounding and denigration of those who thought differently. The stats have been the same among the members for years but that does not mean the organization has been politically relatively neutral or balanced or even respectful of different political views. > If you want the WTA to represent YOUR views, the best way is to > become a paid, > participating member and vote in the Board Members of your choice. > However, > I'd like to think that we can all work together to spread our > Transhumanist > memes and learn to live with our differences. I would like to think that too but that is not quite what I have seen to date. - samantha From aleksei at iki.fi Wed Dec 19 08:30:58 2007 From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:30:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] $25,000 Matching Grant Fund Drive In-Reply-To: References: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <1db0b2da0712190030s3c759e7ev73c1c7fa7bc0f8fe@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 19, 2007 4:20 AM, wrote: > I'll speak up here to say that I contributed a few days ago to the WTA > Matching Grant Fund, while I've refused on the basis of principle > every year until now. > > I see real change already happening with James Clement as executive > director, and I see the potential for more positive change with others > who are poised to join the board. I too think there has been some change and promising potential for more significant change and growing relevance of the WTA. It was a nice surprise when I saw the candidates (those that are known so far, anyway) for the board elections coming up in just a couple of weeks now. At this time, I'd recommend for every transhumanist to join as a voting member of the WTA. If in a year or two people still consider the WTA to be a socialist-biased organisation, they should blame themselves for not fixing it. -- Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei From sentience at pobox.com Wed Dec 19 08:34:28 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:34:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] $25,000 Matching Grant Fund Drive In-Reply-To: References: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <4768D794.8000206@pobox.com> My dear fellows in our little herd of cats, If you ever want transhumanism to amount to anything, Ever, Pick some other time to air your criticisms than during matching grants. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 19 09:33:09 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:33:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Can't Argue With That (was Re: $25, 000 Matching Grant Fund Drive) In-Reply-To: <4768D794.8000206@pobox.com> References: <8CA0ED09FD4B365-17E4-C4F@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> <476850E3.9040305@kevinfreels.com> <4768D794.8000206@pobox.com> Message-ID: <1F5FEFA2-D666-496A-A020-472F80FDB71D@mac.com> Good point. I'm in. - samantha On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:34 AM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > My dear fellows in our little herd of cats, > > If you ever want transhumanism to amount to anything, > > Ever, > > Pick some other time to air your criticisms than during matching > grants. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat - samantha Vote Ron Paul for President in 2008 -- Save Our Constitution! Go to RonPaul2008.com, and search "Ron Paul" on YouTube From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 19 09:46:32 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:46:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <62c14240712182051u1d877ef5i4028c00a943bd4bf@mail.gmail.com> References: <1197910674_2403@S1.cableone.net> <200712180426.lBI4Q2Ns004284@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1198033405_13829@S3.cableone.net> <62c14240712182051u1d877ef5i4028c00a943bd4bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071219094632.GP10128@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:51:44PM -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: > hmm... I guess if you can't laugh at yourself, you should learn to > laugh collectively at all of humanity :) Why wait? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 neomorphy at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 10:49:12 2007 From: neomorphy at gmail.com (Olie Lamb) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:49:12 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Why is xmas 'the holiday season' in America?? In-Reply-To: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> References: <47650B08.4000108@lineone.net> Message-ID: On Dec 16, 2007 10:24 PM, ben wrote: > Can someone tell me why Americans refer to christmas as the 'holiday > season'? > ben zed > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Because of the rapid expansion of Pastafarianism, for which one of the highest festivals is "Holiday". :) http://www.venganza.org/2006/12/01/happy-holiday-season-everyone.htm -- Olie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Wed Dec 19 13:36:34 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:36:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Morality Meme Message-ID: <8CA105B4E4E4E4A-B10-63C@webmail-db07.sysops.aol.com> Me: "> Moral behavior is a dichotomy. Where in nature does duality exist? Sam: "Perhaps you make it a meaningless question by the manner of asking. Life vs. Death is a pretty primary duality very much found in nature." Reply: I see all the processes in nature as forms of energy. Linguistic terms as life and death, morals or immorals are the surface manifestation of organic interactions/behavior. I asked the above question in response to what Stephan call "Rational Morality" with the implication to his belief that existence is preferable to non-existence. Preferences of existence over non existence is produced by a mind's habit of thinking in duality. Dualistic perceptions are mere surface perception of a brain/mind untrained in critical thinking due to immaturity or innattention. Sam: "Yada, yada, yada. This noise [above] is also all mind. Mind is [can be] a tool of survival. The "preference" for survival long predated what we think of as mind." Reply: What you call noise is a movement of the mind/energy. This surge of energy increases as thoughts expand in heated debates between those who still cling to the survival meme and those minds which move on beyond the memes for moral behaviors. Sam:" Huh? To exist or cease to exist is a fundamental state and in many respects when thought through clearly a most fundamental choice. To not grapple with the question at all is imho to not be fully alive or human." REply: The fact is morality memes obstruct the way to critical thinking. The mind is spoon-fed by society's definition of moral behavior. Sam: "So would you have us be a choiceless creature being carried along to destruction or continued unchosen and undirected existence by whatever eddies we might find ourselves caught up in? Would you call that being more enlightened? If so, you can have it. If not please say what you actually mean instead of parading this rather empty pseudo- mystical prattle." Reply: Living in blind adherence to morality meme is a robotic existence devoid of consciousness/enlightened process of living. Terry - ------------------------------ ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 19 14:10:12 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:10:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality (energy) In-Reply-To: <200712190638.lBJ6cBtA011313@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <6E5A79E2-76D1-46B0-89FC-26845F46BD50@mac.com> <200712190638.lBJ6cBtA011313@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1198073408_18190@S1.cableone.net> At 11:38 PM 12/18/2007, spike wrote: (samantha wrote) > > And I say that as > > someone who believes GW is real and dangerous... > >GW as in Global Warming or George W? > >How could it be that dangerous when we have all that empty real estate up >there in Canada, Alaska and Siberia waiting patiently for this globe to thaw >a bit and all the animals to come back? There were once dinosaurs up there. >Now these places are mostly a frozen wasteland. And the sea level was a good bit higher. But it doesn't matter what you think of global warming or its causes. Human populations are supported by the expenditure of vast amounts of energy, a lot of that coming from oil. Without an abundant supply of energy, the number of people who can be supported is gonna fall. Being caught in that fall would really screw up your long term chances. Keith From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 14:22:40 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:22:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> <62c14240712181537k76d17092wdbed7bb9fdffd1b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712190622m1944f879k8cc7edb7a3fa4a80@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 19, 2007 1:50 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I think many would jump on really effective telecommuting even > faster. But I did buy a Prius largely because of my former long > commute. absolutely. Any ideas for how to convince employers to abandon their old-school notion that you're not working unless you're tending your cube in the farm? > It is more likely to be the other way around since the developing > nations have less pre-existing inertia from massive investments in > petrochemical based internal combustion driven transportation and its > supporting infrastructure. Some of those less developed nations are > also where much of the proven reserves are. The US is pretty well > tapped on oil unless we figure out some miraculous way to tap oil shale. Good point. > > Yeah, because people like to voluntarily accept unequal taxes :) > > Different subject. I dream of a time when we refuse to accept taxes > at all. I dream of a time when it rains cocoa with marshmallows, but your is slightly more likely :) From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 14:32:57 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:32:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does theenvironment look like? In-Reply-To: <200712190519.lBJ5JQeG004038@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <62c14240712182051u1d877ef5i4028c00a943bd4bf@mail.gmail.com> <200712190519.lBJ5JQeG004038@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240712190632g68db9953p48352228758cb6fb@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 19, 2007 12:19 AM, spike wrote: > > hmm... I guess if you can't laugh at yourself, you should learn to > > laugh collectively at all of humanity :) > > I can already do both, Mike. My strategy is to laugh with myself, at > humanity. Then when I get tired of that, I do it the other way around. > Derisively of course. Its the best kind of laughter, so long as it is > *sincerely* derisive. Yeah, many of this list's members do. I find especially amusing the fact that I've gotten more replies by baiting messages with rhetorical taglines than any thoughtful discourse on a topic. Perhaps that's what makes fortune cookies so profound - they're all tagline with no discourse :) From citta437 at aol.com Wed Dec 19 14:50:38 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:50:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Irrationality are mistakes in thinking Message-ID: <8CA1065A7385974-B10-B54@webmail-db07.sysops.aol.com> Me:: "> What are the chances to reverse irrational behaviors in the human > species? Kevin: "I am not sure you would want to. Irrational behavior is a reality that is a large part of us that is probably necessary. We are complex beings and we have our emotions, preferences, and such. I am sure that getting my girlfriend pregnant at 17 wasn't very rational, but my 18 year old son is terrific and I wouldn't have it any other way - even if my life would have been "better" without him being born." Me: Irrational behavior are due to mistakes in the thinking process which maybe real but not necessary. Complexity requires consciousness to respond proactively and critical thinking is absent in irrational behavior. Me: > I see the evidence of irrational behavior is caused by lack of emphasis > on science education and integrating biological sciences with the > humanities. Some educational system emphasize more on the humanities and not much on critical thinking involving the scientific process of investigation. Relligious institution teach intelligent design and less emphasis on evolution. This is more evident in the U.S. than in U.K. where the so called democracy is a mere lip service when it comes to the separation of church and state. Kevin: "Sorry that you are drawing your conclusions so readily without a bit more investigation. Seems to me you have started with a conclusion and now you are working to prove it instead of trying to find out what is really going on. You assume there are problems that need fixing so let me ask you - what proof do you have that life now is not already better than it has been in the past and that it is headed in the wrong direction?" Me: I did not say that life now is generally better than in the past nor it is headed in the wrong direction. A comprehensive education is better than a little or no education on critical thinking. Critical thinking can be found in the practice of awareness/attenedtiveness which comes with maturity. Thus irrational behavior is reversible. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 15:21:41 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:21:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dollar a gallon gas was Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <1198002259_1533@S3.cableone.net> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> <1198002259_1533@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com> > At 08:09 AM 12/18/2007, Kevin Freels wrote: > > snip > > >More money needs to be spent on R&D to make these products > >available. I like where you are going with this though. How about a > >$1.50 per gallon gas guzzler tax on all passenger vehicles that get > >less than 30 mpg and use that money to directly fund alternative R&D. > ### Great Idea! But, why not get serious, and impose a tax on all homes with more than 100sq.ft per occupant - after all, home heating and cooling puts out so much carbon dioxide? We all could fit into 1/10th of available apartment space! Now, actually, a guzzler tax is too timid - why not impose a 100,000 tax on all cars that carry less than 50 passengers? We would hardly produce any CO2 if we all traveled in buses only. And if you are really serious about your beliefs, why not impose a tax of 1,000,000$ on all new births? After all, each baby born is nothing but pollution, tons and tons of CO2 generated over her lifetime.... OK, I admit I just can't contain my sarcasm when I read yet another call to threaten to kill somebody to get what "we" all "need". "More money needs" to be spent on your favorite project - hey, let's take a gun, stand by the gas pump and squeeze some jerks you hate for 1.50$ per gallon? You get free cash, and a feeling of moral superiority to boot. I prefer to get my feeling of moral superiority from saying "No to violence". "If you want something done, do it yourself, don't force others to do it". "You have no right to attack somebody unless he first provably and indisputably attacks you". Etc, etc. Maybe somebody will listen. Rafal From citta437 at aol.com Wed Dec 19 15:26:07 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:26:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Qualla/Consciousness Message-ID: <8CA106A9C3D815C-B10-DBC@webmail-db07.sysops.aol.com> "I am somewhat disturbed to find myself agreeing with John Searle on this point. I say disturbed because the man decisively proved in his famous Chinese Room thought experiment that John Searle is not a very smart man." John K Clark _____________ The Chinese room experiment did not show the role of insight in the brain. MRI is accurate in brain mapping the regions where there is increased blood flow but to correlate that consciousness depends on increased blood flow is missing the point. Raw feelings of aversion or feelings of pleasures requires an increase blood flow/energy which is necessary for the flight or fight response. There is a gap between the lower form of consciousness found in the lower region of the brain/amygdala and the neocortex. It takes time for insight to arise from the immature brain. The feelings of being disturbed is caused by the increased hormonal flow inside the circulating blood that supplies the brain. Our hormones like testosterone, adrenaline and dopamine decreases slowly in time depending how the brain gets addicted to sensual stimuli. Google on the physiology of the brain. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 19 16:05:54 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:05:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Pointer to EP story In-Reply-To: <1198073408_18190@S1.cableone.net> References: <6E5A79E2-76D1-46B0-89FC-26845F46BD50@mac.com> <200712190638.lBJ6cBtA011313@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1198073408_18190@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1198080349_22820@S3.cableone.net> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071218122412.htm From jonkc at att.net Wed Dec 19 15:56:50 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:56:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Qualla/Consciousness References: <8CA106A9C3D815C-B10-DBC@webmail-db07.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <004d01c84257$cdc24cb0$80074e0c@MyComputer> > The Chinese room experiment did not show the role > of insight in the brain. The Chinese room experiment did not show anything, not one goddamn thing. John K Clark From scerir at libero.it Wed Dec 19 16:09:19 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:09:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation References: <200712151700.08277.kanzure@gmail.com><200712160316.lBG3GAWP029590@andromeda.ziaspace.com><012a01c83fe1$8d92d1a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2><001301c84022$e90b5980$fbba1f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20071217151126.022b76a8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c84259$8568a750$e8911f97@archimede> > < In other words, it's conceptually on a par with having a pregenerated > table of logarithms at hand. The magic of quantum superposition makes > it possible to implement this scheme with problems that would > conventionally entail an impractically huge computer to do the > calculations and hold the lookup table; on the other hand, you only > get to use the table once. > Damien: > Drat. Drat? Do not give away your hopes. Here is good stuff [Sandu Popescu] for ... a beautiful scifi story ... extra-terrestrial speed-dating ... the golden age of super-quantum correlations ... when communication was trivial ... http://colossalstorage.net/quantum_mechanics.pdf s. Cirelson's bounds http://www.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/Research/mybound/main.html http://www.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/ classical correlation < 2 2 < quantum correlation < 2 2^1/2 2 2^1/2 < superquantum correlation < 2 2^1/2 2^1/2 ?? FTL correlations ?? > 2 2^1/2 2^1/2 From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 19 17:59:17 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:59:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] research question In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712181646u28a6f094ye913f00d06654cea@mail.gmail.co m> References: <29666bf30712181646u28a6f094ye913f00d06654cea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071219175919.TCSK20499.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 06:46 PM 12/18/2007, PJ Manney wrote: >How long does it take for a DNA sample to be identified? I was going to suggest joining Steve Coles group, which James already suggested. http://www.livescience.com/dna/ http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6150112.html http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml http://home.cfl.rr.com/wade3/facts.htm Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology School of Computing, Communications and Electronics Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 21:45:25 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:45:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Qualla/Consciousness In-Reply-To: <004d01c84257$cdc24cb0$80074e0c@MyComputer> References: <8CA106A9C3D815C-B10-DBC@webmail-db07.sysops.aol.com> <004d01c84257$cdc24cb0$80074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <62c14240712191345h6bb9ad79hce6d6fe3c624d08c@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 19, 2007 10:56 AM, John K Clark wrote: > The Chinese room experiment did not show anything, not one goddamn thing. Now that's hardly fair. It did show that if you make a sufficiently complex example to explain yourself, the resulting noise will resound far longer than the original point actually warranted. :) From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 20 05:46:15 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:46:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <17685827-2EE4-42EE-952D-2D6328C2A817@mac.com> Message-ID: <200712200613.lBK6D2wl007121@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > > I am tempted to claim > > that in at least some cases, being taught nonsense early in life may > > help some minds to search out the truth. > > Sort of like breaking a wing on a baby bird and tossing it out of the > nest results in the ones that survive being stronger?? Minds are too > important. Tell ya what, I will repent of that comment, with a flimsy excuse that I kinda realized it was a weak argument when I wrote it. Notice my tentative language. I now agree: we need to look carefully at what we let our children are being taught, and work to counteract nonsense early and often. Check this link. I find it extremely disturbing. I am amazed MSNBC is talking about this at all: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22325787#22315728 spike From citta437 at aol.com Wed Dec 19 22:28:20 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:28:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/Consciousness Message-ID: <8CA10A5982DF6D2-1554-2C46@mblk-d43.sysops.aol.com> ""Narrower definitions > Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to > qualia. According to these, qualia are: > 1.ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any > other means than direct experience. > 2.intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not > change depending on the experience's relation to other things. > 3.private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are > systematically impossible. > ineffable, intrinsic, private. Those 3 sound accurate to me. > directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to > experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all > there is to know about that quale. > Is this the 4th? - to directly experience a quale in consciousness is to know all there is to know about that quale? ______________ I do not see the fourth property of qualia as Dennett enumerated above. My understanding of consiousness is a cognitive process with varying degrees of behavioral responses. All I know is that in general anesthesia there are four levels of consciousness. But the article failed to mention the fourth property of qualia which is reversibility. When a patient recovers from anesthesia the process is reversed from the fourth level of unconscious state as in deep sleep to complete recovery, the first level or complete awareness/awake. There are many properties of what the brain can do and qualia/consciousness is just one of them. Scientists call this property of the brain as cognition. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 11:44:56 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:44:56 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Qualla/Consciousness In-Reply-To: <004d01c84257$cdc24cb0$80074e0c@MyComputer> References: <8CA106A9C3D815C-B10-DBC@webmail-db07.sysops.aol.com> <004d01c84257$cdc24cb0$80074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 20/12/2007, John K Clark wrote: > The Chinese room experiment did not show anything, not one goddamn thing. It did not show that the system as a whole can be conscious while comprised of non-conscious components, although that should have been obvious from the fact that individual neurons are not themselves conscious. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 14:55:23 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:55:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone In-Reply-To: <200712190324.lBJ3Ot39029852@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <476845E2.6060704@kevinfreels.com> <200712190324.lBJ3Ot39029852@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712200655g327e9ec0u33b386ee449c5e15@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 19, 2007 4:24 AM, spike wrote: > > The mass of a mission to Mars scales as the cube of the linear dimension > of > the astronaut. > > OK. Uplifted whales are out then. No big deal, there has never been enough water on the planet in the first place... :-) Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Dec 20 14:59:28 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:59:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [EP_group] Book: Gorilla Society Message-ID: <1198162764_6327@S3.cableone.net> > >Nature 450, 1160-1161 (20 December 2007) | doi:10.1038/4501160a; >Published online 19 December 2007 >Our social roots >Sarah F. Brosnan1 > > >We share many behavioural traits with our primate relatives ? some >disquietingly nasty. >BOOK REVIEWED-Gorilla Society: Conflict, Compromise and Cooperation >Between the Sexes >by Alexander H. Harcourt & Kelly J. Stewart > >University of Chicago Press: 2007. 416 pp. $75 (hbk), $30, ?19 (pbk) >BOOK REVIEWED-Macachiavellian Intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and >Humans Have Conquered the World >by Dario Maestripieri > >University of Chicago Press: 2007. 192 pp. $25, ?14 >BOOK REVIEWED-Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes >by Frans de Waal > >25th Anniversary Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press: 2007. 276 pp. >$24.95, ?16.50 > >Why do you spend more time with your colleague next door than the one >down the hall? As a founding scholar of primate social behaviour, the >fifteenth-century philosopher Niccol? Machiavelli might have been >able to tell you. Today's primatologists are still fascinated by the >evolutionary roots of power, sex and politics in human and non-human >primates ? surprising parallels emerge that may explain facets of >our behaviour and codes governing our society. > >A seminal book in the field is Frans de Waal's Chimpanzee Politics, just >re-released as a 25th-anniversary edition. De Waal explores interactions >among three high-ranking males in the Arnhem Zoo colony in the >Netherlands to obtain insight into alliances, sex and power in our >closest living relatives. The chimpanzees' lives include all the >intrigue and shifting allegiances of the Florentine court; it is easy to >forget that the participants are not human. >[Our social roots] >G. ELLIS/MINDEN PICTURES/FLPA >Family feast: endangered mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei) >enjoying a vegetarian menu together. >A quarter of a century after its first publication, the influence of de >Waal's approach is pervasive. Dario Maestripieri's engaging new book, >Macachiavellian Intelligence, argues that social cognition is the key to >our species' extraordinary success. The book is also a salutary reminder >that we are members of the Order Primates as much as of the Family >Hominidae, and not all that different from our disquietingly nasty >cousins. > >Rhesus macaques and humans, Maestripieri explains, are group-living >generalists who succeed by advancing their own ? and their family's >? future through political manoeuvring. Altruism and social >behaviour are therefore useful only when the pay-off is greater than the >investment, although, according to Maestripieri, humans may have >recently evolved more pervasive pro-social tendencies. > >Some may question Maestripieri's pragmatic approach to human behaviour, >such as his view that our sexual patterns were shaped to secure partner >commitment. But, his use of anecdote, and comparisons between humans and >macaques, make a persuasive case that a self-interested desire to >manipulate others motivates much of human behaviour. > >An understanding of how society determines the behaviour of individuals >calls for an examination of an outgroup that varies in its degree of >relatedness or its social organization. Gorillas, with their harem >societies and lesser aggression, provide a nice counterpoint to >chimpanzees and macaques (excepting, perhaps, the little studied but >apparently more gregarious western gorilla). Gorilla Society aims to >develop a socio-ecological framework for understanding the animals' >social organization and behaviour. > >Harcourt and Stewart's book contains some novel approaches. For example, >the authors attempt to model rarely seen behavioural variants in order >to estimate their pay-offs, which helps in understanding previously >unexplained behaviour. They also approach social organization from the >male and female perspectives, developing a picture of infinite regress >as the decisions of each sex affect each other's choices. They explain, >among other things, the conspicuous absence of male takeovers in gorilla >populations. Every chapter ends with a comparison between gorilla >behaviour and that of chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans in similar >circumstances, illustrating the broader power of socioecological theory. > >The authors of all three books are noted primatologists. Although aimed >at different audiences, the books are all readable and informative. >There is some repetition in Harcourt and Stewart's because it is written >as a reference work; extensive cross-referencing and helpful section >headings make it easy to use. Maestripieri's slimmer volume will appeal >to a general audience with its fast pace, references to popular culture >and wide-ranging discussion of human behaviour. It cites the original >studies, but could leave primatologists wishing for more in-depth >discussion. > >Just as we are on the brink of a more nuanced and thorough understanding >of primate and human society, the breakdown of human society continues >to fuel the demise of the remaining strongholds of primates in the wild. >For instance, gorillas are now listed as critically endangered by the >World Conservation Union (Nature 449, 127; 2007 > ). > >Contrary to his stereotype, Machiavelli believed that force should be >mitigated with prudence, that morality must not be abandoned. Where is >our prudence and morality when we ignore the fate of other peoples and >species who share our planet? Humans should find a way to narrow the gap >between our own well-being and that of our fellow creatures. > >Source: Nature >http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/4501160a.html From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Dec 20 16:17:25 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:17:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Singularity as a complex adaptive system - What does the environment look like? In-Reply-To: <20071219094632.GP10128@leitl.org> References: <1197910674_2403@S1.cableone.net> <200712180426.lBI4Q2Ns004284@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1198033405_13829@S3.cableone.net> <62c14240712182051u1d877ef5i4028c00a943bd4bf@mail.gmail.com> <20071219094632.GP10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20071220161727.XBKT21064.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 03:46 AM 12/19/2007, 'gene wrote: >On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:51:44PM -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > > hmm... I guess if you can't laugh at yourself, you should learn to > > laugh collectively at all of humanity :) > >Why wait? LOL! haha! Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From x at extropica.org Thu Dec 20 16:47:12 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:47:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube Message-ID: The Dalai Lama speaks on promoting subjective values via increasingly effective objective means. I don't know whether he's subscribed to this list, but in any case it's gratifying to know that at least someone understands what I'm saying. ;-) From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 20 17:14:09 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:14:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] a new low Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220111257.0228b180@satx.rr.com> (Manchester Evening News) A LOTTERY scratchcard has been withdrawn from sale by Camelot - because players couldn't understand it. The Cool Cash game - launched on Monday - was taken out of shops yesterday after some players failed to grasp whether or not they had won. To qualify for a prize, users had to scratch away a window to reveal a temperature lower than the figure displayed on each card. As the game had a winter theme, the temperature was usually below freezing. But the concept of comparing negative numbers proved too difficult for some Camelot received dozens of complaints on the first day from players who could not understand how, for example, -5 is higher than -6. Tina Farrell, from Levenshulme, called Camelot after failing to win with several cards. The 23-year-old, who said she had left school without a maths GCSE, said: "On one of my cards it said I had to find temperatures lower than -8. The numbers I uncovered were -6 and -7 so I thought I had won, and so did the woman in the shop. But when she scanned the card the machine said I hadn't. "I phoned Camelot and they fobbed me off with some story that -6 is higher - not lower - than -8 but I'm not having it. "I think Camelot are giving people the wrong impression - the card doesn't say to look for a colder or warmer temperature, it says to look for a higher or lower number. Six is a lower number than 8. Imagine how many people have been misled." A Camelot spokeswoman said the game was withdrawn after reports that some players had not understood the concept. From x at extropica.org Thu Dec 20 17:16:40 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:16:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?=5BEmpathy=5D_Daniel_Goleman=3A_Why_aren?= =?windows-1252?q?=92t_we_all_Good_Samaritans=3F_-_TED_Talks?= Message-ID: On expanding our context of self-identification. In contrast with the western misconception of the virtue of becoming more self-less, it's about identifying with a larger, more encompassing self. "Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence, asks why we aren't more compassionate more of the time. Sharing the results of psychological experiments (and the story of the Santa Cruz Strangler), he explains how we are all born with the capacity for empathy -- but we sometimes choose to ignore it." From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 17:51:37 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:51:37 +0000 Subject: [ExI] a new low In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220111257.0228b180@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220111257.0228b180@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2007 5:14 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > (Manchester Evening News) > > A LOTTERY scratchcard has been withdrawn from sale by Camelot - because > players couldn't understand it. > > The Cool Cash game - launched on Monday - was taken out of shops > yesterday after some players failed to grasp whether or not they had > won. > Of course, people who buy lottery tickets don't understand mathematics anyway. That's why gambling is so popular. For people who can afford it, the small thrill and excitement of the 'maybe I'll win' moment is worth the price of the ticket. For those who can't afford it, it is desperation as it seems to be the only way out of their problems. But, as Ben Goertzel commented on his blog, after visiting a campus Starbucks - The first thing that struck me was the everpresence of technology. The students around me were constantly texting each other -- there was a lot of texting going on between people sitting in different parts of the Starbucks, or people waiting in line and other people sitting down, etc. And, there was a lot of talk about Facebook. Pretty much anytime someone unfamiliar (to any of the conversation participants) was mentioned in conversation the question was asked "Are they on Facebook?" Of course, plenty of the students had laptops there and could write on each others Facebook walls while texting each other and slipping in the occasional voice phone call or email as well. All in all I found the density and rapidity of information interchange extremely impressive. The whole social community of the Starbucks started to look like a multi-bodied meta-mind, with information zipping back and forth everywhere by various media. All the individuals comprising parts of the mind were obviously extremely well-attuned to the various component media and able to multiprocess very effectively, e.g. writing on someone's Facebook wall and then texting someone else while holding on an F2F conversation, all while holding a book in their lap and allegedly sort-of studying. Exciting! The only problem was: The contents of what was being communicated was so amazingly trivial and petty it started to make me feel physically ill. etc..... -------------------- All that technology, billions of messages, instant - always on communication, ......... and it's all total bollocks! That's progress. The triumph of the inane. BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Dec 20 17:51:42 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:51:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Recent human selection In-Reply-To: <8CA10A5982DF6D2-1554-2C46@mblk-d43.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA10A5982DF6D2-1554-2C46@mblk-d43.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1198173098_1868@S3.cableone.net> Being much influenced by the concepts of evolutionary psychology, I have tended to discount the idea of humans being much shaped by recent evolution. Exceptions have been accumulating, the taming of wild foxes in as few as 8 generations, and the acquisition of genes (a number of them!) for adult lactose tolerance in peoples with a dairy culture. Yes, you can get serious population average shifts if the selection pressure is high enough. Now Dr. Gregory Clark, in one of those huge efforts that lead to breakthroughs, has produced a study that makes a strong case for recent (last few hundred years) and massive changes in population average psychological traits. It leaves in place that a huge part of our psychological traits did indeed come out of the stone age, but adds to that recent and very strong selection pressures on the population of settled agriculture societies in the "Malthusian trap." I came a bit late to this party, Dr. Clark's book _A Farewell to Alms_ peaked at 17 on Amazon's sales months ago. My copy has not come yet so I read this paper off his academic web site. http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf "Genetically Capitalist? The Malthusian Era, Institutions and the Formation of Modern Preferences." There is lots of other material here: http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/research.html but this paper is just stunning because of how much light it shines on a long list of mysteries. Such as: Why did the modern world grow out of a small part of Europe and why did it take so long? Why are the Chinese doing so well compared to say Africa? The upshot of his research was that in the Mathusian era in England people with the personality characteristics to become well off economically had at least twice as many surviving children as those in the lower economic classes--who were not replacing themselves. This, of course, led to "downward social mobility," where the numerous sons and daughters of the rich tended to be less well off (on average) than their parents. But over 20 generations (1200-1800) it did spread the genes for the personality characteristics for accumulating wealth through the entire population. "In the institutional and technological context of these societies, a new set of human attributes mattered for the only currency that mattered in the Malthusian era, which was reproductive success. In this world literacy and numeracy, which were irrelevant before, were both helpful for economic success in agrarian pre-industrial economies. Thus since economic success was linked to reproductive success, facility with numbers and wordswas pulled along in its wake. Since patience and hard work found a new reward in a society with large amounts of capital, patience and hard work were also favored." Fascinating work, memes that slot right in to the rest of my understanding of the world and the people in it. I very strongly recommend reading this paper at least. Keith Henson From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Dec 20 17:39:31 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:39:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ARTS: Transhumanism + Play/Games - Spain Conference 2008 Message-ID: <20071220173934.LKYK27181.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Friends, I have been invited to give a talk and presentation on transhumanism/posthumanism and play at LABoral Centre for Art and Industrial Creation (Gijon, Spain). I invite you to collaborate with me on the presentation. I was thinking of creating a "play" off of the Turning Point project with humor. But I welcome you ideas. We can make this as outrageous as we like. The only limits are $$, but let's not worry about that for now. Here is the brief synopsis of the conference: HOMO LUDENS LUDENS Locating play in contemporary culture and society "Under the title HOMO LUDENS LUDENS, LABoral Centre for Art and Industrial Creation, has planned for the upcoming April an exhibition and an international conference wishing to explore play as a principal element in today's world and to analyze its importance in the different sides of our lives. Following the exhibition of GAMEWORLD that reflected the different sides and perspectives of the gaming creativity developed by artists nowadays and PLAYWARE that highlighted the playful and social character of interactive art, LABoral now wishes to set the setting that will embrace these data and will take a step even further by looking into the notion of play as it has evolved in our digital times. Play changes and evolves throughout the conditions of each era. Being a point of analysis and reference for scholars throughout the different times, we can easily trace its continuous role and significance for the various sectors of human civilization. Coming to our days, the multifaceted character of play has shaped a truly interdisciplinary approach leading to specialized research areas, applications and expressions with different aims and functions. So, what is play today? It surely is still a source of joy and enjoyment; but not only. It also is a powerful tool for our society serving educational, scientific and social purposes. It is an activity but also a platform that builds relationships, forms networks and affects identities; play is an object of exploitation - in the web 2.0 era, what better way is there than to gain profit from people's creativity?" Email me if you want to collaborate! natasha at natasha.cc Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology School of Computing, Communications and Electronics Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 18:08:25 2007 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:08:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] a new low In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220111257.0228b180@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220111257.0228b180@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/20/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > (Manchester Evening News) > > A LOTTERY scratchcard has been withdrawn from sale by Camelot - because > players couldn't understand it. > > The Cool Cash game - launched on Monday - was taken out of shops > yesterday after some players failed to grasp whether or not they had > won. > > To qualify for a prize, users had to scratch away a window to reveal a > temperature lower than the figure displayed on each card. As the game > had a winter theme, the temperature was usually below freezing. > > But the concept of comparing negative numbers proved too difficult for > some Camelot received dozens of complaints on the first day from players > who could not understand how, for example, -5 is higher than -6. > > Tina Farrell, from Levenshulme, called Camelot after failing to win > with several cards. > > The 23-year-old, who said she had left school without a maths GCSE, > said: "On one of my cards it said I had to find temperatures lower > than -8. The numbers I uncovered were -6 and -7 so I thought I had won, > and so did the woman in the shop. But when she scanned the card the > machine said I hadn't. > > "I phoned Camelot and they fobbed me off with some story that -6 is > higher - not lower - than -8 but I'm not having it. > > "I think Camelot are giving people the wrong impression - the card > doesn't say to look for a colder or warmer temperature, it says to > look for a higher or lower number. Six is a lower number than 8. > Imagine how many people have been misled." > > A Camelot spokeswoman said the game was withdrawn after reports > that some players had not understood the concept. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > This doesn't suprise me and it shows you why some people are having troubles in the work force. Comparing negative numbers has always been tricky, but this is something that should have been hammered in during school as students begin learning this in elementary school and math classes continue to build on this knowledge in every successive class. Another thing that trips people up are fractions and percentages. I don't know what a GCSE is, but I wonder if she graduated from high school? I wonder because it wouldn't surprise me if she did: they at least used to be big on so-called social promotion. Shortly before I graduated they started standardized testing as a requisite for graduation (at least in Arizona) and I thought it was a great idea, but apparently the parents started an uproar because it turned out that most of their children weren't passing, especially the math part. They put in loopholes in the graduating requirements before AIMS in my high school so that you could essentially graduate from high school without ever having taken algebra. So effectively, the high school diploma is a meaningless credential; so I'm hoping that standardized testing criteria for graduation can change that. *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 18:13:19 2007 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:13:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One thing I've been wondering is what would be the effects if someone developed in the womb, was born, and grew up on Mars? Would such a child grow extremely tall given the lower gravity? Would such a person ever be able to step foot on Earth without special equipment? *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 18:52:51 2007 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:52:51 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone References: Message-ID: <150c01c84339$8732f640$fe00a8c0@cpd01> >From: Kevin H December 20, 2007 4:13 PM Transhumanism and Space >Exploration, with Talmon Firestone >One thing I've been wondering is what would be the effects if someone >developed in the womb, >was born, and grew up on Mars? >Would such a child grow extremely tall given the lower gravity? Would such >a person ever be able >to step foot on Earth without special equipment? Such person would have weaker bones for sure. And probabilly would develop less muscle mass either. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Dec 20 19:05:02 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:05:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476ABCDE.1080402@kevinfreels.com> That's a good question. With the prenatal development occurring inside the womb in amniotic fluid where up and down don't really matter, I'm not sure there would be any significant difference up to that point. I could see zero g maybe causing problems but not .38. Even more important is whether conception itself might be challenged. The question of height isn't that important though. More important are blood flow to the lower limbs and how digestion might be affected. Evolution works slowly so taking that person to Earth "should" still be an improvement except for a period of adjustment to the higher gravity. That's just speculation on my part from an evolutionary perspective. After just a few generations I am sure you would quickly see some pretty significant selection pressures at work that in time would make it difficult for their descendants to live comfortably on Earth. Kevin H wrote: > One thing I've been wondering is what would be the effects if someone > developed in the womb, was born, and grew up on Mars? Would such a > child grow extremely tall given the lower gravity? Would such a > person ever be able to step foot on Earth without special equipment? > > /Kevin/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 20 19:42:42 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:42:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? Message-ID: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> " "> The Chinese room experiment did not show the role > of insight in the brain. The Chinese room experiment did not show anything, not one goddamn thing. John K Clark ____________ What is the goal of the experiment? Are you expecting that it will show where consciousness is located in the brain? Is it not to prove to the experimenters that their theories for behavior is located in several regions of the brain? Emotions of fear, sadness and joy are concentrated in the lower part of the brain, the amygdala, by showing an increased or diminished blood flow in that area. Psychiatrists and neuroscientists were not looking for the exact place where consciousness arise. Consciousness is not a solid object permanently located in one area of the brain as discovered in a recent study of the brain. The central nervous system is a complex organ including the brain. Cognition in human is a higher function characterized by plasticity, reversibility and interconnectivity as shown objectively in MRI with subjective interpretation on the part of a third person observer. The entire process consists of the ff. steps: 1.First there were the volunteers subject to the tests/stressful pictures on a screen.{subjective process} 2. Second there is the objective maping of the volunteers/brain by the MRI apparatus.{objective process} 3. Then there is the subjective interpretation by the persons/scientists whose goal is to find the source of emotions, cognition and behavior. If you are looking for the origin of consciousness, it is all interconnected in synergy within microspace and the random events outside in macrospace. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Dec 20 19:53:34 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:53:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> <62c14240712181537k76d17092wdbed7bb9fdffd1b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <476AC83E.4030108@kevinfreels.com> > What I expect to see is telecommuting finally come into its own. Many > billions of dollars of productivity are lost commuting not to mention > the waste in fuel and belching nasties into the air. > That will be great. It's happening far too slowly for me. Bosses like to micromanage and supervise. What will all those supervisors do when they have no one left to baby-sit? > >>> Prove it. I think you are wrong. Americans have a love affair with >>> the >>> independence that driving a car brings. They cannot all afford to >>> go out and >>> buy a new vehicle. >>> > > I used to drive 50 minutes each way to work. I can assure you that > although I love to drive I was not in the least unhappy to no longer > need to take such a commute. The mileage I put on my car fell > drastically. I do love to drive and love my independence of movement > but the vast majority of my driving was commute. I suspect that is > true for a lot of people. > > I agree. I think everyone would like to use their cars less. But that doesn't change the fact that people won;t just willingly give them up entirely. > I think many would jump on really effective telecommuting even > faster. But I did buy a Prius largely because of my former long > commute. > Of course. But that doesn't help all the travel, trips to the store, movies, entertainment, and everything else people do with their cars. That's why they won;t give them up. If it was just about getting to work and back it would be different. > >>> But even then you have the used >>> car problem to address. Any real alternative to make a difference >>> will have >>> to include all the used vehicles already out there. >>> > > Massive upgrades of electricity production (nuclear, solar, wind, > wave, etc.) and affordable electric cars and conversion kits will do > the trick eventually. If I can pay to convert for less than I spend a > year on gas and pay it over time then I would be a fool not to. > My point exactly. > > > There is no great bonanza of oil in Alaska. > This makes it even more crucial. > >> exactly. We love to drive, and we'll pressure politicians to keep gas >> prices under $100 a tank - but if the price raises enough to hurt, >> people will be motivated to think in the "right" direction (towards >> alternatives) >> > >>> it wouldn't be worth it to go to work - so an >>> artificial 50% increase now is just enough pain to adopt hybrid and >>> electric vehicles so we can tolerate another 300+% increase tomorrow. >>> >>> > > I doubt there is much "artificial" about the increase. Want to know > how fast the US$ is going down the toilet? Watch the price of oil. > Add to this the unpleasant likelihood that Peak Oil is largely real > and increasing competition for oil from little places like China. > What is artificial and for a limited time only is how little the price > of gas has gone up in response. Fortunately most gas is refined and > stored before the peak driving season every year in the US. So much > of the hike in oil prices did not hit us yet. Wait until next > summer. Also there is some likelihood of the price being > artificially kept down in that the "crack spread" between what oil can > be bought for and refined and what the resulting product brings on the > market is narrowing too much to be very healthy for refiners. This > could be bad in that we are a bit short in the refinery department as > it is and it takes considerable time and expense to bring new ones > online. > > > > >>> More money needs to be spent on R&D to make these products >>> available. I >>> like where you are going with this though. How about a $1.50 per >>> gallon gas >>> guzzler tax on all passenger vehicles that get less than 30 mpg and >>> use that >>> money to directly fund alternative R&D. >>> > > As it is largely not the fault of these car owners that would be > grossly unjust as are most government appropriations. > lol. While I wholeheartedly agree, I don't see any other way to do it. Anyone who knows me knows that I am just a little less libertarian than Mike Lorrey (is he still around?). But I am willing to admit that government at times has to do things that capitalism won't. At the moment I don't think a taxless society is workable. This may change in the future but we're talking about the present. That's a whole different discussion in itself but I do think this is one case where tax money is necessary to do the job. But hey, here's an idea. Since we are perfectly willing to go into massive debt for wars and such, why not just go more into debt and put the full force and finance of the US government into developing an alternative? Call it a "War on oil". The goal - spend 1 trillion dollars to develop a new renewable energy source so we can pull our forces away from the rest of the world and simply focus on defending our own borders. The return on investment would be both the sales of the technology abroad and no longer having to get involved in foreign wars. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From santostasigio at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 19:32:18 2007 From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:32:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] a new low In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220111257.0228b180@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <35574.31110.qm@web31303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> yeah, and some of these people actually decide they have enough math skills to take my Physics classes, I swear.... Damien Broderick wrote: (Manchester Evening News) A LOTTERY scratchcard has been withdrawn from sale by Camelot - because players couldn't understand it. The Cool Cash game - launched on Monday - was taken out of shops yesterday after some players failed to grasp whether or not they had won. To qualify for a prize, users had to scratch away a window to reveal a temperature lower than the figure displayed on each card. As the game had a winter theme, the temperature was usually below freezing. But the concept of comparing negative numbers proved too difficult for some Camelot received dozens of complaints on the first day from players who could not understand how, for example, -5 is higher than -6. Tina Farrell, from Levenshulme, called Camelot after failing to win with several cards. The 23-year-old, who said she had left school without a maths GCSE, said: "On one of my cards it said I had to find temperatures lower than -8. The numbers I uncovered were -6 and -7 so I thought I had won, and so did the woman in the shop. But when she scanned the card the machine said I hadn't. "I phoned Camelot and they fobbed me off with some story that -6 is higher - not lower - than -8 but I'm not having it. "I think Camelot are giving people the wrong impression - the card doesn't say to look for a colder or warmer temperature, it says to look for a higher or lower number. Six is a lower number than 8. Imagine how many people have been misled." A Camelot spokeswoman said the game was withdrawn after reports that some players had not understood the concept. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Dec 20 19:33:42 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:33:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Dollar a gallon gas was Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> <1198002259_1533@S3.cableone.net> <7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <476AC396.8010008@kevinfreels.com> > ### Great Idea! > > But, why not get serious, and impose a tax on all homes with more than > 100sq.ft per occupant - after all, home heating and cooling puts out > so much carbon dioxide? We all could fit into 1/10th of available > apartment space! > I'm game. Of course, I would prefer a bit more. Maybe 500 sq foot per person. But then you get into having to differentiate between "conditioned" space and non-conditioned space. It gets too complex to administer without too much additional cost of inspections. A usage tax on excess energy usage over a base amount combined with a usage based tax on oversized homes would be great though. That way you can tax those who simply use too much instead of having the poor people without the means to replace insulation and furnaces bear the brunt of the taxes. > Now, actually, a guzzler tax is too timid - why not impose a 100,000 > tax on all cars that carry less than 50 passengers? We would hardly > produce any CO2 if we all traveled in buses only. > Do you want to gain R&D revenue? Or is your goal to kill the economy? And do you want something that can actually be done? You have just as much chance getting a car ban passed. Then you just shift the burden and no real research gets done. We need to find ways that allow people to move about great distances quickly and independently using renewable resources and that's the objective. The goal is improving the lives of people for the short and long term. Not to simply speed up the process of making life intolerable. > And if you are really serious about your beliefs, why not impose a tax > of 1,000,000$ on all new births? After all, each baby born is nothing > but pollution, tons and tons of CO2 generated over her lifetime.... > I think I am sensing sarcasm? This is silly. No one could pay it. Human life would cease to exist. no one would be able to afford reproduction. I really don't care about the CO2. I'm not yet convinced that global warming is bad. It's just a question of funding the research necessary to maintain our way of life while freeing us from having to be dependent upon foreign countries for a non-renewable and limited energy source. > OK, I admit I just can't contain my sarcasm when I read yet another > call to threaten to kill somebody to get what "we" all "need". "More > money needs" to be spent on your favorite project - hey, let's take a > gun, stand by the gas pump and squeeze some jerks you hate for 1.50$ > per gallon? You get free cash, and a feeling of moral superiority to > boot. > So I was right. That's good. Who said anything about killing anybody? I don't hate these people. And there's no moral superiority here. The question was how to change behavior and encourage R&D without destroying the economy. It's easy to point att he flaws in my ideas but do you have alternatives? Or do you think that the status quo is sufficient for our future needs and nothing at all needs to change? > I prefer to get my feeling of moral superiority from saying "No to > violence". "If you want something done, do it yourself, don't force > others to do it". "You have no right to attack somebody unless he > first provably and indisputably attacks you". Etc, etc. > > > Who is talking about violence here? Did I miss something? I never endorse violence. Having a viable alternative to foreign oil would make us less succeptable to what goes on in the middle-east and would reduce the need for us to be involved in wars over there. I don't see where you are getting this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pjmanney at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 21:09:31 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:09:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] research question In-Reply-To: <20071219175919.TCSK20499.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <29666bf30712181646u28a6f094ye913f00d06654cea@mail.gmail.com> <20071219175919.TCSK20499.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <29666bf30712201309v6e839fd8q9e6862c0476d1c85@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 19, 2007 9:59 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > At 06:46 PM 12/18/2007, PJ Manney wrote: > > How long does it take for a DNA sample to be identified? > I was going to suggest joining Steve Coles group, which James already > suggested. Thanks guys. I'm on it. PJ From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 21:15:58 2007 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:15:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone In-Reply-To: <476ABCDE.1080402@kevinfreels.com> References: <476ABCDE.1080402@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: On 12/20/07, Kevin Freels wrote: > > That's a good question. With the prenatal development occurring inside the > womb in amniotic fluid where up and down don't really matter, I'm not sure > there would be any significant difference up to that point. I could see zero > g maybe causing problems but not .38. Even more important is whether > conception itself might be challenged. > > The question of height isn't that important though. More important are > blood flow to the lower limbs and how digestion might be affected. Evolution > works slowly so taking that person to Earth "should" still be an improvement > except for a period of adjustment to the higher gravity. That's just > speculation on my part from an evolutionary perspective. After just a few > generations I am sure you would quickly see some pretty significant > selection pressures at work that in time would make it difficult for their > descendants to live comfortably on Earth. > Well, I was thinking purely environmental affects. Evolution would be interesting, especially if you take organisms with a fast reproduction cycle. But I was thinking that the gravity on earth has to have some affect on the overall height of the organism (as the force pushing against vertical growth, so to speak), and if this was changed we'd have an entirely different outcome. Just speculation, of course. *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 20 21:17:11 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:17:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is Mind a machine? Message-ID: <8CA1164D1E4EAF8-EC-2E3F@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> "Mechanical Mind Gilbert Harman Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Margaret A. Boden. Two volumes, xlviii + 1631 pp. Oxford University Press, 2006. $225. The term cognitive science, which gained currency in the last half of the 20th century, is used to refer to the study of cognition?cognitive structures and processes in the mind or brain, mostly in people rather than, say, rats or insects. Cognitive science in this sense has reflected a growing rejection of behaviorism in favor of the study of mind and "human information processing." The field includes the study of thinking, perception, emotion, creativity, language, consciousness and learning. Sometimes it has involved writing (or at least thinking about) computer programs that attempt to model mental processes or that provide tools such as spreadsheets, theorem provers, mathematical-equation solvers and engines for searching the Web. The programs might involve rules of inference or "productions," "mental models," connectionist "neural" networks or other sorts of parallel "constraint satisfaction" approaches. Cognitive science so understood includes cognitive neuroscience, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and artificial life; conceptual, linguistic and moral development; and learning in humans, other animals and machines. Among those sometimes identifying themselves as cognitive scientists are philosophers, computer scientists, psychologists, linguists, engineers, biologists, medical researchers and mathematicians. Some individual contributors to the field have had expertise in several of these more traditional disciplines. An excellent example is the philosopher, psychologist and computer scientist Margaret Boden, who founded the School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences at the University of Sussex and is the author of a number of books, including Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man (1977) and The Creative Mind (1990). Boden has been active in cognitive science pretty much from the start and has known many of the other central participants. In her latest book, the lively and interesting Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science, the relevant machine is usually a computer, and the cognitive science is usually concerned with the sort of cognition that can be exhibited by a computer. Boden does not discuss other aspects of the subject, broadly conceived, such as the "principles and parameters" approach in contemporary linguistics or the psychology of heuristics and biases. Furthermore, she also puts to one side such mainstream developments in computer science as data mining and statistical learning theory. In the preface she characterizes the book as an essay expressing her view of cognitive science as a whole, a "thumbnail sketch" meant to be "read entire" rather than "dipped into." It is fortunate that Mind as Machine is highly readable, particularly because it contains 1,452 pages of text, divided into two very large volumes. Because the references and indices (which fill an additional 179 pages) are at the end of the second volume, readers will need to have it on hand as they make their way through the first. Given that together these tomes weigh more than 7 pounds, this is not light reading! Boden's goal, she says, is to show how cognitive scientists have tried to find computational or informational answers to frequently asked questions about the mind?"what it is, what it does, how it works, how it evolved, and how it's even possible." How do our brains generate consciousness? Are animals or newborn babies conscious? Can machines be conscious? If not, why not? How is free will possible, or creativity? How are the brain and mind different? What counts as a language? The first five chapters present the historical background of the field, delving into such topics as cybernetics and feedback, and discussing important figures such as Ren? Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Charles Babbage, Alan Turing and John von Neumann, as well as Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts, who in 1943 cowrote a paper on propositional calculus, Turing machines and neuronal synapses. Boden also goes into some detail about the situation in psychology and biology during the transition from behaviorism to cognitive science, which she characterizes as a revolution. The metaphor she employs is that of cognitive scientists entering the "house of Psychology," whose lodgers at the time included behaviorists, Freudians, Gestalt psychologists, Piagetians, ethologists and personality theorists. ____________ The brain is a processing machine as describe above. But it generates more questions than answers. How does the brain generate consciousness? How are the brain and mind different? Some of us describe how it functions but who is behind the machine? Is there one controler? Marvin Minsky wrote a book "Thoughts Without a Thinker." Where did thoughts originate then? If you said it originated in consciousness, then we are back to square one. Dreams are triggered by our subconscious according to Freud. Cognitive scientists use both objective and subjective means to study the brain's behavior. They discovered that the mind is a behavior of the brain just as consciousness is one of it's functions. Common sense tells us without this physical brain, there is no cognition, no feelings and no consciousness. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Dec 20 18:24:21 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (fauxever at sprynet.com) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:24:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] a new low Message-ID: <380-2200712420182421891@M2W031.mail2web.com> From: Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:14:09 -0600 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >A Camelot spokeswoman said the game was withdrawn after reports that some players had not understood the concept. "I know it sounds a bit bizarre, But in Camelot, Camelot That's how conditions are." Olga -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 20 22:16:33 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:16:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on technological change Message-ID: <8CA116D1CC6AD7E-EC-3228@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> Some one said: "The Dalai Lama speaks on promoting subjective values via increasingly effective objective means. I don't know whether he's subscribed to this list, but in any case it's gratifying to know that at least someone understands what I'm saying. ;-)" _____________ The Dalai Lama sees no conflict between metaphysical and physical phenomena. This could be due to his Tibetan Buddhist schooling on philosophy earlier in life and the western education he received after he left Tibet. So its understandable why he merged the eastern and western educational approach wherein he sees no gap between science and religion. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From benboc at lineone.net Thu Dec 20 22:12:39 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:12:39 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476AE8D7.8090205@lineone.net> "spike" wrote (among other things): "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural-and not a human-induced-cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory." What rubbish! Everyone knows that the disappearing martian icecaps are the fault of greedy capitalists here on earth. Them, and the pesky third-worlders, with their impertinent ideas of getting an economy. We should all feel guilty about the martian icecaps and do penance by watching Al Gore's film*. And sorting our rubbish into three kinds of plastic, recyclable paper, non-recyclable paper, steel cans and aluminium cans. (ready to be picked up by three different diesel-powered vehicles, that take it all to the same landfill site). ben zed * 'An Unconvincing Lie', showing at a flood plain near you. From citta437 at aol.com Thu Dec 20 23:42:29 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:42:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/Consciousness Message-ID: <8CA11791E571A6E-EC-369D@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> "> The Chinese room experiment did not show anything, not one goddamn thing. It did not show that the system as a whole can be conscious while comprised of non-conscious components, although that should have been obvious from the fact that individual neurons are not themselves conscious. Stathis Papaioannou _______________ Neurons cannot feel either. The brain cells die and do not regenerate as seen in strokes but adjacent cells grow dendrites to communicate to other neurons depending on brain's location and the lenght of time it occured. In brain surgery the patient is awake and does not feel the pain during surgery. Nerve cells are located in the sympathetic nervous system. ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 21 00:19:24 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:19:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712210019.lBL0JQgA006876@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of x at extropica.org > Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin,20071216] - > YouTube ... > I don't know whether he's subscribed to this list, but in any case > it's gratifying to know that at least someone understands what I'm > saying. ;-) I checked the subscription list, didn't find any dalai.lama at aol.com or similar. Does anyone know the dalai lama's email @? I wonder who has dalai.lama? Lets post to him or her and invite him or her to join Exi-Chat: Hello Dalai! Welcome to Exi-chat. Come hang out with us, we are a pretty cool bunch. Often. Well OK, sometimes. This brings up a related question. What would Jesus choose as his email address? (Open invitation for cutting up on a Thursday afternoon.) spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 21 00:36:31 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:36:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone In-Reply-To: <150c01c84339$8732f640$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Message-ID: <200712210043.lBL0hDVn025749@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) ... > > ... And probabilly would develop less muscle mass... Probabilly: (noun) statistician who likes bluegrass music. {8^D Welcome to Exi-chat Henrique! Where are you from? spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 21 00:53:30 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:53:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: <200712210019.lBL0JQgA006876@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712210053.lBL0rWDR027201@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Doh! : 205.188.159.57 does not like recipient. (8-[ I don't know if that means the dalai lama doesn't like us specifically, or if my particular server is prejudiced against Tibetans, or if no one has that address or what. Is dalai.lama at aol.com available? OK lets try something else. Suggestions? Anyone here posting to the dalai lama? Are there lesser lamas that might know his @? > > I checked the subscription list, didn't find any dalai.lama at aol.com ... > > Hello Dalai! Welcome to Exi-chat. ... > > spike From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 00:56:44 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:56:44 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/Consciousness In-Reply-To: <8CA11791E571A6E-EC-369D@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA11791E571A6E-EC-369D@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On 21/12/2007, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > "> The Chinese room experiment did not show anything, not one goddamn > thing. > > It did not [correction, I should not have written "not"] show that the system as a whole can be conscious while > comprised of non-conscious components, although that should have been > obvious from the fact that individual neurons are not themselves > conscious. > > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________ > > Neurons cannot feel either. The brain cells die and do not regenerate > as seen in strokes but adjacent cells grow dendrites to communicate to > other neurons depending on brain's location and the lenght of time it > occured. What does that have to do with neurons feeling, or the distinction between the system and the components of the system? > In brain surgery the patient is awake and does not feel the pain during > surgery. If he doesn't feel the pain there isn't pain. The brain does not have pain receptors, although the meminges do. > Nerve cells are located in the sympathetic nervous system. The sympathetic nervous system does contain neurons, but what does that have to do with neurons in the brain, whether they feel pain, and consciousness? -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 21 00:30:42 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:30:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] a new low In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712210057.lBL0vOJ9025937@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Subject: Re: [ExI] a new low On 12/20/07, Damien Broderick wrote: >The Cool Cash game - ...To qualify for a prize, users had to scratch away a window to reveal a temperature lower than the figure displayed on each card. As the game had a winter theme, the temperature was usually below freezing... Damien the game wasn't designed right. They shoulda reported the temperature in Kelvin. (Brrrr, its a right crisp 260 degrees, mates! Bundle up!) spike ? From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 21 01:10:19 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:10:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: <200712210053.lBL0rWDR027201@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712210019.lBL0JQgA006876@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712210053.lBL0rWDR027201@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220190655.02242d28@satx.rr.com> At 04:53 PM 12/20/2007 -0800, the spikester wrote: >OK lets try something else. Suggestions? Anyone here posting to the dalai >lama? Are there lesser lamas that might know his @? Jon Stewart would know. Oh, wait, that's the daily.lama. You could try the dahlia.lama. He's the black one. Damien Broderick From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:20:56 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:20:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: <200712210053.lBL0rWDR027201@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712210053.lBL0rWDR027201@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712201920.56965.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 20 December 2007, spike wrote: > OK lets try something else. ?Suggestions? ?Anyone here posting to the > dalai lama? ?Are there lesser lamas that might know his @? The website says: ohhdl at dalailama.com - Bryan From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 21 01:24:37 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:24:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: <200712201920.56965.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712210053.lBL0rWDR027201@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712201920.56965.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220192321.02215fe0@satx.rr.com> At 07:20 PM 12/20/2007 -0600, Bryan wrote: >The website says: >ohhdl at dalailama.com I could have sworn it was ommm at dalailama.commm From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:36:05 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:36:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220192321.02215fe0@satx.rr.com> References: <200712210053.lBL0rWDR027201@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712201920.56965.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071220192321.02215fe0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200712201936.05651.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 20 December 2007, Damien Broderick wrote: > I could have sworn it was ommm at dalailama.commm Yes, well, that had to be dropped due to licensing issues with the sharks that produced the Yahoo-dot-commm sing-along ad. - Bryan From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Dec 21 01:38:58 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:38:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220192321.02215fe0@satx.rr.com> References: <200712210053.lBL0rWDR027201@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712201920.56965.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071220192321.02215fe0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <34591.72.236.103.160.1198201138.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> >>The website says: >>ohhdl at dalailama.com > > I could have sworn it was ommm at dalailama.commm > > :))) Thank you. I love this list. When it's not really stretching my mind it has me rolling on the floor laughing. Damien, you and spike are a comedy act. :))) I know it's the holiday season but how much holiday cheer have y'all imbibed already? Regards, MB From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 21 02:22:49 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:22:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: <34591.72.236.103.160.1198201138.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200712210222.lBL2MpoI026484@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, > 20071216] - YouTube > > > >>The website says: > >>ohhdl at dalailama.com > > > > I could have sworn it was ommm at dalailama.commm > > :))) Thank you. I love this list... Ja, me too. > > Damien, you and spike are a comedy act. :))) Flattered am I to be placed in the company of one who makes his living selling words. I must add, however, with all due modesty of course, that literary critics have compared me to Steinbeck and Hemmingway. If I may quote, "Spike, the main difference between you and writers like Steinbeck and Hemmingway is that they could write and you suck. On the other hand there are striking similarities, such as the fact that all three of you are male." > I know it's the holiday season but how much holiday cheer have y'all > imbibed already? MB No, actually I am like this all the time, except when I imbibe. After overindulgence in ethanol, I get all serious and formal, the death of the party, no fun. Those inhibitions that are normally expected to fall away under such circumstances fall into place after having been away to start with. Likewise coffee has the opposite affect on me compared to that in normal people. This is fortunate, being a perfectly acceptable beverage at the office. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 21 02:27:05 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:27:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: <34591.72.236.103.160.1198201138.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <200712210053.lBL0rWDR027201@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712201920.56965.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071220192321.02215fe0@satx.rr.com> <34591.72.236.103.160.1198201138.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220202412.0234a330@satx.rr.com> At 08:38 PM 12/20/2007 -0500, MB wrote: >Damien, you and spike are a comedy act. :))) The Spike Brothers! >how much holiday cheer have y'all imbibed already? Madam, I'll have you know that neither I nor Spike Jones drink a drop of that alcohol stuff! We are both pure in mind and body. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 21 02:34:49 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:34:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071220202412.0234a330@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200712210234.lBL2Yotw013085@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, > 20071216] - YouTube > > At 08:38 PM 12/20/2007 -0500, MB wrote: ... > > Madam, I'll have you know that neither I nor Spike Jones drink a drop > of that alcohol stuff! We are both pure in mind and body. > > Damien Broderick He is right. I do not recall ever having devoured a single drop. I ordinarily guzzle the stuff several cans at a sitting. Is MB a madam? I do apologize for having treated you with insufficient respect, madam. It takes a lot of business acumen to successfully operate such a business. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Dec 21 04:00:18 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:00:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Not Dollar a gallon gas was Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <476AC396.8010008@kevinfreels.com> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> <1198002259_1533@S3.cableone.net> <7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com> <476AC396.8010008@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <1198209617_10213@S4.cableone.net> At 12:33 PM 12/20/2007, Kevin Freels wrote: snip >Who is talking about violence here? Did I miss something? I never >endorse violence. Having a viable alternative to foreign oil would >make us less succeptable to what goes on in the middle-east and >would reduce the need for us to be involved in wars over there. I >don't see where you are getting this. Libertarians consider any form of non voluntary payments (like taxes) to be an act of violence. And they have a point, since collecting taxes is always backed up by force. But talk about topic drift. The point of dollar a gallon gas posting was to simulate hard number discussion about real engineering, not endless political bickering. Maybe it's just not the right time of year for serious discussion. Did anyone read the web site about selection in the English Malthusian environment? Keith From amara at amara.com Fri Dec 21 06:35:37 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:35:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit Message-ID: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-mars21dec21,0 6729483.story?coll=la-home-center >From the Los Angeles Times Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit Researchers say the object, about 160 feet across, has an unusually good chance of plowing into the planet Jan. 30. By John Johnson Jr. Los Angeles Times Staff Writer December 21, 2007 Talk about your cosmic pileups. An asteroid similar to the one that flattened forests in Siberia in 1908 could plow into Mars next month, scientists said Thursday. Researchers attached to NASA's Near-Earth Object Program, who sometimes jokingly call themselves the Solar System Defense Team, have been tracking the asteroid since its discovery in late November. The scientists, based at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Ca?ada Flintridge, put the chances that it will hit the Red Planet on Jan. 30 at about 1 in 75. A 1-in-75 shot is "wildly unusual," said Steve Chesley, an astronomer with the Near-Earth Object office, which routinely tracks about 5,000 objects in Earth's neighborhood. "We're used to dealing with odds like one-in-a-million," Chesley said. "Something with a one-in-a-hundred chance makes us sit up straight in our chairs." The asteroid, designated 2007 WD5, is about 160 feet across, which puts it in the range of the space rock that exploded over Siberia. That explosion, the largest impact event in recent history, felled 80 million trees over an area of 830 square miles. The Tunguska object broke up before hitting the ground, but the Martian atmosphere is so thin that an asteroid would probably plummet to the surface, digging a crater half a mile wide, Chesley said. The impact would probably send dust high into the atmosphere, scientists said. Depending on where the asteroid hit, such a plume might be visible through telescopes on Earth, Chesley said. The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is mapping the planet, would have a front-row seat. And NASA's two JPL-built rovers, Opportunity and Spirit, might be able to take pictures from the ground. Because scientists have never observed an asteroid impact -- the closest thing being the 1994 collision of comet Shoemaker-Levy with Jupiter -- such a collision on Mars would produce a "scientific bonanza," Chesley said. The asteroid's course has now taken it behind Earth's moon, he said, so it will be almost two weeks before observers get another chance to plot its course more accurately. The possibility of an impact has the Solar System Defense Team excited. "Normally, we're rooting against the asteroid," when it has Earth in its cross hairs, Chesley said. "This time we're rooting for the asteroid to hit." john.johnson at latimes.com -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 21 07:18:54 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:18:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712210718.lBL7IuNq007977@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-mars21dec21,0 > 6729483.story?coll=la-home-center > > >From the Los Angeles Times > > Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit > Researchers say the object, about 160 feet across, has an > unusually good chance of plowing into the planet Jan. 30. Thanks Amara! It would be even cooler if the object made a grazing miss where it tore thru the tenuous Martian atmosphere, losing enough velocity so that it went into a highly elliptical decaying orbit. Then we could watch a number of burning perigee passes before the object hit at an oblique angle. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 21 08:38:33 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:38:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dollar a gallon gas was Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> <1198002259_1533@S3.cableone.net> <7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3EE7257B-5988-411B-A221-9EB8B2762829@mac.com> On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> At 08:09 AM 12/18/2007, Kevin Freels wrote: >> >> snip >> >>> More money needs to be spent on R&D to make these products >>> available. I like where you are going with this though. How about a >>> $1.50 per gallon gas guzzler tax on all passenger vehicles that get >>> less than 30 mpg and use that money to directly fund alternative >>> R&D. >> > ### Great Idea! > > But, why not get serious, and impose a tax on all homes with more than > 100sq.ft per occupant - after all, home heating and cooling puts out > so much carbon dioxide? We all could fit into 1/10th of available > apartment space! > I know this is tongue in cheek but actually power plants are much more efficient producers of energy per unit of pollution that cars and trucks are. So staying home in your nice warm house full of electrical gadgets is a generally a win over driving about. > - s From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 11:03:44 2007 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:03:44 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone References: <200712210043.lBL0hDVn025749@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <161b01c843c1$28aacb10$fe00a8c0@cpd01> LOL. I mean probably... pardon my 'engrish'. Thank you. I've been around for quite some time now. I just happen to read a lot more than I write. *Probably* because of the "engrish"... []s from Rio BTW, Am I bouncing? ----- Original Message ----- "spike" spike66 at att.net December 20, 2007 10:36 Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) >> ... And probabilly would develop less muscle mass... > Probabilly: (noun) statistician who likes bluegrass music. > {8^D > Welcome to Exi-chat Henrique! Where are you from? > spike From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 12:45:25 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:45:25 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21/12/2007, Kevin H wrote: > One thing I've been wondering is what would be the effects if someone > developed in the womb, was born, and grew up on Mars? Would such a child > grow extremely tall given the lower gravity? Would such a person ever be > able to step foot on Earth without special equipment? Are you familiar with the Great Mambo Chickens? -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 12:52:11 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:52:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712210452kf9cdf54td4332d4f3b85d44c@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 20, 2007 8:42 PM, wrote: > > The Chinese room experiment did not show anything, not one goddamn thing. I agree. I think it is one of the stupidest invocations of common sense ever performed by a philosopher or a scientist... :-) Stefano Vaj From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 21 14:36:15 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:36:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Malthusian Environment and head lice [Was Re: Not Dollar a gallon gas was Rationality and Irrationality] In-Reply-To: <1198209617_10213@S4.cableone.net> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> <1198002259_1533@S3.cableone.net> <7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com> <476AC396.8010008@kevinfreels.com> <1198209617_10213@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <476BCF5F.30508@kevinfreels.com> > > The point of dollar a gallon gas posting was to simulate hard number > discussion about real engineering, not endless political > bickering. Maybe it's just not the right time of year for serious discussion. > Good point. > Did anyone read the web site about selection in the English > Malthusian environment? > > Working on it. Was planning to do it last night but I came to find out that my tween daughters had been invaded by a very successful and specialized parasite - head lice. We spent several hours nit-picking the lousy nit-wits and I haven't found the time since. These little beasties are rather interesting. 3 different species affect three specific parts of the body and no others. Head lice don't populate body or pubic areas, Pubic lice don't get into hair. Intuition suggests that lice should have become generalists as the human body hair gradually reduced over time. Instead we ended up with three specific species. This may suggest that our loss of body hair was rather rapid. Of course, getting all of that out of a brief run in with lice on my children's hair is probably a stretch. Maybe I should just shut the brain down and watch TV a bit more. lol From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 21 14:23:18 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:23:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476BCC56.10702@kevinfreels.com> Exciting, Yes. But scary as well. We didn't notice it until 2 months in advance. Far too little time to do anything about it. From citta437 at aol.com Fri Dec 21 15:00:20 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:00:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Empathy re: Good Samaritan Message-ID: <8CA11F9571053BD-EC-532B@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> "On expanding our context of self-identification. In contrast with the western misconception of the virtue of becoming more self-less, it's about identifying with a larger, more encompassing self." "Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence, asks why we aren't more compassionate more of the time. Sharing the results of psychological experiments (and the story of the Santa Cruz Strangler), he explains how we are all born with the capacity for empathy -- but we sometimes choose to ignore it." ___________________ The concept of self is reinforced by nature and nurture. The seed was planted from pre-eukaryotic period and the development of language multiplied the pressure to survive. The propagation of this meme took so many forms i.e. religious memes which drive men to seek an outside help from some god or gods giving this god anthromorphic ideas of benevolence, power and whatever else they can imagine out of fear. Feelings of empathy is an instinct akin to motherly instinct drawn from evolution not from any outside force. We don't see the universe as having any feelings of empathy or any survival instinct. We started at birth with the survival instinct until around the age of two our developing brain reacts to thoughts of self as separate from other who respond or not to this body's needs. Most adults are slow in developing emotional intelligence due to genetic or environmental causes. Btw, the Dalai Lama started the Mind and Life Institute in Colorado to encourage a continuing dialogue between psychologists and other scientists with Tibetan Monks. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Dec 21 15:13:12 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:13:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ARTS: Transhumanism + Play/Games - Spain Conference 2008 Message-ID: <20071221151314.EEAV27181.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Friends, I have been invited to give a talk and presentation on transhumanism/posthumanism and play at LABoral Centre for Art and Industrial Creation (Gijon, Spain). I invite you to collaborate with me on the presentation. I was thinking of creating a "play" off of the Turning Point project with humor. But I welcome you ideas. We can make this as outrageous as we like. The only limits are $$, but let's not worry about that for now. Here is the brief synopsis of the conference: HOMO LUDENS LUDENS Locating play in contemporary culture and society "Under the title HOMO LUDENS LUDENS, LABoral Centre for Art and Industrial Creation, has planned for the upcoming April an exhibition and an international conference wishing to explore play as a principal element in today's world and to analyze its importance in the different sides of our lives. Following the exhibition of GAMEWORLD that reflected the different sides and perspectives of the gaming creativity developed by artists nowadays and PLAYWARE that highlighted the playful and social character of interactive art, LABoral now wishes to set the setting that will embrace these data and will take a step even further by looking into the notion of play as it has evolved in our digital times. Play changes and evolves throughout the conditions of each era. Being a point of analysis and reference for scholars throughout the different times, we can easily trace its continuous role and significance for the various sectors of human civilization. Coming to our days, the multifaceted character of play has shaped a truly interdisciplinary approach leading to specialized research areas, applications and expressions with different aims and functions. So, what is play today? It surely is still a source of joy and enjoyment; but not only. It also is a powerful tool for our society serving educational, scientific and social purposes. It is an activity but also a platform that builds relationships, forms networks and affects identities; play is an object of exploitation - in the web 2.0 era, what better way is there than to gain profit from people's creativity?" Email me if you want to collaborate! natasha at natasha.cc Natasha From citta437 at aol.com Fri Dec 21 16:08:39 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:08:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A new low Message-ID: <8CA1202E23D9D2A-EC-57B1@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> "Exciting! The only problem was: The contents of what was being communicated was so amazingly trivial and petty it started to make me feel physically ill. etc..... -------------------- "All that technology, billions of messages, instant - always on communication, ......... and it's all total bollocks! That's progress. The triumph of the inane." Bilk _____________ Is it new or just a passing trend? The young generation spending more time with cellular phones or texting billions of messages are the effects of post modern society immersed in instant gratification or the feeling of "high" as in drinking starbucks coffee in every street corner in the U.S. Addiction is not a sign of progress imho. but a sign of a sick society that values instant pleasures over everything else. No wonder the U.S. is lagging behind in the capability to improve education on science and critical thinking. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 21 16:31:52 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:31:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Space Exploration, with Talmon Firestone In-Reply-To: <161b01c843c1$28aacb10$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Message-ID: <200712211658.lBLGwYU8007981@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) >... I just happen to read a > lot more than I write. *Probably* because of the "engrish"... Exi-ers don't comment on *all* the typos. Just the funny ones. {8^D > > []s from Rio > > BTW, Am I bouncing? No, I checked your account, everything is in order. Later! spike From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 21 17:04:19 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:04:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> Wrote: > What is the goal of the experiment? You would have to ask Mr. Searle about that not me. I'm sure he was trying to prove something profound, but whatever it was he failed miserably. Even the best of us can come up with a bad idea but even now, years later, he still thinks the Chinese Room was clever; and that is exactly what makes me so certain that Mr. Searle isn't. I want to tell you about Clark's Chinese Room. You are a professor of Chinese Literature and are in a room with me and the great Chinese Philosopher and Poet Laotse. Laotse writes something in his native language on a paper and hands it to me. I walk 10 feet and give it to you. You read the paper and are impressed with the wisdom of the message and the beauty of its language. Now I tell you that I don't know a word of Chinese, can you find any deep implications from that fact? I believe Clark's Chinese Room is just as profound as Searle's Chinese Room. Not very. > Are you expecting that it will show > where consciousness is located in the brain? That would be ridiculous. In the same way it would be ridiculous to expect a mathematicians to tell me where eleven is or a race car driver tell me where swift is, or a artist tell me where beautiful is. Consciousness is not a brain; consciousness is what a brain does. I am an adjective, I am not a noun. > Emotions of fear, sadness and joy are concentrated in the lower part of > the brain, the amygdala, by showing an increased or diminished blood > flow in that area. Searle wasn't talking about the amygdale or blood or any other structure that through an evolutionary historical accident some life forms on this small planet happen to possess. Searle wasn't even talking about brains, he was trying to talk about general principles of mind. And it that he failed. John K Clark From dagonweb at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 19:12:59 2007 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:12:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A new low In-Reply-To: <8CA1202E23D9D2A-EC-57B1@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA1202E23D9D2A-EC-57B1@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: > > Addiction is not a sign of progress imho. but a sign of a sick society > that values instant pleasures over everything else. No wonder the U.S. > is lagging behind in the capability to improve education on science and > critical thinking. > It's everywhere... can you blame them? Can you blame anyone? Comparatively with the 80s, I am feeling half drunk with the speed of this. I am living in safe crash resistant mode every day. We are all (still) only human. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 21 19:51:08 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:51:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A new low In-Reply-To: References: <8CA1202E23D9D2A-EC-57B1@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <20071221195108.GD10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 08:12:59PM +0100, Dagon Gmail wrote: > It's everywhere... can you blame them? Can you blame anyone? Yes, and yes. Dropping out of the game is always an option. > Comparatively with the 80s, I am feeling half drunk with the > speed of this. I am living in safe crash resistant mode every The wheels are sure turning, and the rubber is burning. Are we going where we want though? Are we going *anywhere* at that matter? > day. We are all (still) only human. We have limits, but we have also choices. Ignoring those is also a choice. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 scerir at libero.it Fri Dec 21 19:50:31 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:50:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fermi's Paradox or Multiple Universes References: <8CA0F2E6A192121-E8C-1030@webmail-mf01.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <001e01c8440a$d22c9d00$21bf1f97@archimede> Terry: > If there is a Parallel universe then there is intelligence parallel to > humans or an intelligent civilization in a universe same as ours that > have the same laws of physics and quantum mechanics. Einstein objected to suggestions - mainly from W. Pauli - of observer-created reality, by saying that he could not imagine that a mouse could change the universe simply by looking at it.Universe [1] is most probabilly unaffected, and unsplit, if one measures a quantum observable.It seems that Frank J. Tipler wrote somewhere (2002) "As Everett once said (roughly), if a mouse observes the universe, the mouse, not the universe, is changed. I would say, if a human mind observes the universe, the mind, not the universe, is split." If fact the original suggestion of Hugh Everett III was a sort of 'many minds interpretation'. [1] http://asymptotia.com/wp-images/2007/11/murakami_cosmos.jpg From hibbert at mydruthers.com Fri Dec 21 20:07:38 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:07:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <476C1D0A.70605@mydruthers.com> > I am an adjective, I am not a noun. I'd rather be an adverb. Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 21 20:39:33 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:39:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A new low In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712212039.lBLKdX3X004955@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dagon Gmail ... Subject: Re: [ExI] A new low ...Addiction is not a sign of progress imho. but a sign of a sick society that values instant pleasures over everything else... This "new low" discussion started in reference to the proletariat being not universally grokish with regard to negative numbers. That particular case was in Britain but it works in the states and perhaps the rest of Europe as well. I had another thought related to this. On the radio this morning I heard someone talking about having gotten involved in some legal battle of some sort. He mentioned that he had spent his life's savings. I was only half listening, but that comment caught my full and undivided, because I realized it had been some time since I heard anyone mention the term "life's savings." I heard it a lot growing up in the 1960s. Nearly every adult had a bank account with some unspecified pile of money in there, which represented nearly all of their liquid assets. In the 90s people might have transitioned their life's saving to the stock market, but an investment portfolio is really the same thing as a life's savings, perhaps with a bit more volatility. In the states today, we hear so much about the sub-prime lending crisis, and how this bank and that bank is in trouble, and how the government plans to make some people will be eligible for relief from some loans. This radio program was arguing that those who will benefit from these programs are the ones that already have a good credit rating. I didn't see the problem with that, seems like those are the ones you want to help: the ones most likely to pay back eventually. But the radio commentator was arguing that if it is targeted at credit-worthy people, it is helping exactly the wrong crowd. Appalled was I. I came to an uncomfortable realization. Over the years, somehow we have come to regard a good credit rating as equivalent to money in the bank. Like the cold cash game, it somehow demonstrates a lack of understanding of the importance of negative numbers. The critically important number now is not the amount of money one has in the bank but rather how much the bank is willing to loan one. Am I the only one who sees a deep pathological social condition here? I welcome the comments of Europeans, Aussies and others. Same there? spike From amara at amara.com Fri Dec 21 22:35:39 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:35:39 -1000 Subject: [ExI] A new low Message-ID: spike: >I came to an uncomfortable realization. Over the years, somehow we have >come to regard a good credit rating as equivalent to money in the bank. >Like the cold cash game, it somehow demonstrates a lack of understanding of >the importance of negative numbers. The critically important number now is >not the amount of money one has in the bank but rather how much the bank is >willing to loan one. >Am I the only one who sees a deep pathological social condition here? >I welcome the comments of Europeans, Aussies and others. Same there? First of all, I don't think the Europeans have caught up with the Americans for the size of an individual's debt. For one thing, credit cards are much more often of the American Express type, which means that you have to pay the balance off every month. They have 'buffers', however to help you manage difficult times: you can carry a negative balance up to some low-integer number (2, I think) of your monthly salary for a few(?) months. Therefore, with that kind of a credit card, the personal debts are lower and there's some help. In Italy, the credit cards are American style, but not salaries, and guess what? Italians are carrying more and more personal debts now on their credit cards. Not good, but I should say that the NASA Dawn VIR instrument was built on the scientists' personal credit cards because the money from the Italian Space Agency (ASI) for the Science team was was delivered a couple of months before the instrument was delivered and 3 years after ASI signed the contract. One can't build and test and calibrate an instrument on zero money before you deliver it. In my own limited Italian experience, credit rating doesn't seem to be on people's minds because properties seem to be bought with large sums of money for downpayment or for the full balance. The cosigners on the loans are families, or else those with permanent jobs. People who have permanent jobs, no mater what pittance their salary might be, are golden people. They can walk into a bank and walk out with whatever loan that they need to buy property. The bank is required to make sure that the mortgage is payable with that salary, so mortgages of many decades (Rome prices...) are not unusual. Maybe this helps explain why my colleagues thought that I was crazy to refuse that permanent IFSI job. Here's another factoid to support why I think that credit rating is not important in Italy. My 4.5 years of rent was paid off the record, untraceable cash, which means that I have no printed piece of paper that says how much I paid in those years for rent (it was ~40,000 euros). Such a situation of owner insisting on untraceable cash is still common for renting in the Rome area today, although it is changing to be less common with time. When I requested from the landlord a recommendation letter with the sum of money listed, he refused, and my argument that it was important to help me show a bank for buying property in the future was a disconnect to him. He didn't understand the concept of credit rating, and that a bank in my future might want some proof that I can pay large sums of money, regularly and reliably. I did secure a letter of recommendation from him (he even signed two copies), that I was a good tenant and paid my rent regularly, but nowhere does it list the full sum of money that I paid. I don't know the credit scene in other European countries, maybe others can speak up. Amara From Napili Coast, Maui, celebrating with her family, Christmas and her stepmother's recovery from cancer.. When someone you love needs to celebrate Life, then whatever side-avenues are necessary to satisfy such a request is worth it ten times over. I'm going snorkeling now. -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From aiguy at comcast.net Fri Dec 21 22:50:30 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:50:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] A new low Message-ID: <122120072250.22431.476C4336000534C70000579F2200750744979A09070E@comcast.net> The goals of the loan bail out problem are four fold as I see it. 1. Help customers who were duped into dubious loan terms from losing everything by helping them obtain conventional loans even though their credit may remain borderline. 2. Prevent runs on the banks that made too many of these loans and keep the bank themselves from defaulting and prevent the federally insured deposits from having to paid by the government. 3. Prevent the real estate bubble from collapsing by too many homes being repossessed in too short of a period. 4. Prevent the US economy from entering a recession/depession due to 1, 2, and 3. Banks such a Countrywide are already suffering greatly because of too high of a percentage of subprime mortgages. And remember the last time major banks collapsed in the United States we had a little thing called the Great Depression. Gary > spike: > >I came to an uncomfortable realization. Over the years, somehow we have > >come to regard a good credit rating as equivalent to money in the bank. > >Like the cold cash game, it somehow demonstrates a lack of understanding of > >the importance of negative numbers. The critically important number now is > >not the amount of money one has in the bank but rather how much the bank is > >willing to loan one. > > >Am I the only one who sees a deep pathological social condition here? > > >I welcome the comments of Europeans, Aussies and others. Same there? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Fri Dec 21 22:53:42 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:53:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: "The Quantum Mind" Message-ID: <8CA123B780B1D81-B68-140E@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> " Cold Numbers Unmake the Quantum Mind Charles Seife Calculations show that collapsing wave functions in the scaffolding of the brain can't explain the mystery of consciousness. Sir Roger Penrose is incoherent, and Max Tegmark says he can prove it. According to Tegmark's calculations, the neurons in Penrose's brain are too warm to be performing quantum computations--a key requirement for Penrose's favorite theory of consciousness. Penrose, the Oxford mathematician famous for his work on tiling the plane with various shapes, is one of a handful of scientists who believe that the ephemeral nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process. In the realm of the extremely small, an object with a property such as polarization or spin may exist in any of a number of quantum states. Or, bizarrely, it may inhabit several quantum states at once, a property called superposition. A quantum superposition is extremely fragile. If an atom in such a state interacts with its environment--by being bumped or prodded by nearby atoms, for instance--its waveform can "collapse," ending the superposition by forcing the atom to commit to one of its possible states. To some investigators, this process of coherence and collapse seems strikingly similar to what goes on in the mind. Multiple ideas flit around below the threshold of awareness, then somehow solidify and wind up at the front of our consciousness. Quantum consciousness aficionados suspect that the analogy might be more than a coincidence. Eleven years ago, Penrose publicly joined their number, speculating in a popular book called The Emperor's New Mind that the brain might be acting like a quantum computer. "Between the preconscious and conscious transition, there's no obvious threshold," says Penrose's sometime collaborator Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Ideas start out in superposition in the preconscious and then wind up in the conscious mind as the superposition ends and the waveform collapses. "The collapse is where consciousness comes in," says Hameroff. But what exactly is collapsing? From his studies of neurophysiology, Hameroff knew of a possible seat for the quantum nature: "microtubules," tiny tubes constructed out of a protein called tubulin that make up the skeletons of our cells, including neurons. Tubulin proteins can take at least two different shapes--extended and contracted--so, in theory, they might be able to take both states at once. If so, then an individual tubulin protein might affect its neighbors' quantum states, which in turn affect their neighbors'--and so forth, throughout the brain. In the 1990s, Penrose and Hameroff showed how such a tubulin-based quantum messaging system could act like a huge quantum computer that might be the seat of our conscious experience. The idea attracted a few physicists, some consciousness researchers, and a large number of mystics. Quantum physicists, however, largely ignored it as too speculative to be worth testing with numerical calculations. Now Tegmark, a physicist at the University of Pennsylvania, has done the numbers. In the February issue of Physical Review E, Tegmark presents calculations showing just what a terrible environment the brain is for quantum computation. Combining data about the brain's temperature, the sizes of various proposed quantum objects, and disturbances caused by such things as nearby ions, Tegmark calculated how long microtubules and other possible quantum computers within the brain might remain in superposition before they decohere. His answer: The superpositions disappear in 10-13 to 10-20 seconds. Because the fastest neurons tend to operate on a time scale of 10-3 seconds or so, Tegmark concludes that whatever the brain's quantum nature is, it decoheres far too rapidly for the neurons to take advantage of it. Do all scientists agree? "If our neurons have anything at all to do with our thinking, if all these electrical firings correspond in any way to our thought patterns, we are not quantum computers," says Tegmark. The problem is that the matter inside our skulls is warm and ever-changing on an atomic scale, an environment that dooms any nascent quantum computation before it can affect our thought patterns. For quantum effects to become important, the brain would have to be a tiny fraction of a degree above absolute zero. Hameroff is unconvinced. "It's obvious that thermal decoherence is going to be a problem, but I think biology has ways around it," he says. Water molecules in the brain tissue, for instance, might keep tubulin coherent by shielding the microtubules from their environment. "In back-of-the-envelope calculations, I made up those 13 orders of magnitude pretty easily." Some members of the quantum-consciousness community, however, concede that Tegmark has landed a body blow on Penrose-Hameroff-type views of the brain. "Those models are severely impacted by these results," says physicist Henry Stapp of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. (Stapp's own theory of quantum consciousness, he says, is unaffected by Tegmark's arguments.) Physicists outside the fray, such as IBM's John Smolin, say the calculations confirm what they had suspected all along. "We're not working with a brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the brain evolved quantum behavior," he says. Smolin adds: "I'm conscientiously staying away" from the debate." ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From brent.allsop at comcast.net Fri Dec 21 23:44:57 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:44:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net> Though I think the way most people, including Searle, use the idea of the Chinese room is mistaken, there is an important idea there having to do with the hard problem of consciousness. This has to do with Chalmer's "principle of organizational invariance" which states that phenomenal properties can "arize" from any equivalent functional organization. Sure, in actuality, things like a set of water pipes and valves, and / or a "Chineese room" could not actually result in any kind of intelligent behavior, but theoretically, all mathematical calculations required could be reproduced and simulated by all such systems if the speed of such operations were simply increased a near infinite amount. This position is argued in this position statement here: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/8 Chalmers, I, and many others agree that there is a "hard problem" but I disagree with him that phenomenal properties could "arise" from any equivalent functional organization, of which a "Chinese Room" is, though absurd and racist, one example. I also very much disagree with the idea that consciousness is only a process or only behavior, or not located anywhere. And this is all described in the "Nature has Phenomenal Properties" camp statement: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/2 Brent Allsop John K Clark wrote: > Wrote: > > >> What is the goal of the experiment? >> > > You would have to ask Mr. Searle about that not me. I'm sure he was trying > to prove something profound, but whatever it was he failed miserably. > Even the best of us can come up with a bad idea but even now, years later, > he still thinks the Chinese Room was clever; and that is exactly what makes > me so certain that Mr. Searle isn't. > > I want to tell you about Clark's Chinese Room. You are a professor of > Chinese Literature and are in a room with me and the great Chinese > Philosopher and Poet Laotse. Laotse writes something in his native > language on a paper and hands it to me. I walk 10 feet and give it to you. > You read the paper and are impressed with the wisdom of the message > and the beauty of its language. Now I tell you that I don't know a word of > Chinese, can you find any deep implications from that fact? > > I believe Clark's Chinese Room is just as profound as Searle's Chinese > Room. Not very. > > >> Are you expecting that it will show >> where consciousness is located in the brain? >> > > That would be ridiculous. In the same way it would be ridiculous to > expect a mathematicians to tell me where eleven is or a race car driver > tell me where swift is, or a artist tell me where beautiful is. > Consciousness is not a brain; consciousness is what a brain does. > I am an adjective, I am not a noun. > > >> Emotions of fear, sadness and joy are concentrated in the lower part of >> the brain, the amygdala, by showing an increased or diminished blood >> flow in that area. >> > > Searle wasn't talking about the amygdale or blood or any other structure > that through an evolutionary historical accident some life forms on this > small planet happen to possess. Searle wasn't even talking about brains, > he was trying to talk about general principles of mind. And it that he > failed. > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Dec 21 23:38:31 2007 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:38:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A new low In-Reply-To: <122120072250.22431.476C4336000534C70000579F2200750744979A09070E@comcast.net> References: <122120072250.22431.476C4336000534C70000579F2200750744979A09070E@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Dec 21, 2007, at 2:50 PM, aiguy at comcast.net wrote: > The goals of the loan bail out problem are four fold as I see it. > > 1. Help customers who were duped into dubious loan terms from losing > everything by helping them obtain conventional loans even though > their credit may remain borderline. Duped? It was people who exercised poor judgement on both sides of the deal. House flippers and other assorted idiots applying for loans they clearly could not afford (and willful ignorance is no excuse before the laws of economics) and lending companies underwriting objectively dubious investments (and then selling packages to other companies who did zero due diligence). Almost everyone that got burned deserved to get burned. The lesson is not supposed to be "we'll bail you out every time you do something stupid with your money". What next, is the Federal government going to cover gambling losses in Las Vegas? > 2. Prevent runs on the banks that made too many of these loans and > keep the bank themselves from defaulting and prevent the federally > insured deposits from having to paid by the government. Allowing the banks to get burned would be an excellent outcome. Short- term pain for long-term benefit that would ultimately cost the economy far less. > 3. Prevent the real estate bubble from collapsing by too many > homes being repossessed in too short of a period. This would be a desirable outcome. It would allow people with sound financials to buy a home that otherwise could not because of idiot- inflated house prices. There is no right to have one's house appreciate in value (or at least not lose value) every year, nor would it be the first time housing markets have deflated in most people's lifetime. > 4. Prevent the US economy from entering a recession/depession due to > 1, 2, and 3. Get some perspective, mortgages and related are a tiny percentage of the economy. The day-to-day movement of the stock market creates and destroys orders of magnitude more wealth than the worst case losses of the entire sub-prime mortgage fiasco. > And remember the last time major banks collapsed in the United > States we had a little thing called the Great Depression. Completely unwarranted breathless hype. J. Andrew Rogers From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 22 01:27:52 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:27:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <476BCC56.10702@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <200712220127.lBM1RqRT014405@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Freels > Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit > > Exciting, Yes. But scary as well. We didn't notice it until 2 months in > advance. Far too little time to do anything about it. Why would you want to do anything about it? Did you mean had the asteroid been headed our way it would only give us two months? This sounds rather strange, but I would think it exciting as all hell to work on a nuclear payload on a missile that would deflect an incoming rock. All the usual processes would be set aside, guys would be told to forget the documentation, use your best rocket science and get this bird ready to go, NOW! spike From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 22 01:51:00 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:51:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <476AC83E.4030108@kevinfreels.com> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> <62c14240712181537k76d17092wdbed7bb9fdffd1b6@mail.gmail.com> <476AC83E.4030108@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Freels wrote: > >> What I expect to see is telecommuting finally come into its own. >> Many >> billions of dollars of productivity are lost commuting not to mention >> the waste in fuel and belching nasties into the air. >> > That will be great. It's happening far too slowly for me. Bosses > like to micromanage and supervise. What will all those supervisors > do when they have no one left to baby-sit? Well I suppose they could insist you have a web cam up so they can look in or some such if they really have to. >> I think many would jump on really effective telecommuting even >> faster. But I did buy a Prius largely because of my former long >> commute. >> > Of course. But that doesn't help all the travel, trips to the store, > movies, entertainment, and everything else people do with their > cars. That's why they won;t give them up. If it was just about > getting to work and back it would be different. >> I and it seems a lot of people do more and more hopping online. If we ever get the Great Jukebox in the Sky up and as large flat panel TV proliferates people are likely to go to less movies. I am not claiming that people will give up cars, just that technology is giving us a lot more choices about when we do and do not need to haul the meat body around. I do thing that electric cars will eventually win out over everything else. I hope it is fairly soon. >> >> There is no great bonanza of oil in Alaska. >> > This makes it even more crucial. >> Couldn't agree more. >>>> More money needs to be spent on R&D to make these products >>>> available. I >>>> like where you are going with this though. How about a $1.50 per >>>> gallon gas >>>> guzzler tax on all passenger vehicles that get less than 30 mpg and >>>> use that >>>> money to directly fund alternative R&D. >>>> >> As it is largely not the fault of these car owners that would be >> grossly unjust as are most government appropriations. >> > lol. While I wholeheartedly agree, I don't see any other way to do > it. Anyone who knows me knows that I am just a little less > libertarian than Mike Lorrey (is he still around?). Yep. I think I heard something about him attempting to become the Midas Mulligan of Second Life. :-) > But I am willing to admit that government at times has to do things > that capitalism won't. At the moment I don't think a taxless society > is workable. I am not so sure about that. I think taxes as we know them have no place in a sane and free society. But some form of dues for certain parts of the commons maintenance might still be required. But I don't agree that it is government's place to appropriate wealth to use for what it considers a good cause. > This may change in the future but we're talking about the present. > That's a whole different discussion in itself but I do think this is > one case where tax money is necessary to do the job. What for? Power stations are private. Research in electric vehicles can sure be private. Infrastructure bits are cheaper than oil based infrastructure. The power network problems might be a candidate although there are ways to make power a lot less centralized and thus reduce those issues. > But hey, here's an idea. Since we are perfectly willing to go into > massive debt for wars and such, why not just go more into debt and > put the full force and finance of the US government into developing > an alternative? Because the US government has absolutely no incentive to be efficient or actually produce something very good. And in the meantime they are taking it out of our hide and the hides of generations to come. No thanks. > Call it a "War on oil". The goal - spend 1 trillion dollars to > develop a new renewable energy source It doesn't even have to be "renewable" as nuclear power is not but certainly needs more development. Private industry is doing a fine job on new solar energy products. The US government intrusion into biofuels is wreaking large corn and other food markets for a grossly inferior product giving less energy than it takes to produce it. That is government in action. We need this like a hole in the head. > so we can pull our forces away from the rest of the world and simply > focus on defending our own borders. The return on investment would > be both the sales of the technology abroad and no longer having to > get involved in foreign wars. > What on earth leads you to believe that government can actually innovate or seriously spur innovation? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 22 02:01:16 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:01:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Not Dollar a gallon gas was Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <1198209617_10213@S4.cableone.net> References: <121720072120.1955.4766E7FF000E6D33000007A32205886442979A09070E@comcast.net> <62c14240712171845l629401edl9b3dcdc8e77a60b6@mail.gmail.com> <4767E2BC.2090604@kevinfreels.com> <1198002259_1533@S3.cableone.net> <7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com> <476AC396.8010008@kevinfreels.com> <1198209617_10213@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:00 PM, hkhenson wrote: > At 12:33 PM 12/20/2007, Kevin Freels wrote: > > snip > >> Who is talking about violence here? Did I miss something? I never >> endorse violence. Having a viable alternative to foreign oil would >> make us less succeptable to what goes on in the middle-east and >> would reduce the need for us to be involved in wars over there. I >> don't see where you are getting this. > > Libertarians consider any form of non voluntary payments (like taxes) > to be an act of violence. And they have a point, since collecting > taxes is always backed up by force. > > But talk about topic drift. > > The point of dollar a gallon gas posting was to simulate hard number > discussion about real engineering, not endless political > bickering. Maybe it's just not the right time of year for serious > discussion. Bickering? For these parts there was a highly civil bit of friendly jousting and point, counterpoint. What business is it of yours to call us down for such? Are you not filled with seasonal good cheer? There was serious discussion interspersed. Didn't you notice? - s From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 22 02:06:24 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:06:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A new low In-Reply-To: <8CA1202E23D9D2A-EC-57B1@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA1202E23D9D2A-EC-57B1@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <5D9630C7-8C3F-4F8A-858C-C68D6EABA293@mac.com> On Dec 21, 2007, at 8:08 AM, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > "Exciting! The only problem was: The contents of what was being > communicated was so amazingly trivial and petty it started to make me > feel physically ill. > etc..... > -------------------- > > > "All that technology, billions of messages, instant - always on > communication, ......... > > and it's all total bollocks! > > That's progress. The triumph of the inane." > Bilk > _____________ > > Is it new or just a passing trend? The young generation spending more > time with cellular phones or texting billions of messages are the > effects of post modern society immersed in instant gratification or > the > feeling of "high" as in drinking starbucks coffee in every street > corner in the U.S. It all looks like normal monkey business. The young are busy socializing and looking to get laid. The older are busy decrying the intelligence, morals and portents for the future of the young. What is so different here except for better technology being used in the same old games? Now it is a extremely good point that we may well need to learn other games and quickly if we are going to have the kind of future we dream about. - s From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 22 02:11:08 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:11:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <476C1D0A.70605@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <200712220211.lBM2B8JK008977@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > > I am an adjective, I am not a noun. I is neither, sir. I is a pronoun. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 22 02:07:18 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:07:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A new low In-Reply-To: <8CA1202E23D9D2A-EC-57B1@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200712220233.lBM2Xv7R014920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > ... are the effects of post modern society immersed in instant gratification ... This comment also fits well with our original notion of the modern society failing to grasp negative numbers. Instant gratification is an endpoint, where gratification is defined as the satisfaction of a hunger or want. As the time required to satisfy any particular lust or urge approaches zero, we call it instant gratification. But if the time from hunger to stupefying satiety reaches exactly zero, thus completely eliminating all possibility of hunger or lust, then we have nowhere else to go, no further goals to reach. Advancement comes sadly to an end. But wait. Suppose we discover some new technology that allows our post modern society to have its wants and lusts satisfied *before* the hunger or yearning even exists? Imagine a technology that somehow anticipates our lust, then satisfies in advance? Lust time first goes to zero (instant gratification), then actually goes negative (preemptive gratification). As we become more advanced with preemptive gratification,we have no limits, for preemptive gratification can take the negative lust time arbitrarily far to the left on the time axis. Just think of the money to be made here. spike (Oh my, I crack me up.) From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sat Dec 22 02:19:51 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:19:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A new low In-Reply-To: <200712212039.lBLKdX3X004955@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712212039.lBLKdX3X004955@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <476C7447.7040600@mydruthers.com> Spike wrote: > I came to an uncomfortable realization. Over the years, somehow we > have come to regard a good credit rating as equivalent to money in > the bank. Like the cold cash game, it somehow demonstrates a lack of > understanding of the importance of negative numbers. The critically > important number now is not the amount of money one has in the bank > but rather how much the bank is willing to loan one. > > Am I the only one who sees a deep pathological social condition here? I have recently been pursuing real estate investment (yes, even in the face of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown; real estate prices will rise again.) In that context, your credit-worthiness is as important as your net worth. With sufficient net worth, you can stop worrying and change your lifestyle. (Stop working for money if that's what you do, and spend your time on what you love.) But until you get there, your credit-worthiness is a measure of how much people will lend you. I borrow to increase my net worth. Banks will loan you most of the money you need to buy real estate. They do that when they're sure they can get their money back even if you are wrong about how quickly it will grow in value. But most of the time, if you borrow 80% of the money, and the property grows by %5-%20, you've made %20-%100 on the money you put in. That's better than nearly everyone does in the market, and it's reliable enough that banks will lend you the money. So, yes, for me a good credit rating is money I can invest. The report I heard today on lenders' decisions on the mortgage crisis was that three of the biggest banks had decided not to create a bailout fund. The explanation was that they wanted to stop throwing good money after bad. If the borrowers can't afford the long term rates after the teaser rates expire, then the bank should stop the bleeding ASAP. Extending the teaser rate won't give the borrower the ability to actually pay back the loan. The only reason the banks should want to extend the teaser rates for borrowers who can't make the full principal and interest payment is if they're convinced that the property will appreciate and rescue the borrower. But that still means the bank won't be repaid until the borrower sells the house. Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Dec 22 03:25:32 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:25:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200712220127.lBM1RqRT014405@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712220127.lBM1RqRT014405@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <476C83AC.6010604@kevinfreels.com> > > Why would you want to do anything about it? Did you mean had the asteroid > been headed our way it would only give us two months? yes. exactly. > This sounds rather > strange, but I would think it exciting as all hell to work on a nuclear > payload on a missile that would deflect an incoming rock. All the usual > processes would be set aside, guys would be told to forget the > documentation, use your best rocket science and get this bird ready to go, > NOW! > > spike > I definitely see your point. From scerir at libero.it Sat Dec 22 07:37:02 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:37:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube References: <200712210053.lBL0rWDR027201@andromeda.ziaspace.com><200712201920.56965.kanzure@gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20071220192321.02215fe0@satx.rr.com> <34591.72.236.103.160.1198201138.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <000b01c8446d$73392cb0$f3921f97@archimede> > ommm at dalailama.commm 'Humor develops from aggression caused by male hormones.' More here: http://www.physorg.com/news117445620.html From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 22 10:40:05 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:40:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200712220127.lBM1RqRT014405@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <476BCC56.10702@kevinfreels.com> <200712220127.lBM1RqRT014405@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20071222104005.GG10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 05:27:52PM -0800, spike wrote: > Why would you want to do anything about it? Did you mean had the asteroid > been headed our way it would only give us two months? This sounds rather It could have been just two weeks. You need to have hardware on standby, and launch immediately as soon as you have a sufficiently precise trajectory. > strange, but I would think it exciting as all hell to work on a nuclear > payload on a missile that would deflect an incoming rock. All the usual The warhead would be off the shelf. An interceptor wouldn't be, though. > processes would be set aside, guys would be told to forget the > documentation, use your best rocket science and get this bird ready to go, > NOW! You'd need to launch the bird (that doesn't exist) NOW in order that it can intercept and deflect (by assymetric ablation, perhaps a series of such) the impactor weeks to months before impact. The earlier you'd get him, the less deflection you'll need. We don't have any such standby capabilities right now. It wouldn't be necessarily that expensive, given that you'd have to accelerate a payload of less than 100 kg, potentially much less than 100 kg, if it's just a naked fusion device sans guidance but a detonator. Can we do such precision shots right now? Delta-v is probably 10 km/s at least. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 citta437 at aol.com Sat Dec 22 12:23:58 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:23:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/Consciousness Message-ID: <8CA12ACA96EF942-A40-2957@webmail-me15.sysops.aol.com> >From "Inside our Mind" " Quantum mechanics describes the seemingly bizarre behavior of matter and energy at microscopic scales, e.g. that of atoms and sub-atomic particles. At that level particles may be in two or more places at the same time (quantum superposition), and particles widely separated in distance may nonetheless be intimately connected (quantum entanglement). These properties are used in quantum computation which offers potential solutions to the enigmatic features of consciousness. However quantum computation is disrupted by interactions with the environment ("decoherence"), and neurons and synapses seem too large for delicate quantum effects. But neurons may be far more complicated than mere switches. If we look inside neurons and other cells, we see highly ordered networks (the "cytoskeleton") comprised of microtubules and other filamentous structures which organize cellular activities. Microtubules are cylindrical polymers of the protein tubulin arranged in hexagonal lattices comprising the cylinder wall. Cooperative interactions among tubulin subunits within microtubules have been suggested to process information, as in molecular scale "cellular automata". As the states of tubulin are controlled by quantum mechanical internal forces (van der Waals London forces), they may exist in quantum superposition of multiple states ("quantum bits, or "qubits"), and microtubules may be seen as quantum computers involved in cellular organization." _______________ Hope the above explanation help what cannot be seen in an MRI but a neuroscientist will be able to discuss it with clarity than I do. ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From benboc at lineone.net Sat Dec 22 12:22:54 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:22:54 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Is Mind a machine? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476D019E.3080700@lineone.net> Speaking of new lows... What next? "Is Bread a Food?" Ben Zed From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 14:37:44 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:37:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <20071222104005.GG10128@leitl.org> References: <476BCC56.10702@kevinfreels.com> <200712220127.lBM1RqRT014405@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071222104005.GG10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <580930c20712220637n2886d413w10e9bc37f8e165d0@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 22, 2007 11:40 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > You'd need to launch the bird (that doesn't exist) NOW in order that > it can intercept and deflect (by assymetric ablation, perhaps a series > of such) the impactor weeks to months before impact. The earlier you'd > get him, the less deflection you'll need. > > We don't have any such standby capabilities right now. It wouldn't be > necessarily that expensive, given that you'd have to accelerate a payload > of less than 100 kg, potentially much less than 100 kg, if it's just > a naked fusion device sans guidance but a detonator. Can we do such > precision shots right now? Delta-v is probably 10 km/s at least. > I think a NEO threat would be a good opportunity to see an Orion eventually flying... Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Sat Dec 22 14:54:26 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:54:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/consciousness Message-ID: <8CA12C1AE4E5892-A40-2CDF@webmail-me15.sysops.aol.com> "The sympathetic nervous system does contain neurons, but what does that have to do with neurons in the brain, whether they feel pain, and consciousness?" Stathis _________ Good question. I suggest a link "Inside our Mind" or google the organization of the brain. As far as I know the peripheral nervous system contains a system of nerve fibers enervating the muscles and skin and other organs except the brain starting from ganglionic fibers at the thoracic region of the spinal cord which contain microtubules/filaments that act like a quantum computer where chemical interactions occur. In the brain some chemical interactions occur between neurons in spaces called synapses found only in the brain not in the spinal cord. When you are given a spinal anesthesia, you are awake but has no motor functions and feelings of pain from the waist down. In general anesthesia you are totally asleep, no consciousness, no motor function and no feelings either. This processes show how the chemistry and physiology of the brain contibute to consciousness. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 22 16:10:04 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:10:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: <000b01c8446d$73392cb0$f3921f97@archimede> Message-ID: <200712221636.lBMGai3g021915@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of scerir > Subject: Re: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin,20071216] > - YouTube > > > ommm at dalailama.commm > > 'Humor develops from aggression caused by male hormones.' > More here: http://www.physorg.com/news117445620.html No way. I was a smartass long before puberty. I didn't get any funnier when the hormone fairy showed up. I cracked people up back then, it was a hoot. It was actually easier before the hormones; being really tiny, I was a *cute* smartass. spike From citta437 at aol.com Sat Dec 22 16:54:28 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:54:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Mind And Life Institute Message-ID: <8CA12D2732B3538-A40-3002@webmail-me15.sysops.aol.com> Below is an excerpt from googling about the founder of the institute. ""With the ever growing impact of science on our lives, religion and spirituality have a greater role to play reminding us of our humanity. There is no contradiction between the two. Each gives us valuable insights into the other. Both science and the teachings of the Buddha tell us of the fundamental unity of all things." -- The Dalai Lama His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama is the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, the head of the Tibetan government-in-exile, and a spiritual leader revered worldwide. He was born on July 6, 1935 in a small village called Taktser in northeastern Tibet. Born to a peasant family, His Holiness was recognized at the age of two, in accordance with Tibetan tradition, as the reincarnation of his predecessor, the XIIIth Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lamas are manifestations of the Buddha of Compassion, who choose to reincarnate for the purpose of relieving suffering. Winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1989, he is universally respected as a spokesman for the compassionate and non-violent resolution of human conflict. His Holiness has traveled extensively, speaking on subjects including universal responsibility, compassion, and kindness. The Dalai Lama's Interest in Science The Dalai Lama has always shown a strong mechanical aptitude and a keen personal interest in the sciences. He has said that if he were not a monk, he would have liked to have been an engineer. As a youth in Lhasa he taught himself to fix broken machinery, from clocks to movie projectors to cars. A highlight of his first trip to the west in 1973 was a visit to the University Observatory at the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge England. Over the years he has enjoyed relationships with many scientists, including long friendships with the late renowned philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, and physicists Carl von Weizs?cker and the late David Bohm. He has participated in many conferences on science and spirituality. It was at one such conference, the Alpbach Symposia on Consciousness in 1983, that His Holiness met Dr. Francisco Varela who, in partnership with Adam Engle, later created the unique form of in-depth dialogue between Buddhism and science that has grown into the Mind and Life Institute. Since the first Mind and Life meeting in 1987, His Holiness has regularly dedicated a full week of his busy schedule to these biennial meetings. An Ongoing Dialogue with Western Science Along with his vigorous interest in learning about the newest developments in science, His Holiness brings to bear both a voice for the humanistic implications of the findings, and a high degree of intuitive methodological sophistication. As well as engaging personally in dialogue with Western scientists and promoting scientific research into Buddhist meditative practices, he has led a campaign to introduce basic science education in Tibetan Buddhist monastic colleges and academic centers, and has encouraged Tibetan scholars to engage with science as a way of revitalizing the Tibetan philosophical tradition. His Holiness believes that science and Buddhism share a common objective: to serve humanity and create a better understanding of the world. He feels that science offers powerful tools for understanding the interconnectedness of all life, and that such understanding provides an essential rationale for ethical behavior and the protection of the environment. A complete biography of His Holiness the Dalai Lama is available on the website of the Tibetan government-in-exile. ? Copyright 2007 Mind and Life Institute, Boulder, CO ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From jonkc at att.net Sat Dec 22 17:58:46 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:58:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> <476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net> Message-ID: <002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer> Brent Allsop Wrote: > I also very much disagree with the idea that consciousness > is only a process or only behavior So you have absolutely no reason to think any of your fellow human beings are unconscious when they sleep, or even when they die for that matter; their behavior changes and some rather odoriferous processes begin, but according to you that means nothing. In fact you have absolutely positively no reason to think you are not the only conscious being in the universe. Also you can not believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution because although it could create intelligence that theory could never explain how a conscious being like you came into existence. > or not located anywhere. So you belong to the camp of: Although my brain is in Paris and is looking at a football game from Detroit and is listening to a friend in Australia and is thinking about The Great Wall of China, REALLY my consciousness is located inside a box made of bone. I would maintain this is yet another example of an idea so bad it's not even wrong because the word "really" in the above has no meaning, it's just a noise. > the hard problem of consciousness. The reason it's so hard is that the "problem" can not even be stated much less the answer. John K Clark From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 22 18:53:40 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:53:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube In-Reply-To: <200712221636.lBMGai3g021915@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712221920.lBMJKJAH010307@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > > > > > ommm at dalailama.commm > > > > 'Humor develops from aggression caused by male hormones.' > > More here: http://www.physorg.com/news117445620.html > > > No way. I was a smartass long before puberty. I didn't get any funnier > when the hormone fairy showed up. I cracked people up back then, it was a > hoot. It was actually easier before the hormones; being really tiny, I > was a *cute* smartass. > > spike Have you ever seen a little kid parody an adult? It is funny as all hell, especially if the kid is good at it. I saw the article and realized what the professor is referring to is attempted comedy; it really isn't comedy as I understand it. It is really aggression thinly veiled as apparent humor, such as put-down "humor." In my mind, real comedy is restricted to that which makes people laugh. It is strictly entertainment only, light hearted stuff, the only *real* comedy. Making fun of Taliban for instance isn't real comedy, but rather veiled political commentary, like political cartooning isn't the same thing as one sees in the comics section of the local newspaper. Put down humor is false comedy. For real comedy, self put-downs work really well, any way in which one makes oneself appear to be silly or stupid. To me the best comedy is a well constructed parody, where the listener isn't sure if the speaker is incredibly crazy or is a genius (there is fine line there.) A well constructed parody will fool a lot of people. Consider for instance, those of you old enough, All In The Family. Two main characters, Archie Bunker and the Meathead, were both silly fools, parodies of the political right and left, but both had some excellent points once the laughter stopped. I see true comedy is much more closely related to inner sadness than male aggression, as is sometimes hinted in the character of the sad clown, or as seen in (the genius comic) Red Skelton's Clem Kadiddlehopper. spike . . From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 22 19:37:00 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:37:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] resurrecting WTA SL activities Message-ID: <20071222193700.GA12744@leitl.org> A small group is going to meet in Second Life (Extropia Core 162, 53, 22, Giulio's building with the double helix in front, 30th December, noon SL time (PST, I believe)) to discuss restarting transhumanist activities there. (This is resuming from the last time, at which we fell flat on our faces, and coulnd't get up again). Anyone would be willing to give a hand with that? From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Dec 22 20:06:16 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:06:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] resurrecting WTA SL activities In-Reply-To: <20071222193700.GA12744@leitl.org> References: <20071222193700.GA12744@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20071222200619.YXSZ27181.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 01:37 PM 12/22/2007, you wrote: >A small group is going to meet in Second Life (Extropia Core 162, >53, 22, Giulio's >building with the double helix in front, 30th December, noon SL time >(PST, I believe)) >to discuss restarting transhumanist activities there. (This is resuming from >the last time, at which we fell flat on our faces, and coulnd't get up again). > >Anyone would be willing to give a hand with that? Yes, sure, love do? But what does Extropia Core have to do with WTA? best, Natasha >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.6/1192 - Release Date: >12/21/2007 1:17 PM Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 22 20:41:09 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:41:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <20071222104005.GG10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712222107.lBML7mYU009904@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > > You'd need to launch the bird (that doesn't exist) NOW in order that > it can intercept and deflect (by assymetric ablation, perhaps a series > of such) the impactor weeks to months before impact. The earlier you'd > get him, the less deflection you'll need... Ja. > We don't have any such standby capabilities right now. It wouldn't be > necessarily that expensive, given that you'd have to accelerate a payload > of less than 100 kg, potentially much less than 100 kg... Hmmm, ja, but I don't expect it to be much less than 100kg. We need a spherical plutonium core surrounded by high explosive with a damper shell, next to a heavy hydrogen device. For this application, I expect it to exceed 100. > if it's just > a naked fusion device sans guidance but a detonator. Can we do such > precision shots right now? We do, but it would need a combination ground based or space based radar with ground guidance, combined with some pretty tricky endgame guidance on-board as is done with the THAAD missile. I expect the entire package to be closer to about 400 to 500-ish kg, since you need guidance propulsion, attitude control, antennas etc. > Delta-v is probably 10 km/s at least... Ja we would need all of 10 km/sec methinks, but I need to do some BOTECs to figure out how we would do this. I think we would need to get as close as possible to coming the exact opposite direction of the rock, otherwise I don't know if our endgame guidance authority would be sufficient for a hit with current technology. I doubt we could get out to the object, match its velocity and attempt a soft landing (the required delta V is way too high.) So the biggest technological challenge might be how to detonate the device within the time tolerance when the closing speeds might be in access of 20km/sec. The precision needed to do this is tech we don't currently have. At 20 meters per millisecond, if the device detonates 10 milliseconds too early, 200 meters might be too far away to do much. A millisecond too late and the impact destroys the device without detonating. spike > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From scerir at libero.it Sat Dec 22 20:45:15 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:45:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Dalai Lama on Technological Change [Turin, 20071216] - YouTube References: <200712221920.lBMJKJAH010307@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001201c844db$8eb03ba0$6dbf1f97@archimede> > I see true comedy is much more closely related > to inner sadness than male aggression, > as is sometimes hinted in the character > of the sad clown, or as seen in (the genius comic) > Red Skelton's Clem Kadiddlehopper. > spike I think there is something wrong with that title 'Humor develops from aggression caused by male hormones' or with the paper itself. But is there a qualitative - or a quantitative - difference between masculine and feminine humours? That's possible, imo. Humour may be related to inner sadness, or to other states (skepticism, indolence, etc.). The 'minimalist' humour of the late P.A.M. Dirac made a strong impression on me. Here is something amazing about the young Dirac .... http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~greenfie/mill_courses/math421/int.html From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 22 21:18:10 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:18:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] resurrecting WTA SL activities References: <20071222193700.GA12744@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071222151603.0224c860@satx.rr.com> At 02:06 PM 12/22/2007 -0600, Natasha wrote: >Yes, sure, love do? Love do like a pendulum swings. (You probably had to be there.) (England, late sixties.) (I wasn't, actually. But hey.) Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 22 21:57:05 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:57:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200712222107.lBML7mYU009904@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20071222104005.GG10128@leitl.org> <200712222107.lBML7mYU009904@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20071222215705.GQ10128@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 12:41:09PM -0800, spike wrote: > Hmmm, ja, but I don't expect it to be much less than 100kg. We need a > spherical plutonium core surrounded by high explosive with a damper shell, > next to a heavy hydrogen device. For this application, I expect it to > exceed 100. Even a Davy Crocket could be easily carried by a single grunt. Modern fusion devices are the size of a large orange/grapefruit. You wouldn't need a damper shell, you'd want to flash the facing face of the asteroid/comet into a thin layer of plasma; preferrably iteratively. I don't know that the lowest payload would be (and if I knew, it would be classified), but I'd hazard more like 10 kg, than 100 kg. I'd rather bet on some 10 shots of 10 kg payload each rather than one 100 kg shot. > We do, but it would need a combination ground based or space based radar > with ground guidance, combined with some pretty tricky endgame guidance > on-board as is done with the THAAD missile. I expect the entire package to > be closer to about 400 to 500-ish kg, since you need guidance propulsion, > attitude control, antennas etc. So you'd need guidance onboard. Still, 400 kg is not that much. > Ja we would need all of 10 km/sec methinks, but I need to do some BOTECs to > figure out how we would do this. I think we would need to get as close as > possible to coming the exact opposite direction of the rock, otherwise I > don't know if our endgame guidance authority would be sufficient for a hit > with current technology. We don't want a direct hit. We want a detonation some 100-1000 m during flyby, so we'd get asymmetric ablation and deflection, instead of fragmenting the sucker into hundreds to thousands of bolides-to-be. That cure might be way worse than the disease. > I doubt we could get out to the object, match its velocity and attempt a > soft landing (the required delta V is way too high.) So the biggest While not having your background, this is my impression as well. > technological challenge might be how to detonate the device within the time > tolerance when the closing speeds might be in access of 20km/sec. The > precision needed to do this is tech we don't currently have. At 20 meters > per millisecond, if the device detonates 10 milliseconds too early, 200 > meters might be too far away to do much. A millisecond too late and the > impact destroys the device without detonating. You'd need a pearlstring of successive detonations, not a single on-off bet. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 aiguy at comcast.net Sat Dec 22 22:31:38 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:31:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <20071222215705.GQ10128@leitl.org> References: <20071222104005.GG10128@leitl.org><200712222107.lBML7mYU009904@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071222215705.GQ10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <028201c844ea$6d059ea0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Is the goal to aim for the side and detonate soon enough before impact with the asteroid to create a shockwave which pushes the asteroid enough off it's trajectory without breaking it up? That way if the course correction is not sufficient then you still have a mass to target and not a swarm of smaller chunks which could impact us in multiple collisions. With conventional explosive shaped charges can be used to direct the blast energy in one primary direction. Is it possible to do a shaped charge with nuclear or is that out of the question due to the much higher intensity of the blast. Also if the blast directly destroyed the asteroid and the resulting small debris burnt up on entry into our atmosphere. Would the radioactivity created by the blast create a serious threat when it burnt up in the atmosphere? Gary -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:57 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 12:41:09PM -0800, spike wrote: > Hmmm, ja, but I don't expect it to be much less than 100kg. We need a > spherical plutonium core surrounded by high explosive with a damper > shell, next to a heavy hydrogen device. For this application, I > expect it to exceed 100. Even a Davy Crocket could be easily carried by a single grunt. Modern fusion devices are the size of a large orange/grapefruit. You wouldn't need a damper shell, you'd want to flash the facing face of the asteroid/comet into a thin layer of plasma; preferrably iteratively. I don't know that the lowest payload would be (and if I knew, it would be classified), but I'd hazard more like 10 kg, than 100 kg. I'd rather bet on some 10 shots of 10 kg payload each rather than one 100 kg shot. > We do, but it would need a combination ground based or space based > radar with ground guidance, combined with some pretty tricky endgame > guidance on-board as is done with the THAAD missile. I expect the > entire package to be closer to about 400 to 500-ish kg, since you need > guidance propulsion, attitude control, antennas etc. So you'd need guidance onboard. Still, 400 kg is not that much. > Ja we would need all of 10 km/sec methinks, but I need to do some > BOTECs to figure out how we would do this. I think we would need to > get as close as possible to coming the exact opposite direction of the > rock, otherwise I don't know if our endgame guidance authority would > be sufficient for a hit with current technology. We don't want a direct hit. We want a detonation some 100-1000 m during flyby, so we'd get asymmetric ablation and deflection, instead of fragmenting the sucker into hundreds to thousands of bolides-to-be. That cure might be way worse than the disease. > I doubt we could get out to the object, match its velocity and attempt > a soft landing (the required delta V is way too high.) So the biggest While not having your background, this is my impression as well. > technological challenge might be how to detonate the device within the > time tolerance when the closing speeds might be in access of 20km/sec. > The precision needed to do this is tech we don't currently have. At > 20 meters per millisecond, if the device detonates 10 milliseconds too > early, 200 meters might be too far away to do much. A millisecond too > late and the impact destroys the device without detonating. You'd need a pearlstring of successive detonations, not a single on-off bet. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Dec 22 22:50:16 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:50:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <028201c844ea$6d059ea0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <20071222104005.GG10128@leitl.org><200712222107.lBML7mYU009904@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071222215705.GQ10128@leitl.org> <028201c844ea$6d059ea0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <35404.72.236.103.46.1198363816.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> This just showed up in my Inbox: * Small asteroids may do major damage: A new look at a 1908 event suggests disaster from space could be more common than once thought. http://www.world-science.net/othernews/071221_tunguska.htm Regards, MB From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 23:10:21 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:10:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/Consciousness In-Reply-To: <8CA12ACA96EF942-A40-2957@webmail-me15.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA12ACA96EF942-A40-2957@webmail-me15.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712221510m41a36dcer654161e23ce08513@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 22, 2007 1:23 PM, wrote: > But neurons may be far more complicated than mere switches. If we > look inside neurons and other cells, we see highly ordered networks > (the "cytoskeleton") comprised of microtubules and other filamentous > structures which organize cellular activities. Microtubules are > cylindrical polymers of the protein tubulin arranged in hexagonal > lattices comprising the cylinder wall. Cooperative interactions among > tubulin subunits within microtubules have been suggested to process > information, as in molecular scale "cellular automata". As the states > of tubulin are controlled by quantum mechanical internal forces (van > der Waals London forces), they may exist in quantum superposition of > multiple states ("quantum bits, or "qubits"), and microtubules may be > seen as quantum computers involved in cellular organization." Mmhhh. Why neurons and not liver cells? Or eritrocites? Or dust particles, for that matter? And how comes that brains are unable to perform quantum computations at all? Stefano Vaj From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Dec 22 23:37:52 2007 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:37:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <028201c844ea$6d059ea0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <20071222104005.GG10128@leitl.org><200712222107.lBML7mYU009904@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071222215705.GQ10128@leitl.org> <028201c844ea$6d059ea0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Gary Miller wrote: > Is the goal to aim for the side and detonate soon enough before > impact with > the asteroid to create a shockwave which pushes the asteroid enough > off it's > trajectory without breaking it up? You realize, of course, that hard vacuum does not constitute a working fluid. Photons will be doing all the work here, a combination of ablation and light pressure. > With conventional explosive shaped charges can be used to direct the > blast > energy in one primary direction. > > Is it possible to do a shaped charge with nuclear or is that out of > the > question due to the much higher intensity of the blast. Intensity has nothing to do with it, the explosives operate on fundamentally different principles. Shaped charges work by manipulating how the detonation wave moves through the explosive, creating constructive anisotropies that are then mechanically coupled to the target. You can create anisotropies in the photon output of the nuke however. > Also if the blast directly destroyed the asteroid and the resulting > small > debris burnt up on entry into our atmosphere. > > Would the radioactivity created by the blast create a serious threat > when it > burnt up in the atmosphere? We did plenty of atmospheric nuke testing in the mid-20th century. If that was not a serious threat, the posited scenario certainly is not. J. Andrew Rogers From brent.allsop at comcast.net Sun Dec 23 00:24:21 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:24:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer> References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> <476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net> <002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> John, Yes, I know you think this way, we've had this conversation many times over the years, and I've attempted to show how these statements you make over and over again about what we believe to be mistaken, so evidently repeating them yet again will not be worth much since it didn't help the last time, and you don't seem to be listening. Non the less, now, except for the part about evolution, there are concise statements as to why your statements are mistaken contained in the camp statements here: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/2 And there are also some other pretty good thinkers in our camp, concisely agreeing with us that you are mistaken. As far as the evolution part goes, you've also made this mistaken argument before also. Do you keep archives? Check arorund Nov 2005, for one example of a bunch of us having this same conversation. Myself, and I believe others like Damien Broderick, explained why you are wrong. But of course, telling people to dig such information out of conversation logs isn't of much use right? And obviously people don't just remember such, not to mention all the new people having to suffer through all this yet again. So instead of repeatedly mistakenly using evolution in this way to argue your belief in such conversations after we have refuted them, perhaps if you really still think it is not mistaken, you could canonize this argument? Then I can canonize our response as to why it is mistaken, explain, in a little more rigorous way, that if an environment has natural phenomenal properties, they could be used to more effeciently represent information, especially of the motivational type, than simple abstracted behavioral representations. All of this clearely demonstrating how evolution could evolve to utilize such, due to their benefit and efficiently for increasing intelligence, if they existed, yet we, with our still, but not for much longer, only causal observation abilities, are completely objectively blind to them, i.e. they are still ineffable. Brent Allsop John K Clark wrote: > Brent Allsop Wrote: > >> I also very much disagree with the idea that consciousness >> is only a process or only behavior > > So you have absolutely no reason to think any of your fellow human beings > are unconscious when they sleep, or even when they die for that matter; > their behavior changes and some rather odoriferous processes begin, but > according to you that means nothing. In fact you have absolutely > positively > no reason to think you are not the only conscious being in the universe. > > Also you can not believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution because although > it could create intelligence that theory could never explain how a > conscious > being like you came into existence. > >> or not located anywhere. > > So you belong to the camp of: Although my brain is in Paris and is > looking > at a football game from Detroit and is listening to a friend in > Australia > and is thinking about The Great Wall of China, REALLY my consciousness is > located inside a box made of bone. I would maintain this is yet another > example of an idea so bad it's not even wrong because the word "really" > in the above has no meaning, it's just a noise. > >> the hard problem of consciousness. > > The reason it's so hard is that the "problem" can not even be stated > much less the answer. > > John K Clark > > > > > From mfj.eav at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 00:29:42 2007 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:29:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality Message-ID: <61c8738e0712221629o6cd27868s56f1f11b561f12c4@mail.gmail.com> Much cheaper than a foreign war... Seriously, the gov't injection of liquidity to the market to drive the building of the infrastructure is sound. The R&D and competition to make Corn and other cellulosics energy in/out + is the first derivative The development of more complex bio-products is the true value end product. We sit on a portion of an oil formation (Bakken) estimated at 100-400 billion barrels here in Saskatchewan. All those magical lifespan extension and quality of life enhancement products that might be made from bio-based products may be the most valuable by-products. I'd like the bioproducts industry to be able to fully replace the oil industry before the last barrel of oil is squeezed out. In my opinion it will be a horse race to see if we can actually make this happen. _______________________________________________________________ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:51:00 -0800 From: Samantha Atkins Subject: Re: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality > Call it a "War on oil". The goal - spend 1 trillion dollars to > develop a new renewable energy source It doesn't even have to be "renewable" as nuclear power is not but certainly needs more development. Private industry is doing a fine job on new solar energy products. The US government intrusion into biofuels is wreaking large corn and other food markets for a grossly inferior product giving less energy than it takes to produce it. That is government in action. We need this like a hole in the head. ____________________________________________________ -- LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. 306-447-4944 701-240-9411 Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com megao at sasktel.net, arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com extropian.pharmer at gmail.com Transhumanism ..."The most dangerous idea on earth" -Francis Fukuyama, June 2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 23 00:31:11 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:31:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] love do In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071222151603.0224c860@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200712230031.lBN0VAcp026529@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 1:18 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] resurrecting WTA SL activities > > At 02:06 PM 12/22/2007 -0600, Natasha wrote: > > >Yes, sure, love do? > > Love do like a pendulum swings. > > (You probably had to be there.) > > (England, late sixties.) > > (I wasn't, actually. But hey.) > > Damien Broderick Early sixties. June 1962, clearly before Lennon and McCartney learned that good music is actually poetry as well as a catchy tune: Love, love me do You know I love you I'll always be true so please, love me do oh, love me do Love, love me do You know I love you I'll always be true so please, love me do oh, love me do Someone to love Somebody new Someone to love Someone like you Love, love me do You know I love you I'll always be true so please, love me do oh, love me do Love, love me do You know I love you I'll always be true so please, love me do oh, love me do Yeah, love me do Oh, love me do From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 23 00:52:47 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:52:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <028201c844ea$6d059ea0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <200712230052.lBN0qkeY016152@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gary Miller > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:32 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit > > Is the goal to aim for the side and detonate soon enough before impact > with > the asteroid to create a shockwave which pushes the asteroid enough off > it's > trajectory without breaking it up?... I don't see how a superheated fusion event whizzing past would cause the asteroid to break up. The idea is to superheat heat one side of the rock, so that the sublimation particles scatter in the direction of the hot side and the rest of the rock is pushed by conservation of momentum the other direction. This scheme requires so much heat that a simple fission device isn't enough, not nearly enough energy. A fusion device is needed. Even then, the nuclear device is only close by for a tiny faction of a second, like that scene at the start of every episode of the original Star Trek, only faster. > > That way if the course correction is not sufficient then you still have a > mass to target and not a swarm of smaller chunks which could impact us in > multiple collisions... Ja, but it isn't clear to me what would cause the thing to fragment. The surface heats up and boils away violently. I suppose individual fragments could come flying off, but I don't see that as a major problem. ... > Is it possible to do a shaped charge with nuclear or is that out of the > question due to the much higher intensity of the blast... Doubt it. What would you use to direct a blast like that? ... > > Would the radioactivity created by the blast create a serious threat when > it burnt up in the atmosphere? Gary No the scenario I imagine would deliver almost no radioactivity to the earth at all, for the radioactive particles continue flying into space on the same trajectory as before the blast. A tiny amount I suppose might imbed itself in the rock itself and return to earth, but compared to the amount of radioactivity from all those nucular* tests, it is nada. spike *They woulda saved us all a lot of trouble had they spelled it nucular to start with. It isn't just the current president that pronounces it nucular, I have heard it from a lotta nucular physicists and even biologists who talk about the nuculus of the cell. Nucular is easier to say than nuclear. From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 23 01:06:18 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:06:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0712221629o6cd27868s56f1f11b561f12c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712230106.lBN16Hm3013462@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Morris Johnson ... ? I'd like the bioproducts industry to be able to fully replace the oil industry before the last barrel of oil is squeezed out. In my opinion it will be a horse race to see if we can actually make this happen. ... Morris if this is a horse race I know exactly on which horse I am betting. Regardless of what technology is discovered, as long as there is oil in the ground, humanity will continue to refine and burn the stuff. Our burn rate may slow considerably as replacements come online, but the existence of cheap oil is exactly what has kept the replacements from happening. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 23 01:39:50 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:39:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] love do In-Reply-To: <200712230031.lBN0VAcp026529@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071222151603.0224c860@satx.rr.com> <200712230031.lBN0VAcp026529@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071222193641.022dd6b0@satx.rr.com> At 04:31 PM 12/22/2007 -0800, spike wrote: > > At 02:06 PM 12/22/2007 -0600, Natasha wrote: > > > > >Yes, sure, love do? > > > > Love do like a pendulum swings. > > > > (You probably had to be there.) > > > > (England, late sixties.) > > >Early sixties. June 1962, clearly before Lennon and McCartney learned that >good music is actually poetry as well as a catchy tune: > >Love, love me do >You know I love you >I'll always be true >so please, love me do >oh, love me do Nope. 1965-6: ENGLAND SWINGS words and music by Roger Miller England swings like a pendulum do Bobbies on bicycles, two by two Westminster Abbey, the tower of Big Ben The rosy red cheeks of the little children Now, if you huff and puff and you fin'lly save enough Money up to take your family on a trip across the sea Take a tip before you take your trip Let me tell you where to go Go to England, oh [etc] "Top 10 in the American pop charts in November 1965 and the British Top 20 by late January 1966." Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 02:03:00 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:03:00 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> <476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net> <002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer> <476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 23/12/2007, Brent Allsop wrote: > As far as the evolution part goes, you've also made this mistaken > argument before also. Do you keep archives? Check arorund Nov 2005, > for one example of a bunch of us having this same conversation. Myself, > and I believe others like Damien Broderick, explained why you are > wrong. But of course, telling people to dig such information out of > conversation logs isn't of much use right? And obviously people don't > just remember such, not to mention all the new people having to suffer > through all this yet again. I'm not sure what John's point about evolution was, but there is no reason for evolution to favour a conscious being over a philosophical zombie. This would imply that consciousness is a corollary of human level intelligence. -- Stathis Papaioannou From brent.allsop at comcast.net Sun Dec 23 02:46:31 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:46:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> <476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net> <002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer> <476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> Message-ID: <476DCC07.2080403@comcast.net> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 23/12/2007, Brent Allsop wrote: > > >> As far as the evolution part goes, you've also made this mistaken >> argument before also. Do you keep archives? Check arorund Nov 2005, >> for one example of a bunch of us having this same conversation. Myself, >> and I believe others like Damien Broderick, explained why you are >> wrong. But of course, telling people to dig such information out of >> conversation logs isn't of much use right? And obviously people don't >> just remember such, not to mention all the new people having to suffer >> through all this yet again. >> > > I'm not sure what John's point about evolution was, but there is no > reason for evolution to favour a conscious being over a philosophical > zombie. This would imply that consciousness is a corollary of human > level intelligence. > > > John has always claimed that if phenomenal properties are not objectively or abstractly detectable, then evolution could not select for them. He then concludes that this is an argument that phenomenal properties do not exist. If some process is more efficient at achieving some attribute that results in something being more survivable, then evolution will favor or develop that process over another. While abstract representations, given increased complexity (it is much harder to lie, than to tell the truth), can behave in motivated zombie ways, acting like they are consciously motivated, the argument is that it is possible that phenomenal properties of nature could be used to accomplish the same intelligent representation and comprehension of knowledge and motivation much more easily and naturally, than other merely abstract, or whatever zombie processes. Do you think this information should be canonized somehow so we won't have to explain it repeatedly? In 2009, I hope we are way beyond repeating all this every few years as we have been stuck dong now for so long. Brent Allsop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 07:48:55 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:48:55 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <476DCC07.2080403@comcast.net> References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> <476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net> <002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer> <476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> <476DCC07.2080403@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 23/12/2007, Brent Allsop wrote: > John [Clarke] has always claimed that if phenomenal properties are not objectively > or abstractly detectable, then evolution could not select for them. He then > concludes that this is an argument that phenomenal properties do not exist. It could also support the position that consciousness is a necessary side-effect of the sort of intelligence that could evolve naturally, or at least a necessary side-effect of the most efficient mechanism of intelligence available to evolution (as you suggest below). > If some process is more efficient at achieving some attribute that results > in something being more survivable, then evolution will favor or develop > that process over another. While abstract representations, given increased > complexity (it is much harder to lie, than to tell the truth), can behave in > motivated zombie ways, acting like they are consciously motivated, the > argument is that it is possible that phenomenal properties of nature could > be used to accomplish the same intelligent representation and comprehension > of knowledge and motivation much more easily and naturally, than other > merely abstract, or whatever zombie processes. > > Do you think this information should be canonized somehow so we won't have > to explain it repeatedly? In 2009, I hope we are way beyond repeating all > this every few years as we have been stuck dong now for so long. I've started a Canonizer topic on philosophical zombies and evolution: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/52 -- Stathis Papaioannou From scerir at libero.it Sun Dec 23 10:46:13 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:46:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/Consciousness References: <8CA12ACA96EF942-A40-2957@webmail-me15.sysops.aol.com> <580930c20712221510m41a36dcer654161e23ce08513@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <011401c84551$0a4e99d0$fd911f97@archimede> Stefano Vaj: > And how comes that brains are unable to perform > quantum computations at all? For an interesting philosophical discussion (why evolution did not like the quantum option?) http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/quantum-brains/ In general, there is a growing evidence that 'decoherence' - whatever it means - forbids superposition of quantum states in biological tissues. http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2007/11/_jennifer_ouellette_meantions.php See also http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/31763 'Two is a crowd for quantum particles'. While a single electron will behave as a purely quantum entity, the mere presence of another electron is enough to cause the electron to make the transition from quantum to classical behaviour -- according to an international team of physicists who have done a bizarre yet simple version of the famous "double slit" experiment. The result could have important implications for those seeking to create solid-state quantum computing devices, where minimizing electron-electron interactions is a key challenge (Science 318 949). The wave-like, or quantum, behaviour of individual particles is rarely seen because particles tend to interact with their environment -- for example, via gravity, electrical interactions or thermal radiation. These interactions result in a transition from quantum to classical behaviour called decoherence. Decoherence has been observed in electrons, atoms, small molecules and more recently in macroscopic objects, such as C60 and C70 molecules. All these experiments involve passing the highly isolated particles or molecules though a double-slit and watching as the interference pattern -- which is a signature of quantum behaviour -- becomes weaker as the particles interact with their environment. However, researchers were unsure as to the minimum level of interaction needed for decoherence to occur. Now, Reinhard Doerner of the University of Frankfurt in Germany and colleagues have helped answer this question by studying what they call the "simplest ever double-slit" -- a hydrogen molecule, which comprises two electrons and two protons. The researchers began by firing a single high-energy photon at a hydrogen molecule, which ejects the two electrons from the molecule. One of these electrons and the two protons form a simple particle/slit system. This electron forms a quantum interference pattern as it passes through the slit. The second electron, which moves much slower than the first, acts like a minimal environment for the other electron. It interacts with the first electron via Coulomb interactions, leading to a loss of contrast in the interference fringes observed in the angular distribution of this electron. The experiment demonstrates that only a very small number of particles is needed to turn a quantum system into a classical one. "The fragmentation of the hydrogen molecule is a four-body problem that can also be solved numerically using today's computers," Doerner told physicsworld.com. "Our results could now provide a benchmark for some of the most advanced theories in few body physics." From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 23 12:45:49 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 04:45:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200712230052.lBN0qkeY016152@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712230052.lBN0qkeY016152@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <87599C85-6E92-4191-AFD5-3308061BAC17@mac.com> On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:52 PM, spike wrote: > > >> >> That way if the course correction is not sufficient then you still >> have a >> mass to target and not a swarm of smaller chunks which could impact >> us in >> multiple collisions... > > Ja, but it isn't clear to me what would cause the thing to > fragment. The > surface heats up and boils away violently. I suppose individual > fragments > could come flying off, but I don't see that as a major problem. Doesn't it depend quite a lot on the composition of the mass? Given that the vast majority of meteors break up to some degree in atmosphere I would think there is some worry of breakup from a high yield fusion explosion near it. I would think this is even more likely the less uniformly dense the object is and partially depending on its primary composition. A comet would be the most fragile of all. >> Would the radioactivity created by the blast create a serious >> threat when >> it burnt up in the atmosphere? Gary > > No the scenario I imagine would deliver almost no radioactivity to > the earth > at all, for the radioactive particles continue flying into space on > the same > trajectory as before the blast. A tiny amount I suppose might imbed > itself > in the rock itself and return to earth, but compared to the amount of > radioactivity from all those nucular* tests, it is nada. > In the context of a massive rock headed our way that is a serious enough threat to justify employing major nukes to deflect it I doubt very much any residual radiation on the rock itself would rate any real concern. - samantha From citta437 at aol.com Sun Dec 23 13:16:07 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:16:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A Gap between quantum and gravity Message-ID: <8CA137D1CDD7AF1-918-109D@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> "Chalmers, I, and many others agree that there is a "hard problem" but I disagree with him that phenomenal properties could "arise" from any equivalent functional organization, of which a "Chinese Room" is, though absurd and racist, one example. I also very much disagree with the idea that consciousness is only a process or only behavior, or not located anywhere. And this is all described in the "Nature has Phenomenal Properties" camp statement:" Brent _____________ The Theory of quantum gravity or the grand unification theory still remain as a theory until one removes time in the equation according to British physicist, Julian Barbour. Time is only a concept/a thought , a movement of the mind. At the quantum level there is no time nor consciousness. However, gravity exists as an attraction between larger and larger masses of energy as evident in our solar system and galaxies. Our brain is organized like the cosmos with neurons firing automatically within the speed of light. However, like it or not, there is a space between neurons called the synapse where a disconnect in transmitting messages between neurons can be interrupted by a random phenomena in the macrospace of genetic and environmental changes. If we can travel beyond the speed of light, we have to device a means of connecting the neurons without synapses, spaces of decoherence, a phenomena not occuring in microtubules of the spinal cord which act as a quantum mechanism. See the excerpt on "Inside the Mind". Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Dec 23 14:26:39 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:26:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] love do In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071222193641.022dd6b0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071222151603.0224c860@satx.rr.com> <200712230031.lBN0VAcp026529@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071222193641.022dd6b0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20071223142642.SYJF21064.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> > > > >Yes, sure, love do? > > > > > > Love do like a pendulum swings. This is all I have to say about this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZmE3fUKU5U woossh - put your hands up and let it swing! Yah From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Dec 23 14:54:45 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:54:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A Standing-Still-Sun: Zen Solstice Message-ID: <20071223145448.TPJN2677.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Friends, Solstice means standing-still-sun. In a poetic zen moment, I wish you all a delightful, loving and meaningful standing still--just long enough for the senses to intuit the world around you. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Sun Dec 23 15:09:01 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:09:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Observer as the observed Message-ID: <8CA138CE26B9E70-918-12BD@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> {My reply/thoughts in parenthesis after the qouted message below} "The Message is the Medium" If a mind can survive repeated radical restructurings, infusion into and out of different types of hardware and storage media, and is ultimately a mathematical abstraction, does it require hardware at all? {Yes and no. Yes because the mind's flexible characteristic responds to processes of extropic practices i.e. attentiveness to changes in macrospace as interconnected in microspace/quantum world.} Suppose the message describing a person is written in some static medium, like a book. A superintelligent being, or just a big computer, reading and understanding the message might be able to reason out the future evolution of the encoded person, not only under a particular set of experiences but also under various alternative circumstances. Existence in the thoughts of a beholder is no more abstract than as a transformed person-program described in the previous section, but it does introduce an interesting new twist. {Exactly as the observer becomes the observed so to speak}. The superintelligent being has no obligation to accurately model every single detail of the beheld, and may well choose to skip the boring parts, to jump to conclusions that are obvious to it, and to lump together different alternatives it does not choose to distinguish. This looseness in the simulation can also allow some time reversed action - our superintelligent being may choose a conclusion then reason backwards, deciding what must have preceded it. Authors of fiction often take such liberties with their characters. The same parsimony of thought applies to the parts of the environment of the contemplated person that are themselves being contemplated. Applied a certain way, this parsimony will affect the evolution of the simulated person and his environment, and may thus be noticeable to him. Note that the subjective feelings of the simulated person are a part of the simulation, and with them the contemplated person feels as real in this implementation as in any other. {This happens when the subjective meet the objective process as a thought without the thinker. Nature does not require an owner of a thought.Thoughts/abstrractions float in the spaces/synapses within the brain like a messenger/transmitter who does not own the message.} It happens that quantum mechanics describes a world where unobserved events happen in all possible ways (another way of saying no decision is made as to which possibility happens), and the superposition of all these possibilities itself has observable effects. The connection of this observation with those of the previous paragraph leads us into murky philosophical waters. To get even muddier, ask the question implicit in the title of this section. If the subjective feelings of a person are part of the person-message, and if the evolution of the message is implicit in the message itself, then aren't the future experiences of the person implicit in the message? And wouldn't this mere mathematical existence feel the same to the person encoded as being simulated in a more substantial way? I don't think this is mere sophistry, but I'm not prepared to take it any further for now. Immortality and Impermanence Wading back into the shallows, let's examine a certain dilemma of existence, presently overshadowed by the issue of personal death, that will be paramount when practical immortality is achieved. It's this: in the long run survival requires change in directions not of your own choosing. Standards escalate with the growth of the inevitable competitors and predators for each niche. In a kind of cosmic Olympic games the universe molds its occupants towards its own distant and mysterious specifications. An immortal cannot hope to survive unchanged, only to maintain a limited continuity over the short run. Personal death differs from this inevitability only in its relative abruptness. Viewed on a larger scale we are already immortal, as we have been since the dawn of life. Our genes and our culture pass continuously from one generation to the next, subject only to incremental alterations to meet the continuous demand for new world records in the cosmic games. In the very long run the ancestral individual is always doomed as its heritage is nibbled away to meet short term demands. It slowly mutates into other forms that could have been reached from a range of starting points; the ultimate in convergent evolution. It's by this reasoning that I concluded earlier that it makes no ultimate difference whether our machines carry forward our heritage on their own, or in partnership with direct transcriptions of ourselves. Assuming long term survival either way, the end results should be indistinguishable, shaped by the universe and not by ourselves. Since change is inevitable, I think we should embrace rather than retard it. By so doing we improve our day to day survival odds, discover interesting surprises sooner, and are more prepared to face any competition. The cost is faster erosion of our present constitution. All development can be interpreted as incremental death and new birth, but some of the fast lane options make this especially obvious, for instance the possibility of dropping parts of one's memory and personality in favor of another's. Fully exploited, this process results in transient individuals constituted from a communal pool of personality traits. Sexual populations are effective in part because they create new genetic individuals in very much this way. As with sexual reproduction, the memory pool requires dissolution as well as creation to be effective. So personal death is not banished, but it does lose its poignancy because death by submergence into the memory pool is reversible in the short run. Email this to a friend ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From citta437 at aol.com Sun Dec 23 15:21:09 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:21:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: The Observer as the observed In-Reply-To: <8CA138CE26B9E70-918-12BD@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA138CE26B9E70-918-12BD@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CA138E94463401-918-130F@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: citta437 at aol.com To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 9:09 am Subject: The Observer as the observed {My reply/thoughts in parenthesis after the qouted message below}? ? "The Message is the Medium"? ? If a mind can survive repeated radical restructurings, infusion into and out of different types of hardware and storage media, and is ultimately a mathematical abstraction, does it require hardware at all? {Yes and no. Yes because the mind's flexible characteristic responds to processes of extropic practices i.e. attentiveness to changes in macrospace as interconnected in microspace/quantum world.}? ? Suppose the message describing a person is written in some static medium, like a book. A superintelligent being, or just a big computer, reading and understanding the message might be able to reason out the future evolution of the encoded person, not only under a particular set of experiences but also under various alternative circumstances. Existence in the thoughts of a beholder is no more abstract than as a transformed person-program described in the previous section, but it does introduce an interesting new twist.? {Exactly as the observer becomes the observed so to speak}.? ? The superintelligent being has no obligation to accurately model every single detail of the beheld, and may well choose to skip the boring parts, to jump to conclusions that are obvious to it, and to lump together different alternatives it does not choose to distinguish. This looseness in the simulation can also allow some time reversed action - our superintelligent being may choose a conclusion then reason backwards, deciding what must have preceded it. Authors of fiction often take such liberties with their characters. The same parsimony of thought applies to the parts of the environment of the contemplated person that are themselves being contemplated. Applied a certain way, this parsimony will affect the evolution of the simulated person and his environment, and may thus be noticeable to him. Note that the subjective feelings of the simulated person are a part of the simulation, and with them the contemplated person feels as real in this implementation as in any other. {This happens when the subjective meet the objective process as a thought without the thinker. Nature does not require an owner of a thought.Thoughts/abstrractions float in the spaces/synapses within the brain like a messenger/transmitter who does not own the message.}? ? It happens that quantum mechanics describes a world where unobserved events happen in all possible ways (another way of saying no decision is made as to which possibility happens), and the superposition of all these possibilities itself has observable effects. The connection of this observation with those of the previous paragraph leads us into murky philosophical waters.? ? To get even muddier, ask the question implicit in the title of this section. If the subjective feelings of a person are part of the person-message, and if the evolution of the message is implicit in the message itself, then aren't the future experiences of the person implicit in the message? And wouldn't this mere mathematical existence feel the same to the person encoded as being simulated in a more substantial way? I don't think this is mere sophistry, but I'm not prepared to take it any further for now.? ? Immortality and Impermanence? ? Wading back into the shallows, let's examine a certain dilemma of existence, presently overshadowed by the issue of personal death, that will be paramount when practical immortality is achieved. It's this: in the long run survival requires change in directions not of your own choosing. Standards escalate with the growth of the inevitable competitors and predators for each niche. In a kind of cosmic Olympic games the universe molds its occupants towards its own distant and mysterious specifications.? An immortal cannot hope to survive unchanged, only to maintain a limited continuity over the short run. Personal death differs from this inevitability only in its relative abruptness. Viewed on a larger scale we are already immortal, as we have been since the dawn of life. Our genes and our culture pass continuously from one generation to the next, subject only to incremental alterations to meet the continuous demand for new world records in the cosmic games.? ? In the very long run the ancestral individual is always doomed as its heritage is nibbled away to meet short term demands. It slowly mutates into other forms that could have been reached from a range of starting points; the ultimate in convergent evolution. It's by this reasoning that I concluded earlier that it makes no ultimate difference whether our machines carry forward our heritage on their own, or in partnership with direct transcriptions of ourselves. Assuming long term survival either way, the end results should be indistinguishable, shaped by the universe and not by ourselves.? ? Since change is inevitable, I think we should embrace rather than retard it. By so doing we improve our day to day survival odds, discover interesting surprises sooner, and are more prepared to face any competition. The cost is faster erosion of our present constitution. All development can be interpreted as incremental death and new birth, but some of the fast lane options make this especially obvious, for instance the possibility of dropping parts of one's memory and personality in favor of another's. Fully exploited, this process results in transient individuals constituted from a communal pool of personality traits. Sexual populations are effective in part because they create new genetic individuals in very much this way. As with sexual reproduction, the memory pool requires dissolution as well as creation to be effective. So personal death is not banished, but it does lose its poignancy because death by submergence into the memory pool is reversible in the short run.? {The nature of thoughts is impermanence. We as thoughts desire immortality not knowing we are already immortal as quantum processes have no beginning nor end.} Email this to a friend? ________________________________________________________________________? More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com? ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 15:56:40 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:56:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/Consciousness In-Reply-To: <011401c84551$0a4e99d0$fd911f97@archimede> References: <8CA12ACA96EF942-A40-2957@webmail-me15.sysops.aol.com> <580930c20712221510m41a36dcer654161e23ce08513@mail.gmail.com> <011401c84551$0a4e99d0$fd911f97@archimede> Message-ID: <580930c20712230756o3df119dbu617337be321f5376@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 23, 2007 11:46 AM, scerir wrote: > Stefano Vaj: > > And how comes that brains are unable to perform > > quantum computations at all? > > For an interesting philosophical discussion > (why evolution did not like the quantum option?) > http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/quantum-brains/ > In general, there is a growing evidence that > 'decoherence' - whatever it means - forbids > superposition of quantum states in biological > tissues. > http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2007/11/_jennifer_ouellette_meantions.php > See also > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/31763 > 'Two is a crowd for quantum particles'. Good links. In any event, biological brains are far from being very efficient classical computer. Evolution operates and has always operated under restrictions (e.g., the need that progressive changes never adversely affect fitness throughout their deployment, the unity of the organism, etc.) that may well prevent optimal designs, and even a few pretty obvious tricks, from ever being adopted. Think of the wheel, or of logical NOR gates. Stefano Vaj From jonkc at att.net Sun Dec 23 16:11:03 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:11:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer><476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net><002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer> <476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00c101c8457e$751fe700$9cee4d0c@MyComputer> Brent, your post is rather long, but in almost all of it you just say I am wrong or I am very wrong in new and different ways without saying one word about why I am wrong, then you tell me there are foolproof answers to all my objections without telling me what they are. Then near the very end you say: > if an environment has natural phenomenal properties Translation: If an environment has properties. Better Translation: If an environment. >they could be used to more effeciently represent information, especially >of the motivational type, than simple abstracted behavioral >representations. All of this clearely demonstrating [...] Clearly?!!! I'm not even going to attempt to translate that bafflegab, but I have no doubt even the most inarticulate person could express the above idea more clearly than you have, assuming of course that you want it clearly expressed. If you have a really bad idea the last thing in the world you'd want to do is express it clearly. > how evolution could evolve Evolution evolves? I thought it still worked by random mutation and natural selection. >to utilize such, due to their benefit and efficiently for increasing >intelligence We were talking about consciousness not intelligence. If you can have intelligent behavior without consciousness you will need more than bafflegab to explain why natural selection picked it. > Check arorund Nov 2005, for one example of a bunch of us having > this same conversation. Oh yes, that's where you said "Phenomenal properties are most definitely causal" but now you say "I also very much disagree with the idea that consciousness is only a process". Brent it's OK to change your mind but the trouble is you're going backward. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Sun Dec 23 16:35:18 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:35:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> <476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net> <002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer> <476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> <476DCC07.2080403@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00d701c84581$d4dc6350$9cee4d0c@MyComputer> : Brent Allsop > John has always claimed that if phenomenal properties are not objectively > or abstractly detectable, then evolution could not select for them. Yes that is exactly true. > He then concludes that this is an argument that phenomenal properties do > not exist. That is exactly untrue. If I did believe that then I would be more than wrong I would be insane, and I don?t mean a little eccentric, I mean straight jacket Thorazine level crazy. > the argument is that it is possible that phenomenal properties of nature > could be used to accomplish the same intelligent representation and > comprehension of knowledge and motivation much more easily and naturally, > than other merely abstract, or whatever zombie processes. Then you must agree with me that you could ?much more easily? make a conscious AI than a unconscious AI, and you must agree that the Singularity will be caused by a conscious being. Our only disagreement is that you think intelligence without consciousness is extremely difficult but possible, I think it?s impossible and even if it?s not you will never be able to prove it. John K Clark From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 23 17:13:38 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:13:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <87599C85-6E92-4191-AFD5-3308061BAC17@mac.com> Message-ID: <200712231713.lBNHDaQ3018773@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... > > > > Ja, but it isn't clear to me what would cause the thing to > > fragment. The > > surface heats up and boils away violently. I suppose individual > > fragments > > could come flying off, but I don't see that as a major problem. > > Doesn't it depend quite a lot on the composition of the mass?... Dr. Graps might be able to answer this. > Given that the vast majority of meteors break up to some degree in > atmosphere I would think there is some worry of breakup from a high > yield fusion explosion near it... Hmmm, these are two very different things. After doing a few BOTECs, I convinced myself that it would be impractical to try to match the velocity of an incoming rock: to get out to it, then stop, turn around etc, would required way more delta Vee than can be practically carried. (Perhaps 30 km/sec, which is crazy hard to do, don't know if it has ever been done.) It might be worth a trade study of 30 km/sec delta Vee with a relatively small fission device as Gene suggested, or 10 km/sec carrying the biggest boomer we can make. The payload capacity of a rocket heading to 30 is less than 1 percent of the payload capacity of one heading to 10. So that means exploding the device, (which needs to be truly enormous) as the object and the nuke pass at very high speeds. What I don't know is how much time it takes for a nuclear explosion to develop, or to convert most of the energy from the fusion device into photons. Is anyone here up to speed on that, or know how to estimate it? Does that reaction develop in a millisecond? 10? > I would think this is even more > likely the less uniformly dense the object is and partially depending > on its primary composition. A comet would be the most fragile of all. - samantha Ja, a sometimes comet is described as a dirty snowball (Sagan). I can imagine a scenario where a nuclear flash causes some of the photons to penetrate the surface and vaporizes the ice below the surface, pushing the material above it (on the nuke side) spaceward. That would only apply to a translucent object like an icy comet, methinks, so if the object is a rock, I don't see that it would break up, or if so, why or how. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 17:28:21 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:28:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200712231713.lBNHDaQ3018773@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <87599C85-6E92-4191-AFD5-3308061BAC17@mac.com> <200712231713.lBNHDaQ3018773@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712230928q51e39414xa0f5b7a5d3fb7959@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 23, 2007 6:13 PM, spike wrote: > So that means exploding the device, (which needs to be truly enormous) as > the object and the nuke pass at very high speeds. What I don't know is how > much time it takes for a nuclear explosion to develop, or to convert most of > the energy from the fusion device into photons. Is anyone here up to speed > on that, or know how to estimate it? Does that reaction develop in a > millisecond? 10? What about instead a massive, non-explosive payload hitting the rock at the maximum speed a huge Orion vehicle may be able to attain in the available time? The deflection potential would seem much higher, as in some 3000 explosions against one or two... Stefano Vaj From citta437 at aol.com Sun Dec 23 17:43:29 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:43:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mind is birthless? Message-ID: <8CA13A276E5BCA6-918-16BC@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> This thought came today from some Buddhist's wisdom that mind is birthless. If mind is connected with a finite brain how can it be birthless? A birthless idea is tied to deathlessness for a thought without being born cannot die.;>) However brain matter is a form of energy and since energy is neither created nor destroyed it makes sense that a mind when connected with brain as a microspace of quantum interactions, these quantum interactions are birthless.; >) How can macrospace connect with/interact with synergy in microspace? 1. Computerzed technology can device some sort of extension cord by erasing memory/thoughts/feelings or memes. 2. Scientifiic discoveries of the forces of nature. 3. The practice of cirtical thinking? 4. All of the above. 5. Some of the above 6 None of the above? I'd say no.4, from the practice of critical thinking which give rise to scientific investigation, computerized technology can reverse the trend of consciousness retardation in that order. To cling to the idea that we are just humans due to our frailties/failure to change is the death of the same idea of being human. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 23 18:02:54 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:02:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200712231713.lBNHDaQ3018773@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <87599C85-6E92-4191-AFD5-3308061BAC17@mac.com> <200712231713.lBNHDaQ3018773@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20071223180254.GT10128@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 09:13:38AM -0800, spike wrote: > > Doesn't it depend quite a lot on the composition of the mass?... > > Dr. Graps might be able to answer this. A very interesting problem, actually. Would a rubble pile do worse than a solid silicate or FeNi rock? What about ice with organic/silicate muck on it? Nobody has nuked a rock in space yet. Hell, we should do it, just for the sake of science. > Hmmm, these are two very different things. After doing a few BOTECs, I > convinced myself that it would be impractical to try to match the velocity > of an incoming rock: to get out to it, then stop, turn around etc, would I don't see many reasons to do so. There are some suggestions to land a ion or nuclear drive on a rock, but that'd take years for forewarning. > required way more delta Vee than can be practically carried. (Perhaps 30 > km/sec, which is crazy hard to do, don't know if it has ever been done.) It > might be worth a trade study of 30 km/sec delta Vee with a relatively small > fission device as Gene suggested, or 10 km/sec carrying the biggest boomer I haven't done a BOTEC, but you'd almost certainly need several of them. Maybe hundreds. That's quite good, since you wouldn't want to put all your nukes in one basket, and it keeps the payload at 100 kg or below. > we can make. The payload capacity of a rocket heading to 30 is less than 1 > percent of the payload capacity of one heading to 10. > > So that means exploding the device, (which needs to be truly enormous) as Not at all, you'd just need several of the small 50-500 kT ones (these are tiny to small as fusion weapons go, though the higher-yield ones might be not COTS in the arsenal). > the object and the nuke pass at very high speeds. What I don't know is how > much time it takes for a nuclear explosion to develop, or to convert most of The nuclear reaction is complete within a microsecond, or so. What we'd want is xray hitting the surface from one side, causing an asymmetric ablation. The whole assembly is a nuclear-powered rocket, with asteroid material for working fluid. > the energy from the fusion device into photons. Is anyone here up to speed > on that, or know how to estimate it? Does that reaction develop in a > millisecond? 10? I think the xray-bright plasma ball in a vacuum should be well developed within a ms, or, so. This is pulled completely out of /dev/ass, since atmospheric tests don't really apply, and I'm not familiar without out-of-atmosphere tests. > > > I would think this is even more > > likely the less uniformly dense the object is and partially depending > > on its primary composition. A comet would be the most fragile of all. - > samantha > > Ja, a sometimes comet is described as a dirty snowball (Sagan). I can > imagine a scenario where a nuclear flash causes some of the photons to > penetrate the surface and vaporizes the ice below the surface, pushing the > material above it (on the nuke side) spaceward. That would only apply to a It doesn't have to be ice. Any material will turn to plasma if hit with an xray flash. > translucent object like an icy comet, methinks, so if the object is a rock, > I don't see that it would break up, or if so, why or how. The only danger if you're hitting the object with a stray fast nuke, especially a large one. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 amara at amara.com Sun Dec 23 18:16:34 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:16:34 -1000 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit Message-ID: > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... > > > > Ja, but it isn't clear to me what would cause the thing to > > fragment. The > > surface heats up and boils away violently. I suppose individual > > fragments > > could come flying off, but I don't see that as a major problem. > > Doesn't it depend quite a lot on the composition of the mass?... Spike I didn't read all of the threads (I'm with my family at this moment on Maui), so I don't know the details of the physical process proposed. Samantha's comment about composition has either relevance to the material's optical properties (for radiation pressure force) or for fragmentation (tensile strength). Comets are usually (not always) less dense than asteroids, though but many of these results could apply, in the right conditions. If you think about what caused comet P/Holmes to flare in brightness four hundred thousand times, http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/17pholmes-continues-the-show/ then that tells you something about the conditions that cause a release of large quantities of dust. See also the pdf link to Peter Jenniskens' article: "Meteor Showers from Broken Comets" here: http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/dips2005/dipschapters.html There are many examples of small particles fragmenting from larger bodies, and then because of their smaller size and optical properties, they move on different orbits (for example beta meteoroids). And if you think about what caused comet P/Holmes to lose its tail: http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/comet-holmes-loses-its-tail/ then that tells you something about the plasma and magnetic field conditions (here we are looking at the ion tail) for weird plasma comet events. but then.. the Universe is simply Turtles (*), all of the way down. Ciao, Amara (*) On my first, and only so far, snorkeling, I accompanied a sea turtle. It appeared out of nowhere, so I followed it, and it didn't seem to mind me swimming alongside (maybe about 6 feet away). But when I stopped to clear my mask, and then returned to follow it, it disappeared. The previous time I went snorkeling (2005 in Molokai), I accompanied a sea turtle too. -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 18:25:15 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:25:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <20071223180254.GT10128@leitl.org> References: <87599C85-6E92-4191-AFD5-3308061BAC17@mac.com> <200712231713.lBNHDaQ3018773@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071223180254.GT10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712231225.15261.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 23 December 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote: > A very interesting problem, actually. Would a rubble pile do worse > than a solid silicate or FeNi rock? What about ice with > organic/silicate muck on it? Nobody has nuked a rock in space yet. > Hell, we should do it, just for the sake of science. Typical me, I immediately thought: Hey, we should Just Do This Now. So I found an open source rocket project from our good friends over at arocket: http://www.arocketry.net/group-proj.html (don't forget TEAMFREDNET for the Google Lunar X Prize) But since this involves nuclear warheads, I'm not so sure this is a good citizen project to take up. - Bryan From scerir at libero.it Sun Dec 23 18:45:44 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:45:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Mind is birthless? References: <8CA13A276E5BCA6-918-16BC@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000301c84594$0a479980$89b81f97@archimede> Terry: > This thought came today from some Buddhist's > wisdom that mind is birthless. "Newly acquired insights are at first only half understood by the one who begets them, and appear as complete nonsense to all others ..." said Niels Bohr (who was also a Taoist [1]) [1] http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/Complementarity/CompCopen.pdf > If mind is connected with a finite brain > how can it be birthless? A birthless idea > is tied to deathlessness for a thought without > being born cannot die.;>) > However brain matter is a form of energy > and since energy is neither created nor destroyed > it makes sense that a mind when connected with > brain as a microspace of quantum interactions, > these quantum interactions are birthless.; >) Bohr also declared: "Any new idea which does not appear very strange at the outset, does not have a chance of being a vital discovery." Actually, R. Jozsa wrote something here about the permanence (no birth, no cloning, no death, no deleting) of quantum states, and about the subtle relations between quantum states and quantum informations (eventually carried by those states) http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/481/jozsaaut.html For 'very strange at the outset' connections between quantish matters and human minds try Andrei Khrennikov http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205092 http://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0408022 From citta437 at aol.com Sun Dec 23 18:59:22 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:59:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is consciousness located? Message-ID: <8CA13AD10B2B998-918-18BD@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> ": Brent Allsop > John has always claimed that if phenomenal properties are not objectively > or abstractly detectable, then evolution could not select for them. Yes that is exactly true. _______________ Evolution is a theory not having anthromorpic character of dualism. Life evolves in various forms with or without intelligence. Natural selection is an idea concocted by a mind attached in a theory based on a finite brain. Our brains evolved without intelligence then as it develops from a simple organism to a more complex system in response to change, some brains regressed and some developed conscious processes using unconscious AI. The steps leading to conscious processes started with unconscious processes in interacting atoms and molecules and during this period consciousness evolved gradually in some primates then some minds exhibited intelligent consciousness while some lagged behind. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From citta437 at aol.com Sun Dec 23 19:23:35 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:23:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/consciousness Message-ID: <8CA13B0728B0F32-918-1953@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> "Mmhhh. Why neurons and not liver cells? Or eritrocites? Or dust particles, for that matter? And how comes that brains are unable to perform quantum computations at all? Stefano Vaj ____________ Specialized system require special functions i.e. liver cells are specialized to metabolized food and other chemicals enteriing the body. Erythrocytes are red blood cells carrying oxygen atoms attached to the iron content in the blood. They do what they do sans consciousness, memories, memes and feelings. Dust and rocks are solid forms of potential energy containing elements found in nature. Organic and inorganic compounds coalesce in time/our brain but not as fast as a computer. As far as I know consciousness depends on so many random processes of cognition and interference. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From citta437 at aol.com Sun Dec 23 19:57:29 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:57:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is consciousness located? Message-ID: <8CA13B52EFA4CD3-918-1A2B@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> "the hard problem of consciousness. > > The reason it's so hard is that the "problem" can not even be stated > much less the answer. > > John K Clark ________________ The questions where or how or why in connection with consciousness can be stated but the answer raises more questions in the minds of those who only see what it projects or mirrors as true. In science there is no absolute truth. Theories are constantly tested if proven false. Is the wind conscious? Or is it just a movement of hot and cold masses of energy? This is similar to the movement of the mind causing thoughts/problems to arise. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com From jonkc at att.net Sun Dec 23 20:07:03 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:07:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is consciousness located? References: <8CA13AD10B2B998-918-18BD@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <00fd01c8459f$869f90e0$32ef4d0c@MyComputer> > > Evolution is a theory not having anthromorpic character of dualism. > Life evolves in various forms with or without intelligence. Natural > selection is an idea concocted by a mind attached in a theory based on > a finite brain. > > Our brains evolved without intelligence then as it develops from a > simple organism to a more complex system in response to change, some > brains regressed and some developed conscious processes using > unconscious AI. > > The steps leading to conscious processes started with unconscious > processes in interacting atoms and molecules and during this period > consciousness evolved gradually in some primates then some minds > exhibited intelligent consciousness while some lagged behind. T was brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 23 20:12:03 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:12:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] META: moderation notice Message-ID: <20071223201202.GX10128@leitl.org> citta437 at aol.com is now on moderation. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 amara at amara.com Sun Dec 23 20:26:38 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:26:38 -1000 Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja Message-ID: I never had reason to buy and read Time magazine, now I have even less reason. Time just elected Vladimir Putin as "Person of the Year". Did someone at Time fall asleep for the last 8 years?? But, there _is_ a precedent. For the 1939 Person of the Year, Time Magazine chose Joseph Stalin: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19400101,00.html For the 1938 Person of the Year, it chose Adolf Hitler: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html in "Spot the president", Dec 13th 2007, The Economist print edition http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286034 "Ever since he became acting president on the last day of 1999, Mr Putin has moved progressively to snuff out even the faintest flickers of democracy that he inherited from Boris Yeltsin. He has crushed opponents, emasculated the courts and parliament, eliminated independent broadcast media, scrapped the autonomy of Russia's regions and blatantly fixed elections. He has also brought most strategic industries, especially in the energy business, under state control. Abroad he has chosen to pursue an increasingly assertive, anti-Western foreign policy in the name of re-establishing Russia's greatness. These things can be expected to continue, only more so." Beppe Grillo has nominated Anna Politkovskaja as person of the year. http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/2007/12/anna_politkovskaja_woman_of_th.html She (more-so, if she hadn't been murdered) gets my vote too. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 23 20:27:45 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:27:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712232027.lBNKRgms003796@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit > > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > > ...fragment?... > ... > > > > > > Ja, but it isn't clear to me what would cause the thing to > > > fragment... > > Spike I didn't read all of the threads (I'm with my family at this > moment on Maui), so I don't know the details of the physical process > proposed... Amara I just returned from a walk, accompanied by a deep think on this subject. The results so far are kinda discouraging: I realized the nuclear nudge idea probably wouldn't work at all. Reasoning: the idea was, assuming we need to nudge the object a few m/sec to the east, to fly directly toward the object, then set off a nuclear blast while as close to and directly west of the object. Then the west side of the rock would be hot and would ablate to space. Conservation of momentum would push the object to the east. But then I realized this scenario makes some possibly unreasonable assumptions. The most important assumption is that the rotation rate of the object is slow. If this is not the case, then we cannot expect the object to be deflected east. Assume we are able to guide the device spatially with perfect precision and detonate the fusion device temporally with perfect precision, the west side of the rock heats up as starts ablating violently, carrying momentum west. One half a rotation later, which might be one second, that same hot side is facing east, pushing the object west. So now the object is following a decaying sinusoid. The first wave is likely the largest, so it is deflected *slightly* east, but I thought of another scenario based on the reverse thermal wave model. This might apply here, I don't know, but it could be that there are more volatiles under the surface of the rock than at the surface (perhaps sorta related to Amara's comment about comet P/Holmes brightening suddently.) This could cause the *second* hump (the negative side) of the first sinusoid to be larger than the first, which could actually deflect the rock to the west. Oy. But I have another idea, which would intentionally break up the rock, without a nuke. More later. I need to ponder deeper and do some calcs. spike From jonkc at att.net Sun Dec 23 20:35:54 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:35:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is consciousness located? References: <8CA13B52EFA4CD3-918-1A2B@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <011e01c845a3$6f3a0bc0$32ef4d0c@MyComputer> Wrote: > The questions where or how or why in connection with > consciousness can be stated but the answer raises >more questions No, you are quite wrong, the question can not be stated. People want an explanation for consciousness, that is the want to start with something familiar and proceed with a series of understandable steps until they reach the idea of consciousness. In other words they want a process, but they specifically say consciousness is not a process. So they try to dream up a process to produce something that can not be produced by a process and the results are not pretty. The other problem is the last step. No matter how long the series is when I say "so that produces X and X makes consciousness" they will say "but X is not Qualia". There is no conceivable answer that would satisfy them, so that is a pretty good indication the question is meaningless. It's no wonder this topic generates so much intellectual sounding gibberish. John K Clark From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Dec 23 20:14:57 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:14:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer><476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net><002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer><476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> Message-ID: <01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > there is no reason for evolution to favour a conscious > being over a philosophical zombie. In reading your other posts, I don't have any reason to think that I disagree with you on this subject, but the above is amusing. I think that there is ample reason for evolution to favor a conscious being over a philosophical zombie since the latter do not exist, and probably are impossible! Suppose not. That is, suppose that evolution could just as easily have contrived non-conscious beings who were every bit as efficient as conscious ones. Then perhaps she did. It may be, for example, that Asians resemble everyone else in all ways except that they're not conscious. The only way to avoid such idiocy is to strongly question the idea that non-conscious intelligent entities exist. > This would imply that consciousness is a corollary > of human level intelligence. That is, you propose that consciousness is a necessary corollary, and I agree. From a third-person perspective, the only perspective that it makes sense to discuss, the only perspective that it makes sense to discuss things from, a highly intelligent being must have verbal access to its own states. If it does, then it is perfectly capable of complaining bitterly to the world when its internal states are not satisfactory. And that's exactly the situation we always see. (Evolution doesn't waste resources on supplying trees with consciousness since there isn't anything that they could do with it.) Lee From jonkc at att.net Sun Dec 23 20:44:59 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja References: Message-ID: <013501c845a4$cb5afcb0$32ef4d0c@MyComputer> Amara I think you are being a little unfair to Time Magazine. The person of the year is not necessarily a good person, just the person who had the most influence in the news for the past year. That said I do sort of wish they had picked the person who came in number 3, JK Rowling. I love her books. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Sun Dec 23 21:02:09 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:02:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer><476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net><002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer><476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> <01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <015201c845a7$193ecc20$32ef4d0c@MyComputer> Gee Lee you're no fun, how am I supposed to argue with you when I agree with every word you said? Next time please have the courtesy to say at least one stupid thing. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 23 21:16:45 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:16:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200712232027.lBNKRgms003796@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712232027.lBNKRgms003796@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20071223211645.GA10128@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:27:45PM -0800, spike wrote: > Reasoning: the idea was, assuming we need to nudge the object a few m/sec to > the east, to fly directly toward the object, then set off a nuclear blast > while as close to and directly west of the object. Then the west side of > the rock would be hot and would ablate to space. Conservation of momentum > would push the object to the east. Right. > But then I realized this scenario makes some possibly unreasonable > assumptions. The most important assumption is that the rotation rate of the > object is slow. If this is not the case, then we cannot expect the object The ablation event is less than second. Possibly, much less (10-100 ms). > to be deflected east. Assume we are able to guide the device spatially with Plural: devices. A single nuke won't do a damn thing. > perfect precision and detonate the fusion device temporally with perfect We're talking about an object at least 100 m across, possibly ~km or more. You don't want to hit it square, and especially detonate on surface. Flyby at few 100 m height is desired. It's tough, but IMO doable. Timing is completely trivial in comparison, at few 10 km/s a nanosecond or two is not important (even at 1 ms at 10 km/s you've just traveled only 10 m). > precision, the west side of the rock heats up as starts ablating violently, > carrying momentum west. One half a rotation later, which might be one > second, that same hot side is facing east, pushing the object west. The side is not hot at all (you could touch it with your bare hand, immediately or very soon after the blast). The ablation is explosive, takes less than a second, and carries away the momentum with gas. The surface cools down to ambient (either stone cold or scorching hot) temperatures within less than a minute after the event. You could hammer the thing every minute, or so, if that's what you want. > So now the object is following a decaying sinusoid. The first wave is > likely the largest, so it is deflected *slightly* east, but I thought of > another scenario based on the reverse thermal wave model. This might apply > here, I don't know, but it could be that there are more volatiles under the > surface of the rock than at the surface (perhaps sorta related to Amara's > comment about comet P/Holmes brightening suddently.) This could cause the > *second* hump (the negative side) of the first sinusoid to be larger than > the first, which could actually deflect the rock to the west. > > Oy. > > But I have another idea, which would intentionally break up the rock, > without a nuke. You'd need a nuke. Nothing else packs that much wallop in a small package, and even then you'd need many of them, for a nontrivial sized rock. > More later. I need to ponder deeper and do some calcs. Much more interesting: when you nuke a rock in space with a 0.5 MT device, how much will you flash-vaporise, and just how much momentum does that carry, assuming the stuff is 3-6 kK, and how much would that deflect the impact, given few weeks until impact? Modelling the gravitation well of the Earth for capture analytically sounds like quite a bitch. A simulation is perhaps in order. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 aiguy at comcast.net Sun Dec 23 21:33:57 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:33:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer><476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net><002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer><476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> <01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <000a01c845ab$883d44e0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Lee Said: >> If it does, then it is perfectly capable of complaining bitterly to the world when its internal states are not satisfactory. And that's exactly the situation we always see. >> The best synonym I can come up with for "Conciousness" is "Self Awareness" But most animals which are kept as pets exhibit this same behavior as Lee mentions when their internal expectations are not met. And yet I wouldn't say they possess the same level of consciousness as a human being. Even among humans there are pronounced differences in the level of apparent conciousness from person to person. The term higher conciousness has has been used by philosophers and new agers to describe people who do not simply react to stimuli as an animal would but are ruled more by deliberate introspection, moral tenets and altruism. One does not have to look any further than sociopaths though to see that higher intelligence does not always go hand in hand with altruism. I wonder if a human being raised in the wild would demonstrate any more self awareness than that of any other wild animal. Which leads to the question.... Is much of what we consider to be conciousness learned behavior? Is conciousness a single trait or is it a scale of "Self Awareness"? Ironically many philosophies and religions equate higher conciousness with the loss of identification with the ego or the self. _ From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 21:56:49 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:56:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <20071223180254.GT10128@leitl.org> References: <87599C85-6E92-4191-AFD5-3308061BAC17@mac.com> <200712231713.lBNHDaQ3018773@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071223180254.GT10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <580930c20712231356r5e621e0cp2a977d417ea13ea4@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 23, 2007 7:02 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I don't see many reasons to do so. There are some suggestions to land > a ion or nuclear drive on a rock, but that'd take years for forewarning. So, I did a quick check and it seems that a bare 1,080 fission bombs with 1958 technology would already deliver us an Orion payload of 8,000 tons hitting the threatening rock. Unless we are talking a really massive neo, this should be make an impression... The extremely high performance would permit even a late launch to succeed, and the vehicle could effectively transfer a large amount of kinetic energy to the asteroid by simple impact. Also, an automated mission would eliminate the most problematic issues of the design: the shock absorbers. Stefano Vaj From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Dec 23 22:11:52 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:11:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <20071223211645.GA10128@leitl.org> References: <200712232027.lBNKRgms003796@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071223211645.GA10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <001101c845b0$d35039b0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Eugene said: >> Much more interesting: when you nuke a rock in space with a 0.5 MT device, how much will you flash-vaporize, and just how much momentum does that carry, assuming the stuff is 3-6 kK, and how much would that deflect the impact, given few weeks until impact? Modeling the gravitation well of the Earth for capture analytically sounds like quite a bitch. A simulation is perhaps in order. >> Wikipedia mentions: >> Tsar Bomba device: 50 Mt - USSR, most powerful explosive device ever, mass of 27 short tons (24 metric tons), in its "full" form (i.e. with a depleted uranium tamper instead of one made of lead) it would have been 100 Mt. >> If we have weapons that are 200 times more powerful, why would we limit ourselves to a 0.5 MT device? If a blast of this magnitude was to occur at surface level. How much rock mass would be converted directly to plasma. Another possibility to further reduce the mass and force smaller fragmentation would be to hit it from both sides at once with two synchronized maximum blasts. Would such a blast have any effect on the forward momentum of the remaining mass? The Mars asteroid is estimated to be moving 8 miles a second. Assuming we had the same 2 week notice we had for Mars and it took us a week to put in place our defense, deflection would probably not be option. Would hitting it head on repeatedly (assuming it didn't break up) negate enough of the mass and forward momentum to make it significantly less dangerous. Also most websites simply state the size as similar to the one that hit Russia (coliseum sized). But is that considered a small asteroid, medium, or large? In short if we were to plan for a realistic planetary defense what quantity of mass should we be able to vaporize? From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 22:24:43 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:24:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Qualia/consciousness In-Reply-To: <8CA13B0728B0F32-918-1953@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA13B0728B0F32-918-1953@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712231424y14fa7ef2pf65ca643bfb44d69@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 23, 2007 8:23 PM, wrote: > > "Mmhhh. Why neurons and not liver cells? Or eritrocites? Or dust > particles, for that matter? > > And how comes that brains are unable to perform quantum computations at > all? > > Stefano Vaj > ____________ > > Specialized system require special functions i.e. liver cells are > specialized to metabolized food and other chemicals enteriing the body. > Erythrocytes are red blood cells carrying oxygen atoms attached to the > iron content in the blood. They do what they do sans consciousness, > memories, memes and feelings. Most of our neurons, let alone those of very simple animals, do not really have anything to do with consciousness. And anyway it begs the question that consciousness would have something more to do with quantum effects than, say, bringing oxygen around the bloodstream. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 22:31:15 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:31:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <580930c20712231431j5ddddedbp46778ece67a7c8ef@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 23, 2007 9:26 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > I never had reason to buy and read Time magazine, now I have even less > reason. Time just elected Vladimir Putin as "Person of the Year". You might then like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMpdRjoaCQk. :-) But as John already suggested, Time's Person of the Year is AFAIK not really a popularity or beauty contest. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 22:37:46 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:37:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> <476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net> <002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer> <476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> <01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20712231437s37631387y907201b25565d8d9@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 23, 2007 9:14 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > > there is no reason for evolution to favour a conscious > > being over a philosophical zombie. > > In reading your other posts, I don't have any reason to > think that I disagree with you on this subject, but the > above is amusing. > I think that there is ample reason for evolution to favor > a conscious being over a philosophical zombie since > the latter do not exist, and probably are impossible! Or rather a philosophical zombie could not be consider as distinct from any conscious being in any post-Kantian sense. The very idea is not bad science, is bad philosophy. Stefano Vaj From sentience at pobox.com Mon Dec 24 00:05:03 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:05:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja In-Reply-To: <580930c20712231431j5ddddedbp46778ece67a7c8ef@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20712231431j5ddddedbp46778ece67a7c8ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <476EF7AF.7080100@pobox.com> "Person of the Year" is influence, not virtue. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mfj.eav at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 00:22:23 2007 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:22:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Re-Rationality and Irrationality Message-ID: <61c8738e0712231622r1b02647cte6c84e36ed85e74b@mail.gmail.com> _______________________________________________________ Message: 8 Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:06:18 -0800 From: "spike" Subject: Re: [ExI] Rationality and Irrationality To: "'ExI chat list'" Message-ID: <200712230106.lBN16Hm3013462 at andromeda.ziaspace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Morris Johnson ... ? I'd like the bioproducts industry to be able to fully replace the oil industry before the last barrel of oil is squeezed out. In my opinion it will be a horse race to see if we can actually make this happen. ... Morris if this is a horse race I know exactly on which horse I am betting. Regardless of what technology is discovered, as long as there is oil in the ground, humanity will continue to refine and burn the stuff. Our burn rate may slow considerably as replacements come online, but the existence of cheap oil is exactly what has kept the replacements from happening. spike _____________________________________________________________ Exactly and that is why government has began to force feed the biofuels industry with taxpayers dollars. If the industry can become capitalized to a high enough degree, then the need to transform it to one that can stand on its own feet will drive those whose money is at risk. I had a call from a stock broker a couple of days ago trying to entice me into dropping cash behind 2 of the biofuel players. Another factor that will drive bioproducts is the internal greed within the petrochemical industry that now has created such an inflated cost to production of conventional oil.. the cost of equipment, labour and supplies has skyrocketed as every player seeks to siphon off as much cash as possible before it gets to shareholders...that there can never be cheap oil again. Bioproducts require much the same equipment and facilities as conventional oil so this is something the oil money guys understand. The same politics that drove the run-up to 911 now drive bioproducts. I was never a fan of the 911- Iraq/etc war , but it was that which caused this. The only sad note is that the taxpayer is going to be bled to death along the way. The war took 1 trillion dollars of future money out of the taxpayers hands. Biofuel will do the same... and the government-military-industrial complex will use whatever means justify the end to keep it on track. -- LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. 306-447-4944 701-240-9411 Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com megao at sasktel.net, arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com extropian.pharmer at gmail.com Transhumanism ..."The most dangerous idea on earth" -Francis Fukuyama, June 2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 24 02:03:33 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:03:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <580930c20712230928q51e39414xa0f5b7a5d3fb7959@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712240203.lBO23TE8004143@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj ... > > What about instead a massive, non-explosive payload hitting the rock > at the maximum speed a huge Orion vehicle may be able to attain in the > available time? > > The deflection potential would seem much higher, as in some 3000 > explosions against one or two... Stefano Vaj I don't understand 3000 explosions against one or two, but this notion is what I thought of earlier today, or something kinda related to it. For a rock 100 meters on a side, the deflection potential would not be great for any of the schemes I have heard proposed involving a KEV. My reasoning is that to deflect a large object any appreciable amount with a KEV, one would need to hit it from the side. For something that is way out there, hitting from the side is pretty much out of the question. If it is coming toward earth, all we really have available to us is a head on collision. Think about it: if an object is headed our way, you don't have enough delta Vee available to leave earth, then get way off to one side and then accelerate enough towards the object from the side to make a hill of beans difference in its path. My notion then is not so much to deflect the rock but rather to attempt to break it up intentionally, then deal with being smacked by many small pieces. If we have an opposite-direction collision, the closing speeds are high enough that any KEV makes a broad shallow crater. The material of the KEV matters not, but only it's length from leading surface to trailing surface. The KEV vaporizes at the speed of sound in the KEV material and the rock vaporizes at the speed of sound in the rock. Recall that a Saturn V hoisted a lunar module and last stage to the kinds of delta Vee needed to make a useable KEV. I don't know the mass of all that stuff, but for single digit estimates, I would say close enough to 10,000 kg would cover everything that made it out to the moon: the propulsion unit, the LEM, the reentry capsule, etc. So let us assume a KEV about 1e4 kg with a closing velocity of 20 km/sec. My notion is that altho the impact blasts a wide shallow crater on the surface, the shock wave *might* be sufficient to send cracks throughout the rock. No guarantee that it would break up. Comets would surely be way easier to break up than rocks. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 24 02:35:04 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:35:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712240235.lBO2Z1wB011343@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps ... > Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote > instead: Anna Politkovskaja > > I never had reason to buy and read Time magazine, now I have even less > reason. Time just elected Vladimir Putin as "Person of the Year". ... Thanks Amara, I am glad I wasn't the only one appalled by this. I had to pick up my jaw from off the floor. I thought it must be a hoax, not just because I am a personal fan of Kasparov, who has been saying for years that Putin is bad news. After seeing how Kasparov handled himself in the interviews with the US talk show people, I would nominate him as person of the year. > > Beppe Grillo has nominated Anna Politkovskaja as person of the year. > http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/2007/12/anna_politkovskaja_woman_of_th.html > > She (more-so, if she hadn't been murdered) gets my vote too. > > Amara I read up on her. I agree she deserves a nomination. Another possible POTY: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but I fear she too is in a lotta danger: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris9oct09,0,3734484.story spike From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Dec 24 02:12:57 2007 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:12:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Great Minds Message-ID: <443705.12078.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> While reading Science News I happened upon an ad for the new book: Beyond Human: Living with Robots and Cyborgs http://www.amazon.com/dp/0765310821 Notice the nice cover art, a spiral shaped like DNA leading into a metallic robot. It immediately reminded me of Natasha's ingenious creation: DNA BREAKOUT! http://www.natasha.cc/image1.htm A good example that great minds think alike! Though I think Natasha's piece has deeper and more coherent meaning. The book-cover art connotes a progression from life to robots, or that humans lead to robots. On the other hand, Natasha's design connotes something much more spectacular. It's message points to a continuation of *self* beyond DNA. In it we see Natasha herself breaking out of DNA. Not a replacement humans with cold robots, but the implied migration of *self* from one support medium to another -- a message of individual liberation. A truly fantastic vision! ~Ian http://iangoddard.net "Priests dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight." - Thomas Jefferson ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 02:44:06 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:44:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200712240203.lBO23TE8004143@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <580930c20712230928q51e39414xa0f5b7a5d3fb7959@mail.gmail.com> <200712240203.lBO23TE8004143@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712231844u50d85572r80076b465cf816df@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 24, 2007 3:03 AM, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj > ... > > > > What about instead a massive, non-explosive payload hitting the rock > > at the maximum speed a huge Orion vehicle may be able to attain in the > > available time? > > > > The deflection potential would seem much higher, as in some 3000 > > explosions against one or two... Stefano Vaj > > I don't understand 3000 explosions against one or two An Orion vehicle is a nuclear pulse vector. Meaning that it employs nuclear explosions for propulsion. This is why we are talking 8,000 tons rather than 10,000 Kg of a chemical rocket. Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 24 02:51:47 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:51:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <001101c845b0$d35039b0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <200712240251.lBO2pij6026578@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > > Wikipedia mentions: >> Tsar Bomba device: 50 Mt - USSR, most powerful > explosive device ever, mass of 27 short tons (24 metric tons)... With current rockets it isn't clear to me that we can hoist this much mass out of the earth's gravity well. Perhaps we could assemble a rocket in LEO that would do it. > ... > > Would such a blast have any effect on the forward momentum of the > remaining mass?... If you are suggesting stopping the object in its tracks, I do think not. But you did give me an idea. Since the object is under the gravitational influence of the sun, then slowing the object slightly *might* cause it to miss the earth, depending on its orbit. > > The Mars asteroid is estimated to be moving 8 miles a second. > > Assuming we had the same 2 week notice we had for Mars and it took us a > week to put in place our defense, deflection would probably not be option... Ja I think we all agree we need lots of notice ahead of time to have any chance at all. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 04:55:16 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:55:16 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> <476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net> <002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer> <476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> <01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 24/12/2007, Lee Corbin wrote: > I think that there is ample reason for evolution to favor > a conscious being over a philosophical zombie since > the latter do not exist, and probably are impossible! Yes, this is what I was implying. If zombies were possible, that would mean that consciousness was something extra and, as far as evolution was concerned, superfluous: in which case, how could it have evolved? The most obvious answer is that zombies are not possible, in which case consciousness evolved as a necessary side-effect of intelligence, not as something which could be optionally tacked on. On the other hand, as I think Brent was suggesting, it is possible that consciousness is only a necessary side-effect when evolution tries to make build intelligence using the kinds of chemical reactions that can arise spontaneously in nature. This means that the argument from evolution cannot be used to show that an intelligent machine must be conscious (although there are other arguments that can be used to support this position). -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 24 06:47:55 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:47:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712240714.lBO7EWnE027292@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou > ... If zombies were possible... Stathis, do you know where the notion of zombies came from? Turns out there really are zombies. Sorta. http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/bookreviews/davis1.htm PASSAGE OF DARKNESS: THE ETHNOBIOLOGY OF THE HAITIAN ZOMBIE by Wade Davis From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 24 10:52:33 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:52:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <001101c845b0$d35039b0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <20071223211645.GA10128@leitl.org> <001101c845b0$d35039b0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <20071224105233.GG10128@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 05:11:52PM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > If we have weapons that are 200 times more powerful, why would we limit > ourselves to a 0.5 MT device? We want to approximate a nuclear rocket, without actually landing one on the rock. To do so you need a series of small ablation events, not one huge thump which is likely to dissipate into heat of deformation, or worse, fragment your problem, becoming a control nightmare (imagine trying to do precision shots to tens to hundreds of wildly tumbling fragments, in a dust cloud). Also, you want to make multiple small rockets, each with a 100 kg payload, due to the physics of rocketry, and due to hedging your bet (not putting all nukes into one expensive basket, which might break). We want to approach the theoretical maximum yield/kg (6 kT/kg) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_nuclear_weapons_yield-to-weight_comparison.svg without having to launch a lot of interceptor mass -- many smaller rockets are a lot better than one big one. Mass-production reduces costs, and you might be able to do a lot with solid-fuel rockets, which don't need to be refueled on short notice. (That's probably not going to work, though, so we're back to cryogenic fuels, which would add many hours to days of launch delay). > If a blast of this magnitude was to occur at surface level. How much rock You'd lose most of your energy to deformation and fragmentation. I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. > mass would be converted directly to plasma. Much less than in a series of surface-only events. (I made one mistake: forgot dust. There needs to be a clear line of sight to the surface on order it to absorb the xrays, and ablate explosively). I think we should most definitely try to nuke a small asteroid, or a comet, or both. Much will be learned in the process. > Another possibility to further reduce the mass and force smaller > fragmentation would be to hit it from both sides at once with two > synchronized maximum blasts. If you did it to a 10 km rock, you'd suddenly have hundreds of problems instead of one. > Would such a blast have any effect on the forward momentum of the remaining > mass? Why are you trying to make things ridiculously hard? The more smarts you use, the less muscle you need. And we don't have a lot of muscle right now. Half a gigaton is nothing when it comes to mountains or small worlds hurtling your way. > The Mars asteroid is estimated to be moving 8 miles a second. > > Assuming we had the same 2 week notice we had for Mars and it took us a week > to put in place our defense, deflection would probably not be option. It's a small rock. It wouldn't do a lot of damage, unless it'd hit a major city -- probably not even then, given that our atmosphere is pretty dense. What we'd like to do is is to put enough observation power to plot civilization-killers and have an infrastructure in place in order to launch immediately, which can have months to years of forewarning. > Would hitting it head on repeatedly (assuming it didn't break up) negate > enough of the mass and forward momentum to make it significantly less > dangerous. No offense, but you don't really understand the problem space. Maybe a refresher in highschool physics is in order. > Also most websites simply state the size as similar to the one that hit > Russia (coliseum sized). But is that considered a small asteroid, medium, > or large? We're looking at things which are marginally probable. It's rather unlikely that a 500 km rock tries to fall on top our heads. > In short if we were to plan for a realistic planetary defense what quantity > of mass should we be able to vaporize? Depends on how early you can spot it, and start deflecting it. If you catch it really early a few N of thrust would be enough. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 10:56:42 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:56:42 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <200712240714.lBO7EWnE027292@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712240714.lBO7EWnE027292@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 24/12/2007, spike wrote: > Stathis, do you know where the notion of zombies came from? Turns out there > really are zombies. Sorta. > > http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/bookreviews/davis1.htm Yes, I should have written "philosophical zombie", sometimes abbreviated as "p-zombie", an entirely different creature. Daniel Dennett has called p-zombies an embarrassment to the philosophical profession. Even their champion David Chalmers has said that they are probably not physically possible, but holds that they are logically possible, and deduces from this claim that reductive physicalism is wrong. On the whole, the Haitian zombies are much more straightforward and uncontroversial. -- Stathis Papaioannou From benboc at lineone.net Sun Dec 23 23:04:45 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:04:45 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476EE98D.1070103@lineone.net> "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Gary Miller wrote: > > Also if the blast directly destroyed the asteroid and the resulting > > small > > debris burnt up on entry into our atmosphere. > > > > Would the radioactivity created by the blast create a serious threat > > when it > > burnt up in the atmosphere? > We did plenty of atmospheric nuke testing in the mid-20th century. If > that was not a serious threat, the posited scenario certainly is not. The radioactivity is not the problem, it's the "burnt up on entry" bit that's the problem. Breaking an asteroid up into small pieces, all still coming in at many km/sec, would dump an enormous amount of heat into the atmosphere, very quickly. I suppose you could say the sky would explode. If we couldn't deflect a big asteriod, it would be far better to let it hit intact, and take our chances. At least /some/ people might survive that. I'm sure some of you maths-savvy folk could easily work out just how toasted we'd be if a 100-km rocky asteroid going at say 10 km/sec was turned into grapeshot and dumped all it's energy into the atmosphere as heat and pressure. ben zed From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Dec 24 15:49:39 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:49:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Great Minds In-Reply-To: <443705.12078.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <443705.12078.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20071224154902.XQYO20499.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 08:12 PM 12/23/2007, Ian wrote: >While reading Science News I happened upon an ad for >the new book: > >Beyond Human: Living with Robots and Cyborgs >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0765310821 > >Notice the nice cover art, a spiral shaped like DNA >leading into a metallic robot. It immediately reminded >me of Natasha's ingenious creation: > >DNA BREAKOUT! >http://www.natasha.cc/image1.htm > >A good example that great minds think alike! Ian, this is a lovely gift you have given to me. Because I do not have a book out and am currently not exhibiting in any museums, my work goes unnoticed - unless it pop ups in a lecture I am giving. You are a dear and have warmed my heart and this is the nicest XMas - "standing still" in the moment that I have had all year! :-) Natasha >Though I think Natasha's piece has deeper and more >coherent meaning. The book-cover art connotes a >progression from life to robots, or that humans lead >to robots. On the other hand, Natasha's design >connotes something much more spectacular. It's message >points to a continuation of *self* beyond DNA. In it >we see Natasha herself breaking out of DNA. Not a >replacement humans with cold robots, but the implied >migration of *self* from one support medium to another >-- a message of individual liberation. A truly >fantastic vision! ~Ian Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From santostasigio at yahoo.com Mon Dec 24 18:58:12 2007 From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:58:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] An extropian Merry Christmas to Everybody ! In-Reply-To: <8CA138CE26B9E70-918-12BD@MBLK-M29.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <147787.3098.qm@web31310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Independently of your religious views, this is a symbolic time of the year, time to celebrate the cycles of nature, a time full of light and hope, all universal, eternal values so to all the religious, spiritual and even materialistic extropians: Merry Christmas to all ! citta437 at aol.com wrote: {My reply/thoughts in parenthesis after the qouted message below} "The Message is the Medium" If a mind can survive repeated radical restructurings, infusion into and out of different types of hardware and storage media, and is ultimately a mathematical abstraction, does it require hardware at all? {Yes and no. Yes because the mind's flexible characteristic responds to processes of extropic practices i.e. attentiveness to changes in macrospace as interconnected in microspace/quantum world.} Suppose the message describing a person is written in some static medium, like a book. A superintelligent being, or just a big computer, reading and understanding the message might be able to reason out the future evolution of the encoded person, not only under a particular set of experiences but also under various alternative circumstances. Existence in the thoughts of a beholder is no more abstract than as a transformed person-program described in the previous section, but it does introduce an interesting new twist. {Exactly as the observer becomes the observed so to speak}. The superintelligent being has no obligation to accurately model every single detail of the beheld, and may well choose to skip the boring parts, to jump to conclusions that are obvious to it, and to lump together different alternatives it does not choose to distinguish. This looseness in the simulation can also allow some time reversed action - our superintelligent being may choose a conclusion then reason backwards, deciding what must have preceded it. Authors of fiction often take such liberties with their characters. The same parsimony of thought applies to the parts of the environment of the contemplated person that are themselves being contemplated. Applied a certain way, this parsimony will affect the evolution of the simulated person and his environment, and may thus be noticeable to him. Note that the subjective feelings of the simulated person are a part of the simulation, and with them the contemplated person feels as real in this implementation as in any other. {This happens when the subjective meet the objective process as a thought without the thinker. Nature does not require an owner of a thought.Thoughts/abstrractions float in the spaces/synapses within the brain like a messenger/transmitter who does not own the message.} It happens that quantum mechanics describes a world where unobserved events happen in all possible ways (another way of saying no decision is made as to which possibility happens), and the superposition of all these possibilities itself has observable effects. The connection of this observation with those of the previous paragraph leads us into murky philosophical waters. To get even muddier, ask the question implicit in the title of this section. If the subjective feelings of a person are part of the person-message, and if the evolution of the message is implicit in the message itself, then aren't the future experiences of the person implicit in the message? And wouldn't this mere mathematical existence feel the same to the person encoded as being simulated in a more substantial way? I don't think this is mere sophistry, but I'm not prepared to take it any further for now. Immortality and Impermanence Wading back into the shallows, let's examine a certain dilemma of existence, presently overshadowed by the issue of personal death, that will be paramount when practical immortality is achieved. It's this: in the long run survival requires change in directions not of your own choosing. Standards escalate with the growth of the inevitable competitors and predators for each niche. In a kind of cosmic Olympic games the universe molds its occupants towards its own distant and mysterious specifications. An immortal cannot hope to survive unchanged, only to maintain a limited continuity over the short run. Personal death differs from this inevitability only in its relative abruptness. Viewed on a larger scale we are already immortal, as we have been since the dawn of life. Our genes and our culture pass continuously from one generation to the next, subject only to incremental alterations to meet the continuous demand for new world records in the cosmic games. In the very long run the ancestral individual is always doomed as its heritage is nibbled away to meet short term demands. It slowly mutates into other forms that could have been reached from a range of starting points; the ultimate in convergent evolution. It's by this reasoning that I concluded earlier that it makes no ultimate difference whether our machines carry forward our heritage on their own, or in partnership with direct transcriptions of ourselves. Assuming long term survival either way, the end results should be indistinguishable, shaped by the universe and not by ourselves. Since change is inevitable, I think we should embrace rather than retard it. By so doing we improve our day to day survival odds, discover interesting surprises sooner, and are more prepared to face any competition. The cost is faster erosion of our present constitution. All development can be interpreted as incremental death and new birth, but some of the fast lane options make this especially obvious, for instance the possibility of dropping parts of one's memory and personality in favor of another's. Fully exploited, this process results in transient individuals constituted from a communal pool of personality traits. Sexual populations are effective in part because they create new genetic individuals in very much this way. As with sexual reproduction, the memory pool requires dissolution as well as creation to be effective. So personal death is not banished, but it does lose its poignancy because death by submergence into the memory pool is reversible in the short run. Email this to a friend ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon Dec 24 19:37:59 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:37:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit References: <476EE98D.1070103@lineone.net> Message-ID: <010b01c84664$85788080$60ef4d0c@MyComputer> Idea for a science fiction novel: A huge nickel iron asteroid is heading for Earth, it would take a 200,000 megaton bomb to divert it but no existing rocket is nearly powerful enough to deliver such a huge payload to the asteroid. The Earth seems doomed, then our hero remembers Project Orion from the 1950's. It would certainly make a spectacular movie, the launch of an Orion type spacecraft would be amazing sight, it would make a Saturn 5 look like a bottle rocket. John K Clark From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 24 20:21:49 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:21:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <010b01c84664$85788080$60ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200712242048.lBOKmPp8021082@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark ... > > ... the launch of an Orion type > spacecraft would be amazing sight, it would make a Saturn 5 look like a > bottle rocket. > > John K Clark Hi John, I may be wrong about this, but it seems we still need chemical rockets to get our nuclear Orion stages into LEO, so the launch of an Orion would look like any other heavy lifter, such as the Lockheed/commie Proton. I don't see how we could control nuclear blasts of sufficient magnitude to use them as a first or even second stage. There are too many unpredictable factors if we are trying to accelerate a huge structure at a couple G (at least) via nuclear blasts and ablation. One such problem would be asymmetric thrust, which would be manageable in deep space but a surely catastrophic mission ender if it occurs while still in the thick air. We would need to carry a few hundred tons of nukes and ablative material into LEO, assemble it there, and take off from LEO, ja? Then the maximum acceleration would be a fraction of a G, a few tenths perhaps, over a large number of pulses to eventually reach enormous delta Vee, the kind of delta Vee that makes rocket scientists awaken in a pleasantly aroused cold sweat. {8^P---------w========V <--- (Me, dreaming of enormous delta V) Have you any calcs to suggest otherwise? Do share. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 21:20:23 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:20:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <010b01c84664$85788080$60ef4d0c@MyComputer> References: <476EE98D.1070103@lineone.net> <010b01c84664$85788080$60ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <580930c20712241320h1f98a531gc4cbb6b86bcd91bc@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 24, 2007 8:37 PM, John K Clark wrote: > Idea for a science fiction novel: A huge nickel iron asteroid is heading > for > Earth, it would take a 200,000 megaton bomb to divert it but no existing > rocket is nearly powerful enough to deliver such a huge payload to the > asteroid. The Earth seems doomed, then our hero remembers Project Orion > from the 1950's. > > It would certainly make a spectacular movie, the launch of an Orion type > spacecraft would be amazing sight, it would make a Saturn 5 look like a > bottle rocket. > I proposed it a number of times, but it did not get anybody's attention. :-) And, yes, it could well bring some 8,000 tons (not 10,000 Kg) of payload at escape velocity, with a single nice stage. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29. And you would not need any exploding head, inertia would be sufficient to do its work. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 21:28:12 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:28:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200712242048.lBOKmPp8021082@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <010b01c84664$85788080$60ef4d0c@MyComputer> <200712242048.lBOKmPp8021082@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712241328h428aa529pd8d44278c9730598@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 24, 2007 9:21 PM, spike wrote: > Hi John, I may be wrong about this, but it seems we still need chemical > rockets to get our nuclear Orion stages into LEO, so the launch of an > Orion > would look like any other heavy lifter, such as the Lockheed/commie > Proton. > I don't see how we could control nuclear blasts of sufficient magnitude to > use them as a first or even second stage. There are too many > unpredictable > factors if we are trying to accelerate a huge structure at a couple G (at > least) via nuclear blasts and ablation. One such problem would be > asymmetric thrust, which would be manageable in deep space but a surely > catastrophic mission ender if it occurs while still in the thick air. No, actually from an engineering point of view it seemed feasible enough, especially if measures are not required to protect a crew (pulse absorbers, radiations shielding, etc.). Single stage to Mars and beyond. According to calculations, a fission Orion could achieve 3-5% c, a fusion one 8-10% c. The only problem is the fallout. Stefano Vaj > > > We would need to carry a few hundred tons of nukes and ablative material > into LEO, assemble it there, and take off from LEO, ja? Then the maximum > acceleration would be a fraction of a G, a few tenths perhaps, over a > large > number of pulses to eventually reach enormous delta Vee, the kind of delta > Vee that makes rocket scientists awaken in a pleasantly aroused cold > sweat. > > {8^P---------w========V <--- (Me, dreaming of enormous delta V) > > Have you any calcs to suggest otherwise? Do share. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 22:20:30 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:20:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Give till it helps Message-ID: <29666bf30712241420u9f9ce11mdb2d22f950593e3b@mail.gmail.com> We all know about reciprocal altruism. But now we are increasingly learning how altruism benefits the brain and quite possibly our overall health. Since that's the case, and we are those most interested in improving mind and body, wouldn't this be a good time to go to the WTA fundraising site and donate to the matching grant campaign? http://www.transhumanism.org/match/ Think of the rush of oxytocin that will course through your body. And the tax benefits! Ooooh, I can feel them now...! Your body and brain will be glad you did. :) PJ http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-generosity24dec24,1,5258137.story?coll=la-headlines-health&ctrack=1&cset=true >From the Los Angeles Times Give till it helps If it's really better to give than receive, is generosity then better for you? The act itself has a growing list of benefits. By Karen Ravn Special to The Times December 24, 2007 WE'VE pored over catalogs, spent hours online, made umpteen harrowing treks to the mall. We've hustled and bustled, been hassled and harried, shopped till we dropped (and dropped lots of cash too). We're stressed as heck, and we're not going to take this any more -- until next year. If giving Christmas presents is so hard, why do people do it? Evidence is piling up (like those packages under the tree) that human beings were born to give. Their very physiology makes them do it. Studies show that when a person gives money to a stranger or a charity, the "rewards area" of the brain gets busy. It's the same area that goes to town when the person eats a sugar cookie or finds a parking place at the mall or receives a gift of money from Ed McMahon. Not only that, but generous people also seem to live longer and stay healthier than those "bah humbug" types, according to population studies. It's even possible (scientists are busy testing this concept now) that the more Christmas spirit shoppers have, the fewer bugs they're likely to catch during the holidays. Gift-giving, in a nutshell, seems to improve people's health and longevity. It lifts their mood and bolsters their ego. And perhaps most important of all, it makes people beholden to one another, so that when their goose is cooked, they have friends to save their skin. Or so goes the evolutionary theory. "The most important thing I learned in writing a whole book about human relationships is 'give more gifts,' " says evolutionary biologist Jay Phelan, a life sciences academic administrator at UCLA and co-author of "Mean Genes: From Sex to Money to Food: Taming Our Primal Instincts." A gift doesn't have to be expensive, studies show. It really is the thought that counts -- well, the thought and the pretty wrapping. But just try telling that to Joel Waldfogel. "People are best suited to make choices for themselves," says Waldfogel, a professor of business and public policy at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. The lesson from his own research? Don't give gifts. Give money. "How is gift-giving as a way of choosing stuff for me?" he says. "The answer is -- it's a crummy way." Giving to live Quite apart from the risk of receiving a lime-green polyester pant suit, gift-giving may seem foolish from an evolutionary, struggle-for-survival perspective. By hoarding resources (cashmere sweaters, pricey perfume, peppermint bark) instead of giving them to others you'd probably have more luck passing on your genes. But survival is also helped by generosity of the one-good-turn-deserves-another variety, or the one-nice-gift-deserves-another-of-approximately-equal-value-and-thoughtfulness variety. That's called "reciprocal altruism," and it has inspired many a mad dash to the mall. "It's a way of buffering yourself from an uncertain future," Phelan says. "You never know when you might need help. When you have friends, you're much better off." Because reciprocal altruism proved valuable for survival purposes, people evolved to feel a basic inclination to be generous and helpful -- and to feel good about it, according to several recent studies For example, a report published in the November issue of the Public Library of Science's journal, ONE, showed that the inclination to be generous is influenced by the hormone oxytocin. Give people extra doses of oxytocin, and they'll be much more generous than they would be otherwise. In the study, 68 male subjects were randomly assigned to pairs and then played games in which player A was given $10 and told to offer some of it to player B. If B accepted A's offer, both of them would get to keep their shares of the money. But if B rejected the offer, they were both Scrooged, so to speak. Clearly, it was in A's self-interest to make the lowest offer he thought B would accept. But players who had inhaled a dose of oxytocin offered, on average, 21% more ($4.86) than players who had been given a placebo ($4.03). Oxytocin is a hormone and neurotransmitter that is naturally stimulated by such things as touching or feeling trusted, and it has been shown to facilitate various social interactions, including the bonding of mother to child. "I think of oxytocin as social glue," says the study's lead author Paul Zak, director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont. "Oxytocin facilitates living in groups." The scientists conducted other experiments and found that oxytocin doses increased generosity 80%. A second study, published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also may have linked oxytocin to cheerful giving. The research, which investigated charitable giving, found it really may be better to give than to receive. Using a brain-scanning technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging, researchers led by Dr. Jorge Moll, head of the Neuroscience Unit-LABS-D'Or Network in Rio de Janeiro observed brain activity in 19 subjects while they made anonymous decisions to accept money for themselves or to make a charitable donation. If subjects always decided in favor of their own monetary self-interest, they would walk off with $128. But the amount they would get decreased every time they chose to make a donation in support of, or opposition to, one of a wide range of causes (including issues of abortion, the death penalty and nuclear power). On average, subjects gave away $51 -- 40% of their possible payment. When a subject decided to take some money, brain activity increased in several regions known collectively as the mesolimbic rewards area. But when a subject decided to donate some money, activity there increased even more, implying that giving is rewarding. Donating money also led to increased activity in another part of the brain known as the subgenual cortex, a region that abounds in receptors for oxytocin, supporting the notion that giving is an important social act. Taking money, an act that doesn't especially lubricate social interactions, left the subgenual cortex unfazed. In this study and the oxytocin study, generous subjects paid a price -- leaving with less money than those who gave less money away. But the studies seem to imply that the rewards of being generous -- up to a point, at least -- outweighed the cost. Of course, everyone produces oxytocin and has a subgenual cortex and a rewards area in the brain. Not surprisingly, "everybody will be altruistic if it's cheap enough, and nobody will if it costs too much," says William Harbaugh, professor of economics at the University of Oregon in Eugene. And yet clearly, some have more Kris Kringle in them than others. What determines where each person draws the line? Harbaugh led a team of researchers to probe people's brains and find out. Specifically, they wanted to know if they could predict how altruistic people would be on the basis of activity in the rewards area of the brain. In a study published in the June issue of Science, 19 female subjects were each given a bank account that started with a balance of $100. The balance went up and down with a series of deposits and withdrawals, half of which the subjects controlled, and half of which were automatic. While this was going on, researchers tracked the subjects' rewards area activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging. The scientists found that nine of the subjects showed more activity in the rewards part of the brain when they received money automatically. (This group was called the "egoist" group.) The other 10 had more activity in the rewards center when money was automatically withdrawn from their accounts and donated to a food bank. (This was the "altruist" group.) It was the first time researchers had found that nonvoluntary "donations" to a cause can increase activity in the rewards area of the brain, implying that some people may actually like to pay taxes for causes they believe in. The subjects' responses to automatic deposits and withdrawals were strongly related to the choices they made when they had a say over how the money was allocated. Altruists donated to the food bank almost twice as often as did egoists -- 58% versus 31% of the time. However, rewards area activity was greater for voluntary donations than for automatic ones -- very much as if the study had captured the so-called "warm glow" effect, the fuzzy, "I'm-a-good-person" feeling that comes from doing a kind deed. "Brain activity really does predict how people behave," says Ulrich Mayr, a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon and a co-author of the study. It's not all in your head The rewards area of the brain is a little like Santa Claus. It knows if you've been bad or good, and if you've been good, i.e. if you've behaved in ways that evolution has determined to be good for you -- it gives you the gift of feeling happy or full or relaxed. Of course, the rewards area can be tricked. Not everything that makes you feel good is good for you. (Think about eating a pound of fudge or drinking a quart of eggnog.) But generous behavior may be the real deal. One study, reported in Psychological Science in 2003, found that over a five-year period, people who gave support to others were less likely to die than people who didn't. The study, conducted by a team led by Stephanie Brown, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, looked at 423 older married couples. In interviews from 1987 and 1988, participants were asked if they had given (or received) instrumental support to (or from) friends, neighbors and relatives other than their spouses in the last year and if they had given emotional support to their spouses. Instrumental support included providing transportation, running errands, going shopping, doing housework and providing child care. Emotional support consisted of making their spouses feel loved and cared for and being willing to listen if their spouses needed to talk. The researchers then examined the individuals' answers as well as whether they had died during the course of the study. Results showed that those who gave instrumental support to others had a reduced mortality rate during the course of the study compared with those who hadn't given such support and with those who'd received support. Giving emotional support to a spouse also reduced mortality risk. All in all, just as the earlier study suggested that giving money away can be better than receiving it, this study showed that giving support to others can be better than receiving it. This study was one of more than 30 reviewed in a May report by the Corporation for National and Community Service. The report's main findings: Volunteers have lower mortality rates, function at a higher level, physically and cognitively and are less likely to be depressed in later life than people who don't volunteer. Older volunteers are likely to receive greater health benefits from volunteering than younger volunteers, and those who volunteer about 100 hours a year are most likely to receive health benefits from volunteering. The study also found that mortality risk and heart disease rates are lower in states with higher volunteer rates. Studies finding links between altruism and health haven't determined why altruism is so good for your health, but oxytocin may have a hand in it, Brown suggests. The hormone is known to lower heart rates and blood pressure, promote wound-healing and reduce the effects of stress. Brown is now conducting an experimental study of Christmas shoppers to see if their attitudes affect how likely they are to get sick over the holidays. Her team of researchers has been scurrying around malls asking shoppers questions such as: How much do you care about the people you're shopping for? How good do you feel about the presents you're buying? How happy do you think recipients will be with your presents? About a week from now, researchers will call the shoppers back and ask if they stayed well or got sick since last they met. The hypothesis: Shoppers who really like the people they're shopping for and are excited about the wonderful presents they're buying them will stay healthier than shoppers who really don't know what to get for people they really don't care that much about. That is, truly altruistic shoppers will stay healthier than Grinches. The 'dead weight' theory If Brown's hypothesis turns out to be true, it may be bad news for the health of Joel Waldfogel of the Wharton School, a highly respected economist and very nice man who every December turns into the Grinch who wrote "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas." In 1993, Waldfogel was a professor at Yale and the recipient of one too many preposterous presents. He began taking surveys in his undergraduate classes and confirmed his suspicions: On average, when you exclude sentimental value, the value a recipient places on a gift is less than the gift giver spent on it -- at least 10% less, and maybe more. This, in economic terms, represents a "dead-weight loss," or a waste of resources. And because the National Retail Federation predicts that holiday sales will reach nearly $500 billion this year, that would make the dead-weight loss of Christmas 2007 almost $50 billion. Not everyone buys Waldfogel's arguments. A study finding no dead-weight loss -- finding instead that gifts create positive value -- was published in 1996 in the American Economic Review, the same journal in which Waldfogel's paper had appeared three years before. The authors cited several possible reasons gifts might create, not lose, value: A gift could be something the recipient never knew existed or something frivolous the recipient felt guilty about buying, or something the recipient wanted an excuse to enjoy -- "It's a gift!" They also thought Waldfogel's idea of trying to separate out sentimental value was hopeless (although they attempted to do it in their study too.) A couple of years later, two more economists entered the fray. In their report, they tried to quantify how much people really valued the gifts they'd been given by forcing them to auction the gifts. When faced with the prospect of truly giving up a gift, people put a higher price on it than when asked about it in a survey, the method used by Waldfogel. Waldfogel is sticking to his guns. In 2002 and 2005, he published two more studies in which he continued to find evidence for a dead-weight loss. He's also found that some gift givers, insecure about their proficiency in the gift-selection department, are more likely to give cash gifts than more self-confident givers, despite the stigma associated with giving plain old unadulterated money. Next year he plans to go international. Do gift givers in other countries, he wonders, throw away their money too? And so the debate rages on, with no peace in sight. Could gift cards be the answer? Gift cards are sort of like money, but they're not money. They're sort of like gifts, but such safe gifts. You can't get the wrong size, wrong color or wrong style. OK, you can get the wrong store. And gift cards can get lost. And lose value. And expire. In fact, experts say, nearly $8 billion worth of gift cards went to waste last year. Gift cards: The new dead-weight loss of Christmas? From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Dec 24 22:51:50 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:51:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <476EE98D.1070103@lineone.net> References: <476EE98D.1070103@lineone.net> Message-ID: <005b01c8467f$93534d00$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Ben said: >> Breaking an asteroid up into small pieces, all still coming in at many km/sec, would dump an enormous amount of heat into the atmosphere, very quickly. I suppose you could say the sky would explode. >> Since the blast would convert some of the mass to plasma, wouldn't that energy and the blast tend to accelerate the mass off in all directions? A portion of the mass would still be headed towards us and the small pieces would probably be visible for tracking as a cloud. Additional warheads could target this cloud and convert additional mass to plasma and send more off course away from the Earth's gravity well. Of course the second shot launch shortly after the first shot so that before the cloud dispersed too much and was spread out too far it was hit again repeating the process. Each time this was repeated the larger portions of the remaining mass should be accelerated off course. And remember the Tunguska meteorite exploded in the atmosphere anyway releasing 100% of it's mass and energy! And the explosion was so large that no meteor fragments were ever found. If it's mass had been reduced, and a portion accelerated out of our gravity well, and the remaining fragments spread over a much larger area of Earth's gravity well, then most of the fragments would have burned up upon reentry creating nothing more than a colorful light show, right? From brent.allsop at comcast.net Mon Dec 24 23:24:25 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:24:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <015201c845a7$193ecc20$32ef4d0c@MyComputer> References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer><476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net><002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer><476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> <01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <015201c845a7$193ecc20$32ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <47703FA9.3070508@comcast.net> John K Clark wrote: > Gee Lee you're no fun, how am I supposed to argue with you when I agree > with every word you said? Next time please have the courtesy to say at > least one stupid thing. > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > John, I apologize for getting my wiring crossed and thinking you believed one way, when in actuality, you believe something quite different. Thank you for helping to clear this up. The reason I am having such problems, is what you believe isn't familiar to me, so it just isn't sinking in. It is hard to remember what you can't understand. So is what you and Lee agree on, that intelligence is impossible without consciousness? Is what you believe anything like any of the theories already in the Canonizer? It would sure help everyone, if you guys could come up with a concise statement describing just what it is the two of you believe, and why. And even if I still have a hard time understanding and remembering it, I'll at least all have an easy reference to go back to without having to try to dig through and miss interpret the log files. Also, you don't yet completely understand everything about our theory. That is great that you are keeping logs of conversations as far back as 2005. And that you could dig up the following: <<<< > Check arorund Nov 2005, for one example of a bunch of us having > this same conversation. Oh yes, that's where you said "Phenomenal properties are most definitely causal" but now you say "I also very much disagree with the idea that consciousness is only a process". Brent it's OK to change your mind but the trouble is you're going backward. >>>> But you are talking that out of context, and not understanding the whole story, all of which is concisely defined here: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/2 precisely so you don't have to dig through logs, take statements out of context, and such: Within this theory, phenomenal properties are an additional to behavior properties of something cause and effect science has already told us (behaviorally) about. So the theory is, that something has both causal properties and phenomenal properties. We can objectively detect or "see" them through their cause and effect behavior, such an abstracted cause and effect observation process is just unable to know the real phenomenal property of the original matter, even though the abstracted knowledge resulting from such a cause and effect detection process is behaving like it. But, all this is already stated in the canonizer statement above. It is frustrating to have to regurgitate it here. Brent Allsop From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Dec 24 23:24:21 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:24:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <001101c845b0$d35039b0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <200712232027.lBNKRgms003796@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071223211645.GA10128@leitl.org> <001101c845b0$d35039b0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <200712242323.lBONNA394942@unreasonable.com> Suppose we move to space without MNT, e.g., something like the G. Harry Stine vision of space industrialization -- asteroid mining, solar power satellites, etc. What would be the optimal solutions for the Mars scenario, given time to prepare and pre-position space-based planetary defense assets? If we have enough advance notice, the obvious answer would be to view it as found wealth. Land on it, and use the technologies we use to bring nickel-iron asteroids from the Belt to our vicinity to steer it to somewhere more convenient than planetary impact. For short notice, what would you use? The same nuclear missile approach? Direct a whopping big space-based laser at it? Pummel it with a stream from a (lunar) mass driver? -- David. From santostasigio at yahoo.com Tue Dec 25 01:38:40 2007 From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:38:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200712242323.lBONNA394942@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <783901.5961.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think the best solution, as concerns a futurist scenario, if nanotech was enough developed, would be to use billions of nano engines to be placed on a precise location over the surface, possibly the engines would reproduce themselves and multiply, using the planet resources to built themselves and produce fuel. The nano engines then will push the asteroid in a circular orbit around the planet with which was supposed to collide with, where it could be conveniently mined. David Lubkin wrote: Suppose we move to space without MNT, e.g., something like the G. Harry Stine vision of space industrialization -- asteroid mining, solar power satellites, etc. What would be the optimal solutions for the Mars scenario, given time to prepare and pre-position space-based planetary defense assets? If we have enough advance notice, the obvious answer would be to view it as found wealth. Land on it, and use the technologies we use to bring nickel-iron asteroids from the Belt to our vicinity to steer it to somewhere more convenient than planetary impact. For short notice, what would you use? The same nuclear missile approach? Direct a whopping big space-based laser at it? Pummel it with a stream from a (lunar) mass driver? -- David. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 25 02:26:56 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:26:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] australian humor In-Reply-To: <783901.5961.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200712250253.lBP2rWeP022391@andromeda.ziaspace.com> . . . Some Australian astronomy humor for a Newtonmass eve: http://dingo.care-mail.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf Perhaps Damien can explain the meaning of the terms in the final scene. {8-] spike . . . From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 25 03:14:59 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:14:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] australian humor (not) In-Reply-To: <200712250253.lBP2rWeP022391@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <783901.5961.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200712250253.lBP2rWeP022391@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071224211107.024ccb90@satx.rr.com> At 06:26 PM 12/24/2007 -0800, Spike wrote: >Some Australian astronomy humor for a Newtonmass eve: > >http://dingo.care-mail.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf It might be on an Aussie site, but this grab from Eric Idle (of Monte Python fame) couldn't be more British if you coated it in lard and kippers. "Bugger-all"? = "remarkably little". Damien From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 03:41:10 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:41:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] australian humor (not) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071224211107.024ccb90@satx.rr.com> References: <783901.5961.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200712250253.lBP2rWeP022391@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20071224211107.024ccb90@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30712241941g1297a880r11c4549f84a50aa@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 24, 2007 7:14 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > It might be on an Aussie site, but this grab from Eric Idle (of Monte > Python fame) couldn't be more British if you coated it in lard and kippers. It's "The Galaxy Song" from "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life". It plays over the end credits: "So remember when you're feeling very small and insecure, how amazingly unlikely is your birth And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!" Words to live by. ;-) PJ From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 25 05:34:53 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:34:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit References: <200712242048.lBOKmPp8021082@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <011f01c846b7$e3a8a920$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> "spike" > Hi John, I may be wrong about this, but it seems we still need chemical > rockets to get our nuclear Orion stages into LEO, The original idea was to use no chemical rockets at all, it would be pure nuclear from the surface of the Earth to the outer solar system. I find I wrote a post on this subject on June 16, 2000: I've been reading a little about an incredible idea taken very seriously in the late 50's and early 60's but today is almost completely forgotten, it was called Project Orion. The idea was to make a spaceship big enough for 150 people and all the equipment they could ever want and blast it into space. They wanted to make it 135 feet in diameter and 160 feet high and they wanted most of that space to be usable by people not wasted on fuel. They figured weight would be no problem, if a crew member wanted to bring along his antique bowling ball collection and his own personal barber chair there would be no objection. The advocates of this approach were not interested in low earth orbit or even the moon, they were certain they could be on Mars by 1965 and Saturn by 1970, the leader of the project was determined to visit Pluto. And they figured all this would cost less than 10% what the Apollo moon project did. You might think that these people must have been a bunch of crackpots, but it's not so. Nobel Prize winners Niels Bohr, Hans Bethe and Harold Urey were all enthusiastic advocates of the idea. Freeman Dyson thought the idea was so brilliant that he took a one year leave of absence from the prestigious Institute of Advanced Study so he could work full time on the project. Yes, there is a catch, Project Orion needed nuclear energy, even worse it needed nuclear bombs. The Orion spacecraft would contain 2000 nuclear bombs, most in the 20 kiloton range, the size of the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki. A bomb in a tank of water would shoot out the back of the ship, when it was 100 feet away it would explode, the water would hit a carefully designed 75 ton pusher plate and accelerate the ship. Between the pusher plate and the ship were 50 foot long gas filled shock absorbers to even out the jerk. They wanted everything to be as cheap as possible, so they asked the Coca-Cola company for the blueprints of one of their vending machines, then they scaled it up a little and planed to use it as the mechanism to dispense the bombs. The pusher plate was obviously the most important part of the design. If you explode a powerful bomb near a circular plate of constant thickness it will shatter because of the uneven stresses that build up, but it turns out that if you carefully taper the plate and make certain that the explosion is dead center, the plate will be extraordinary resistant to damage. A layer on the plate will be vaporized by the heat but if some heavy protective oil is spayed on it before each use it would be good for 2000 blasts. This beast was tough, if it was properly oriented the Orion Spacecraft could survive a 16 megaton H bomb blast from only two thousand feet away, a fact of more than passing interest to the military. Orion needed lots of radiation shielding to protect the crew, but weight was never an issue so this was no problem. Wernher von Braun though all this was a dumb idea, then he saw a movie of the launch of a one meter working model of Orion that shot 6 carefully timed high explosives chemical bombs out the back of the model, it rose 300 feet into the air in stable controlled flight. Wernher von Braun became a vocal supporter of project Orion. They planed to launch Orion from atop eight 250 towers in Jackass Flats Nevada. The first bomb would be tiny, just .1 kiloton (100 tons of TNT) exploded 100 feet below craft and 150 feet above the ground, then a new and slightly larger bomb would be spit out the back every second for 50 seconds, the last bomb would be the largest, 20 kilotons, and by then the craft would be out of the atmosphere, the total yield of the 50 bombs would be 200 kilotons. The launch would have been a spectacular sight! Project Orion was lead by Ted Taylor, a mediocre physicist but a good inventor. Taylor had one unique talent, he has been called by some the best nuclear weapon engineer on planet Earth and the Leonardo da Vinci of nuclear bomb design. Taylor is the man who figured out how a two foot long 200 pound bomb could be made as powerful as the 12 foot long 10 ton World War 2 Nagasaki bomb. The reason the Orion spaceship was so much bigger and faster than anything we have today is that pound for pound such bombs have about a million times as much energy as any chemical rocket fuel. Orion wasn't the only thing Taylor was interested in, he found a way to make new type of nuclear bomb, one that would produce a highly directional blast. He designed a little one kiloton bomb that could blast a 1000 foot tunnel straight through solid rock, he wanted to build a cheap tunnel between New York and San Francisco and have a supersonic subway 3000 miles long. Considering the big controversy we had last year when a deep space probe was launched with just a few pounds of non weapon grade Plutonium on it to power the electronics it may seem incredible and irresponsible that anyone would even consider something as environmentally unfriendly as Orion, but we live in a very different world. At the time Orion was under serious study the USA was blowing up one megaton bombs deep under the sea and 300 miles in space and the USSR was blowing up 57 megaton bombs in the atmosphere, Orion seemed and indeed was pretty benign compared to that. It all came to nothing of course, in 1963 the test ban treaty was signed stopping all nuclear explosions in space or the atmosphere making Orion illegal. The project died, but to this day most say it would have worked technologically if not politically. John K Clark From amara at amara.com Tue Dec 25 06:19:50 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:19:50 -1000 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit Message-ID: For a reference on Project Orion: _The Starship and the Canoe_ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0060910305/ (This dates me, but I remember when Freeman Dyson came to the bookstore where I worked in my university (UCI) in the early 1980s to promote this book.) -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 25 06:20:48 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 01:20:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer><476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net><002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer><476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> <01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><015201c845a7$193ecc20$32ef4d0c@MyComputer> <47703FA9.3070508@comcast.net> Message-ID: <014801c846be$5171eb50$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> "Brent Allsop" > So is what you and Lee agree on, that intelligence is impossible without consciousness? I'll let Lee speak for himself but that is what I believe. > Is what you believe anything like any of the theories already in the > Canonizer? I doubt it, very few people agree with me. I'm right nevertheless. > the theory is, that something has both causal properties and phenomenal > properties. That is not a theory that is a fact known to me by direct experience, and that outranks even the scientific method, but unfortunately it only works with my phenomenal properties not yours. > We can objectively detect or "see" them through their cause and effect > behavior But you can "see" these properties only through the eyes of a theory, a theory you will never be able to prove or disprove; and that is exactly why consciousness theories (but not intelligence theories!) are so easy to dream up, any theory will do. > It would sure help everyone, if you guys could come up with a concise > statement describing just what it is the two of you believe I must have posted several megabytes on this subject, but if you want a bumper sticker I suppose it would be "THE SOUL IS INFORMATION" or maybe "I AM NOT A NOUN". John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 25 06:40:11 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:40:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Orion In-Reply-To: <011f01c846b7$e3a8a920$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> References: <200712242048.lBOKmPp8021082@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <011f01c846b7$e3a8a920$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071225003722.05c6ccd8@satx.rr.com> At 12:34 AM 12/25/2007 -0500, JKC wrote: >I find I wrote a post on this subject on June 16, 2000: > >I've been reading a little about an incredible idea taken very seriously in >the late 50's and early 60's but today is almost completely forgotten, it >was called Project Orion. It starred in Poul Anderson's 1983 novel ORION SHALL RISE, not to mention Niven and Pournelle's FOOTFALL from two years later. Not all that forgotten, perhaps; I think they're both still in print, or at least fairly available. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 25 06:47:45 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:47:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? In-Reply-To: <014801c846be$5171eb50$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> <022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer> <476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net> <002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer> <476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net> <01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <015201c845a7$193ecc20$32ef4d0c@MyComputer> <47703FA9.3070508@comcast.net> <014801c846be$5171eb50$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071225004434.0235c298@satx.rr.com> At 01:20 AM 12/25/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: >"I AM NOT A NOUN". Correct. As I'm sure someone has noted here, I is a pronoun. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 25 07:22:54 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:22:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <011f01c846b7$e3a8a920$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200712250722.lBP7MtbF022892@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark ... > > It all came to nothing of course, in 1963 the test ban treaty was signed > stopping all nuclear explosions in space or the atmosphere making Orion > illegal. The project died, but to this day most say it would have worked > technologically if not politically. > > John K Clark John I think that treaty would allows us to carry nukes to LEO, ja?. I agree the nuclear upper stages are a great idea, but atmospheric stages would be a huge headache from an engineering point of view. I don't even see how it could be practically done, even if the treaty hadn't outlawed it. But no matter: we can still use them to get hauling once we have the stuff in orbit. I can make a stronger case: if we needed to get a wacky high amount of delta Vee, the Orion might be the only really practical way to git R done. A chemical rocket would require (I think) at least five stages to get up to the 30 km/sec we discussed before, but eight stages would be more efficient. Then of course the vehicle is crazy complicated, and would likely need extensive assembly in LEO. spike From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 25 14:01:07 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:01:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Where is Consciousness located? References: <8CA11579F28CCAE-EC-27A8@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><022b01c843f3$d25ca520$afee4d0c@MyComputer><476C4FF9.5080705@comcast.net><002a01c844c4$5f4204a0$c8ee4d0c@MyComputer><476DAAB5.6070302@comcast.net><01a401c845a0$bb77e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><015201c845a7$193ecc20$32ef4d0c@MyComputer><47703FA9.3070508@comcast.net><014801c846be$5171eb50$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20071225004434.0235c298@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000c01c846fe$ce3caea0$deee4d0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" Wrote: > As I'm sure someone has noted here, I is a pronoun. I am quite serious when I say that if 20 or 30 years ago an old error had been corrected and third grade grammar schoolbooks had made it clear that I is an adjective there would be much less philosophical confusion today. John K Clark From x at extropica.org Tue Dec 25 15:16:36 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:16:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wishes for an extropic xmas Message-ID: Wishing an extropic xmas to all, and a merry Newtonmas for those so inclined. - x From amara at amara.com Tue Dec 25 17:00:58 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:00:58 -1000 Subject: [ExI] Newtonmas wishes Message-ID: from the boat yesterday... http://www.flickr.com/photos/spaceviolins/2135085028/ Wishing you all a Merry Newtonmas! Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From amara at amara.com Tue Dec 25 17:11:24 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:11:24 -1000 Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja Message-ID: Eliezer: >"Person of the Year" is influence, not virtue. In English-speaking cultures (especially American), this expression "Person of the Year" means to give honors. They (Time) seemed to have forgotten the language of the culture in which they are embedded. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From amara at amara.com Tue Dec 25 17:21:30 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:21:30 -1000 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit Message-ID: Eugene: >A very interesting problem, actually. Would a rubble pile do worse than >a solid silicate or FeNi rock? What about ice with organic/silicate muck >on it? Nobody has nuked a rock in space yet. Hell, we should do it, just >for the sake of science. Well, not nuke, but do you know about Don Quijote? This Phase A study is completed http://www.esa.int/gsp/completed/neo/donquijote.html Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 25 17:49:25 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:49:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071225174925.GO10128@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 07:21:30AM -1000, Amara Graps wrote: > Well, not nuke, but do you know about Don Quijote? This Phase A study is > completed > http://www.esa.int/gsp/completed/neo/donquijote.html Interesting. If I knew, I forgot. It is interesting science on its own, but it wouldn't substitute to asymmetric flash-ablation of a rock by a fusion device. Both in terms of science, and in terms of raw wallop. (Of course, trying such a mission is so un-PC right now it would be political suicide, despite the trajectory being completely unsuitable to hit terrestrial targets with it, unlike ICBMs the arsenals are lousy with. Sigh). What would be interesting is what happens to the flash-ablated material layer. Will we get a dust cloud that lingers, or will it be plenty clear and/or settle down in no time? (Depends on local gravity, and wind intensity, dust grain charge, and lots of other factors, no doubt). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 scerir at libero.it Tue Dec 25 19:04:35 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:04:35 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Newtonmas wishes Message-ID: Since long time I wish to know the reason why, when Santa arrives, children must be asleep and they are not allowed to see him. The reason must be a profound one. Such as ... if anyone sees Santa - more or less - at the same time but in different places, his own existence would be 'questionable'. Any idea? s. From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 19:08:53 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:08:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle Message-ID: <29666bf30712251108u17174612gffe5080f92c55ebe@mail.gmail.com> Front page article in the Los Angeles Times on brain doping. Took them long enough to notice. The article has an odd focus and feels pieced together by someone who doesn't know much about the subject -- I've seen more interesting hooks and data elsewhere. But at least it's getting mainstream press. PJ http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-sci-braindoping20dec20,1,1385812.story >From the Los Angeles Times Drugs to build up that mental muscle Academics, musicians, even poker champs use pills to sharpen their minds, legally. Labs race to develop even more. By Karen Kaplan and Denise Gellene Los Angeles Times Staff Writers December 20, 2007 Forget sports doping. The next frontier is brain doping. As Major League Baseball struggles to rid itself of performance-enhancing drugs, people in a range of other fields are reaching for a variety of prescription pills to enhance what counts most in modern life. Despite the potential side effects, academics, classical musicians, corporate executives, students and even professional poker players have embraced the drugs to clarify their minds, improve their concentration or control their emotions. "There isn't any question about it -- they made me a much better player," said Paul Phillips, 35, who credited the attention deficit drug Adderall and the narcolepsy pill Provigil with helping him earn more than $2.3 million as a poker player. The medicine cabinet of so-called cognitive enhancers also includes Ritalin, commonly given to schoolchildren for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and beta blockers, such as the heart drug Inderal. Researchers have been investigating the drug Aricept, which is normally used to slow the decline of Alzheimer's patients. The drugs haven't been tested extensively in healthy people, but their physiological effects in the brain are well understood. They are all just precursors to the blockbuster drug that labs are racing to develop. "Whatever company comes out with the first memory pill is going to put Viagra to shame," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe. Unlike the anabolic steroids, human growth hormone and blood-oxygen boosters that plague athletic competitions, the brain drugs haven't provoked similar outrage. People who take them say the drugs aren't giving them an unfair advantage but merely allow them to make the most of their hard-earned skills. In the real world, there are no rules to prevent overachievers from using legally prescribed drugs to operate at peak mental performance. What patient wouldn't want their surgeon to be completely focused during a life-or-death procedure? "If there were drugs for investment bankers, journalists, teachers and scientists that made them more successful, they would use them too," said Charles E. Yesalis, a doping researcher and emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University. "Why does anyone think this would be limited to an athlete?" The growth of the brain drugs bears a striking resemblance to the post-World War I evolution of plastic surgery -- developed to rehabilitate badly disfigured soldiers but later embraced by healthy people who wanted larger breasts and fewer wrinkles. The use of cognitive-enhancing drugs has been well documented among high school and college students. A 2005 survey of more than 10,000 college students found 4% to 7% of them tried ADHD drugs at least once to remain focused on exams or pull all-nighters. At some colleges, more than one-quarter of students surveyed said they had sampled the pills. The ubiquitous mental stimulant is coffee, and a morning jolt is sufficient for many. But as scientists were developing drugs to treat serious brain disorders, they found more potent substances. Sharon Morein-Zamir, a psychologist at Cambridge University who writes about the ethics of brain enhancement, said her interest in the medications was largely academic. But when someone she knew who had been taking Provigil for a neurological condition offered her some pills, Morein-Zamir's curiosity was piqued. "I knew the literature and wondered what it felt like," she said. The drug helped her focus as she worked at her computer for hours straight. But she wondered if it was a placebo effect. "Maybe I would have gotten it done anyway," said Morein-Zamir, who launched an Internet poll Wednesday to ask scientists about their use of brain-enhancing drugs. Philips, the poker player, started using Adderall after he was diagnosed with ADHD five years ago and later got a prescription for Provigil to further improve his focus. ADHD drugs work by increasing the level of the brain chemical dopamine, which is thought to improve attention. Provigil's mechanism of action is not well understood, but boosting the effect of dopamine is thought to be part of it. The drugs improved his concentration during high-stakes tournaments, he said, allowing him to better track all the action at his table. "Poker is the sort of game that a lot of people can play well sporadically, but tournaments are mostly won by people who can play close to their best at all times," he said. "It requires significant mental effort to play in top form for 12 hours a day, five days in a row." In the world of classical music, beta blockers such as Inderal have become nearly as commonplace as metronomes. The drugs block adrenaline receptors in the heart and blood vessels, helping to control arrhythmias and high blood pressure. They also block adrenaline receptors in the brain. "You still have adrenaline flowing in your body, but you don't feel that adrenaline rush so you're not distracted by your own nervousness," said Dr. Bernd F. Remler, a neurologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. That's why Sarah Tuck, a veteran flutist with the San Diego Symphony, takes them to stave off the jitters that musicians refer to as "rubber fingers." "When your heart is racing and your hands are shaking and you have difficulty breathing, it is difficult to perform," said Tuck, 41, who discovered them when she began performing professionally 15 years ago. A survey she conducted a decade ago revealed one-quarter of flutists used the pills before some or all of their performances or in high-pressure situations like auditions. She believes use is now more widespread and estimates that three-quarters of musicians she knows use the drugs at least occasionally. Prescriptions for Inderal and other beta blockers can be readily obtained from physicians. Tuck said some doctors had told her they used the drugs themselves to calm their own nerves before making presentations at medical meetings. Musicians say their drug use is all aboveboard. "It's not like we're sending our clubhouse attendants to BALCO to get us our Inderal," said double bassist Bruce Ridge, 44, referring to the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative that allegedly provided slugger Barry Bonds and other athletes with performance-enhancing drugs. But cosmetic neurology, as some call it, has risks. Ritalin, Adderall and other ADHD drugs can cause headaches, insomnia and loss of appetite. Provigil can make users nervous or anxious and bring on headaches, while beta blockers can cause drowsiness, fatigue and wheezing. One Stanford University study found that low doses of Aricept improved the performance of healthy pilots as they tried to master new skills in a flight stimulator, but the side effects -- dizziness and vomiting -- were less than desirable in a pilot. No one has conducted thorough studies about how brain-boosting drugs would affect healthy people after weeks or months of use, said Dr. Anjan Chatterjee, a neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania. Negative consequences may not be limited to people who popped the pills. Martha J. Farah, a bioethicist who teaches undergraduates at the University of Pennsylvania, said she was beginning to detect resentment toward students who used the drugs from classmates who did not. She has wondered whether improving productivity through artificial means also might undermine the value of hard work. In an article published today in the journal Nature, Morein-Zamir and University of Cambridge neuroscientist Barbara J. Sahakian say that clear guidelines are needed to decide what's fair. It may be reasonable to ban the drugs in competitive situations, such as taking the SAT. But in other cases, they wrote, people such as airport screeners, air-traffic controllers or combat soldiers might be encouraged to take them. With a slew of memory enhancers in development, the issues are not academic. Memory Pharmaceuticals of Montvale, N.J., for example, is eyeing drugs to combat those pesky "senior moments" that are considered a normal part of aging. "If there were drugs that actually made you smarter, good Lord, I have no doubt that their use would become epidemic," Yesalis said. "Just think what it would do to anybody's career in about any area. There are not too many occupations where it's really good to be dumb." karen.kaplan at latimes.com denise.gellene at latimes.com From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 19:11:45 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:11:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia Message-ID: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com> Interesting article on Saudi Arabia's work psychologically deprogramming former Islamic militants and repatriated US detainees back to non-Militant or hate-filled ways. "We have to deal with the minds and the emotional passions of the extremists," said Turki Otayan, a psychologist at the center, which has treated 1,500 alleged militants, including more than 100 released this year from Guantanamo. "Fixing minds is like fixing a building with 60 floors. It's not easy." Or as a former militant said, "You could say the government cleaned the hard drive of my mind. There were bad viruses and things in there." PJ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-rehab21dec21,1,2030763.story >From the Los Angeles Times Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia A government center aims to turn accused terrorists away from radicalism. Its inmates have included more than 100 released from Guantanamo. By Jeffrey Fleishman Los Angeles Times Staff Writer December 21, 2007 RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA ? Juma al-Dossari is returning to his life the way a photograph in a darkroom gradually takes shape on paper. He is home after surviving six years and more than a dozen suicide attempts as a U.S. prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Courtyard walls have replaced barbed-wire fences, and Al-Dossari has completed what the Saudi government describes as a "soft approach" rehabilitation program to cleanse his mind, find him a wife, buy him a car and keep him happy so he doesn't drift back toward Islamic fanaticism and jihad. It is a strange, erratic journey toward self-discovery; Al-Dossari says he can Google his name and find descriptions of a man he no longer knows, but he's still unsure about what kind of man he will become. "We can't go immediately from getting off a plane from Cuba to living in society. Everything has changed," said Al-Dossari, a nervous, wiry 34-year-old in a checkered kaffiyeh. "There are more streets, bridges and buildings here than I remember. I was gone a long time. My driver's license expired while I was in Guantanamo. My father died. Now, I'm trying to get things back on track." The other day, Al-Dossari sat on a long couch at the Care Rehabilitation Center with fellow released Guantanamo detainees. They wore pressed white tunics. Some spoke in broken English learned from their former captors; others were thin and still recovering from what Saudi doctors described as torture and trauma. Several of the men smiled as if posing for a family portrait, disguising the rage and bewilderment of lost years and wondering how to fit back into their native land, which was welcoming but suspicious. This religiously rigid kingdom, a key U.S. ally that has been battling Islamic terrorist networks for years, is known for harsh imprisonment and interrogation tactics that often draw condemnation from human rights groups. But for three years, the Interior Ministry has been trying to turn impressionable militants away from radicalism through six weeks of psychological counseling, religious reeducation, job training and art therapy that can produce Jackson Pollock knock-offs and stark desert scenes. Those who complete the program, such as Al-Dossari, receive outreach counseling and are kept under surveillance. "We have to deal with the minds and the emotional passions of the extremists," said Turki Otayan, a psychologist at the center, which has treated 1,500 alleged militants, including more than 100 released this year from Guantanamo. "Fixing minds is like fixing a building with 60 floors. It's not easy." Psychologists, sheiks and Interior Ministry officials occasionally allow reporters to visit the center and talk to detainees. There is an aura of public relations to the trip, but also a sense of mission to quell extremism in a country that produced Osama bin Laden and most of the Sept. 11 hijackers. With its strict tribal codes and devotion to Wahhabi Islam, Saudi Arabia understands the motivations and warped passions of young men willing to ignite holy war across the globe, and increasingly, within the kingdom. Most of the men in the program were arrested in Saudi Arabia or in neighboring countries while attempting to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, terrorist attacks across the kingdom, some aimed at Western targets, have killed nearly 150 people. A recent nationwide raid captured 208 alleged militants, some of whom were planning attacks on oil installations. Saudi media reported that police also discovered eight Chinese-made missiles that purportedly were to be fired at hotels and other buildings. 'Building trust' The new rehabilitation program is aimed at militants who haven't entirely crossed over to nihilism. The program is calculated to change the image of Saudi Arabia as an exporter of terrorists while restoring dignity and confidence to misguided young Islamists who can then help lead others away from radical websites and bloody international ventures. "We start building trust between us and them," Gen. Yousef Mansour, spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said while sitting near a former militant who had been burned and disfigured in an Iraqi bombing. "There's no need for handcuffs. These guys are broken inside." The center, a grid of low-lying buildings on the wind-swept outskirts of Riyadh, the capital, does not resemble a prison, except for an occasional glint of razor wire coiling above rose bushes and small soccer fields. Metal courtyard doors open to bearded faces, some smiling, some bemused. Some of the men make ink drawings, others dab paint and pastels to sketch a ship or a map of their country. There is pingpong, lunch on the grass and Islamic lectures by Sheik Ahmed Jelan, a heavyset, jovial man who strolls the grounds in brown robes trimmed in gold. He told the men sitting before him on school chairs that they had violated the Koran by not following the four conditions of holy war, including receiving permission from the leader of their nation and ascribing to a just and clear cause. He noted that Islamic tenets had been perverted by Bin Laden and other terrorists, whom he referred to as "gang leaders, not true Muslims." He added, "If you don't follow the four conditions, you go to hell, not heaven." The message -- Bin Laden is castigated with fervor here -- was part of the rehabilitation center's pervading mantra: The militants were led astray by corrupted ideals, and only state- approved imams and sheiks can interpret the true meanings of the Koran. It is the same theme the government has been spreading to villages and rural outposts in hopes of undercutting the allure radical Islam has for young men with limited opportunities. "Bin Laden doesn't have the proper religious education to control so many people," said Mohammed Fozan, a computer technician who was arrested in Syria in 2005 on his way to build websites for Islamic militants in Iraq. He was extradited to Saudi Arabia and placed in the rehabilitation program. Today, he works as a computer programmer in the Transportation Ministry while he fixes up a house and waits for his family to choose his bride. "I just want to get on with my life," he said, eating fish and chicken with sheiks and security officials, the likes of whom years earlier he despised as supporters of the infidel West's war against Islam. "When I adopted that radical way of thinking, it was without analysis. I just took it because I felt a responsibility for all those Iraqis dying." He glanced down at his plate and smiled. "You could say the government cleaned the hard drive of my mind. There were bad viruses and things in there." Free from Guantanamo Former Guantanamo detainees possess a quieter, more subtle air than reformed militants such as Fozan. Many of them deny they were extremists and, although not wanting to discuss how they ended up in Cuba, say they were victims of circumstance. One man said he was on a rug-buying trip to Afghanistan when he was arrested; another said he was on a humanitarian mission to repair mosques when he was taken prisoner with Taliban fighters. U.S. authorities say the men were "enemy combatants" who enlisted to fight with Islamic militants. The Pentagon has been repatriating Saudi prisoners and those of other nationalities over the last year under international pressure to free Guantanamo detainees who had not been charged with war crimes. Christopher Boucek, a Princeton professor doing postdoctoral research on counter-terrorism strategies, lauded the Saudi rehabilitation program as a logical, cost-effective and long-term approach to dealing with the tens of thousands of war-on-terrorism prisoners the U.S. has detained around the world. "This isn't a problem they can jail their way out of or shoot their way out of," Boucek said of the conflict and the teeming U.S.-run prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and elsewhere. Bukhari Abdul Hakim, a round-faced man with a graying mustache whose conversation is punctuated by long pauses, spent six years at Guantanamo. He was one of 133 Saudi prisoners, including three who died, at the island jail. Hakim lost his construction job, became diabetic and missed the birth of his granddaughter. He wants to get married, but sometimes he confuses things; he despises the United States. "The American government is a liar," Hakim said. "Why did they keep me all those years? I'm not an enemy combatant. I'm not a terrorist. . . . I don't want to talk about that time. I want to talk about now. My country. Everything is good." But amid the good there's a gloom he can't quite shake. "What can I do? I have nothing," he said. "My government will help me buy a car so I can become a taxi driver. I'm 54 years old. I'm an old man. I can't do anything." Juma al-Dossari, who has joint Saudi-Bahraini citizenship, has drawn pictures and talked to counselors about how to move beyond his Guantanamo years, which began with his arrest in 2001 on the Pakistani-Afghan border. He spoke of the "bad ideals" of radicalism, of how Bin Laden "used my religion and destroyed its reputation," of how he is trying to "fix" himself but sometimes seems lost. "Before all this happened, I lived in Indiana in 2000," he said. "I worked in an Islamic center for a while. I like Indiana. I like American life. There is a difference between real Americans and those guys who run Guantanamo. I have to be fair, though. Some of the guards at Guantanamo were kind. They apologized to me." He sat in a room where videos and slide shows were shown earlier depicting the rehabilitation center's successes. He wants to be one but seems not to want to sound programmed or rehearsed. Voices of other men murmured just beyond his, all recounting their ordeals as the sheiks, psychologists and Interior Ministry officials lingered at the edges until the day was done. He did not mention his suicide attempts, including one in which he slit an artery in his neck. "I cannot forget those six years," Al-Dossari said. "When the airplane came to take us back home, it was like a dream, a dream from prison to Saudi paradise." jeffrey.fleishman at latimes.com Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Guantanamo Bay contributed to this report. From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 25 20:17:40 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:17:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712252018.lBPKIS0v024249@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote > instead: Anna Politkovskaja > > Eliezer: > >"Person of the Year" is influence, not virtue. > > In English-speaking cultures (especially American), this expression > "Person of the Year" means to give honors. They (Time) seemed to > have forgotten the language of the culture in which they are embedded. > > Amara Jeez yes. I could see Time magazine having a special category for infamy, but I would want it clearly marked as such. With it, they would be ethically obligated to also show the previous winners of this ignoble dishonor, such as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tim McVey, bin Ladin and such egregious excuses for human beings as this. The notion of having a values-neutral recognition for a person who had a lot of influence, regardless of good or bad, seems to be a socially destructive concept. Putin is wrestling Russia from a democracy back to a totalitarian dictatorship. Time magazine appears to be cheering him on at every opportunity. Damn those guys, what (if anything) are they thinking? spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 25 20:53:15 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:53:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Newtonmas wishes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712252054.lBPKs8s3011885@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of scerir > Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 11:05 AM > To: extropy-chat > Subject: [ExI] Newtonmas wishes > > Since long time I wish to know the reason why, when Santa arrives, > children must be asleep and they are not allowed to see him. The reason > must be a profound one. Such as ... if anyone sees Santa - more or less - > at the same time but in different places, his own existence would be > 'questionable'. Any idea? > s. Scerir, I have determined to be the no-bullshit dad, never give my son of cultural legends (or if so to carefully identify them as such, as a play-time story or game.) This attitude is for religious matters and in things sexual, (no god character, no stork bringing babies, no santa with reindeer, etc). I will always give him the straight adult truth as I see it. The local mall santa is a neighbor and friend, complete with white hair and genuine white beard, and even the pipe. We took him over to see santa don his red suit, and do the ho^3 thing. spike From dagonweb at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 21:02:40 2007 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:02:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: "Broken Dreams", page 29-39, written by Jamais Cascio. Quite ironic ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 25 21:22:45 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:22:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712252150.lBPLoPPW020219@andromeda.ziaspace.com> For life form of the year, I nominate bees. My father in law is a commercial bus driver in Washington state. He commented on the paucity of fruit in my yard this year; one of my orange trees produced exactly one orange. I told him of the pedestrian bees and my discovery of a dozen dying or dead bees. He made an interesting commentary. He regularly drives bus thru fruit country, Spokane to Wenatchee to Everett to Tacoma to Seattle and back. After doing this for many years, he knew exactly which stops would require scrubbing the smashed bees off the windshield in order to be able to see at all. In those twenty six years of driving bus, he saw in spring of 2007 something he had never seen before: he arrived at the usual scrub-the-windshield bus stops with a perfectly unobstructed view from the drivers' seat. In remarkably many cases he had one or two slain bees after charging thru the heart of fruit country. In normal years it is difficult to see thru that windshield at all after the Everett to Wenatchee run, occasionally necessitating an interim stop and scrub. Without bees, we shall devour very little fruit and almost no nuts. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 25 21:53:41 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:53:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Newtonmas wishes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712252221.lBPMLMOY014768@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Since long time I wish to know the reason why, when Santa arrives, > children must be asleep and they are not allowed to see him. Scerir, I realized I didn't answer your question. As I understand the historic version of the story, there was once a priest by the name of Nicolas (in northern Europe somewhere?) who was a portly and jolly sort who really did dress in red. A family in the community fell on hard times, such that they were unable to even afford a log for the fireplace. This family was too proud to accept assistance from the community, eschewing welfare to the edge of actual starvation. The priest Nicolas is said to have gathered silver coins from the church treasury and silently made his way to the home in his reindeer-borne sleigh, where he climbed upon the roof and dropped the sack of coins down the chimney, then silently slipped away anonymously into the Christmas eve night. Even if it isn't true, it is a hell of a good story. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 22:23:07 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:23:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200712250722.lBP7MtbF022892@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <011f01c846b7$e3a8a920$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> <200712250722.lBP7MtbF022892@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712251423p5675a197jcd8fa8d561ff05d5@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 25, 2007 8:22 AM, spike wrote: > John I think that treaty would allows us to carry nukes to LEO, ja?. I > agree the nuclear upper stages are a great idea, but atmospheric stages > would be a huge headache from an engineering point of view. Actually, the real advantage of Orion vehicles is exactly in the takeoff, AFAIK. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 23:35:30 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:35:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja In-Reply-To: <200712252018.lBPKIS0v024249@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712252018.lBPKIS0v024249@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712251535w217fd356j5d3082b272d18207@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 25, 2007 9:17 PM, spike wrote: > Putin is wrestling Russia from a democracy back to a totalitarian > dictatorship. Time magazine appears to be cheering him on at every > opportunity. Damn those guys, what (if anything) are they thinking? I am not on the payroll of the KGB, or whatever they call it this days, so I do not have an especial axe to grind about that, but what exactly do you mean with "democracy"? Does it have anything to do with the sovereignty of the people, and with rule by consent, as in rulers being kept in office by the trust and support of a vast majority of their fellow citizens, as opposed to somebody sponsored by vested interest who got elected by a *minority* of voters, and empowered by nine wise men who were in turn not voted by anyone, but appointed by his predecessors? As far as I can say, the ideological differences represented in the Duma, are still much broader than those represented in the US congress, and the Russian Federation has a more proportional electoral system, in spite of the 7% barrage, offering a better parliamentary representation of minorities... Then, of curse, one may well not like the politics of Mr. Putin. And he may find pretty funny the songs currently being dedicated to him. :-) See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMpdRjoaCQk. But I would not be too snob about that. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 23:46:35 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 17:46:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712251108u17174612gffe5080f92c55ebe@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30712251108u17174612gffe5080f92c55ebe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712251746.36257.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 25 December 2007, PJ Manney wrote: > Front page article in the Los Angeles Times on brain doping. ?Took > them long enough to notice. ?The article has an odd focus and feels > pieced together by someone who doesn't know much about the subject -- > I've seen more interesting hooks and data elsewhere. ?But at least > it's getting mainstream press. What do you mean by "at least"? Mainstream attention is detrimental to the well-being of the alt-cog or augcog industry. The public will want to ban it: those who can't afford it will question why it is that others get to be smarter by some 'miracle pill', among other things. Luckily, as the article suggests, there are some fronts that seem to be OK, like the ADHD scene (ahem) with quiet dissmissal of any of the issues so far. ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 00:18:26 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:18:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712251818.26102.kanzure@gmail.com> Are Guantanamo psychologists better programmers than the religious? Does their mindwipe go deep enough? Or is the rule of thumb now going to be: once susceptible, always susceptible? I wonder if anybody else realizes that this is government reprogramming the (deeply) religious. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would run with that one. On Tuesday 25 December 2007, PJ Manney wrote: > But for three years, the Interior Ministry has been trying to turn > impressionable militants away from radicalism through six weeks of > psychological counseling, religious reeducation, job training and art > therapy that can produce Jackson Pollock knock-offs and stark desert > scenes. Those who complete the program, such as Al-Dossari, receive > outreach counseling and are kept under surveillance. Six weeks? Is that all it takes? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 03:12:15 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:12:15 +1100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712251108u17174612gffe5080f92c55ebe@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30712251108u17174612gffe5080f92c55ebe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26/12/2007, PJ Manney wrote: > Front page article in the Los Angeles Times on brain doping. Took > them long enough to notice. The article has an odd focus and feels > pieced together by someone who doesn't know much about the subject -- > I've seen more interesting hooks and data elsewhere. But at least > it's getting mainstream press. I'd like to see a proper double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study demonstrating that cognitive enhancers work in well people before I take it seriously. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 26 04:32:14 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:32:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712260500.lBQ50tOK021118@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou > Subject: Re: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle > > On 26/12/2007, PJ Manney wrote: > > > ... But at least it's getting mainstream press. > > I'd like to see a proper double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled > study demonstrating that cognitive enhancers work in well people > before I take it seriously... Stathis Papaioannou The top chess players are still using good old caffeine after all these years. spike From amara at amara.com Wed Dec 26 08:44:07 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:44:07 -1000 Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja Message-ID: Stefano, That 'election' was rigged from every perspective by every observer (who were permitted to observe). The fact that he is popular in Russia does _not_ make that 'election' (let's call it a theatre) the slightest bit democratic. http://economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10268185 And that is just the tip of the iceberg of his 8 year regressive actions. (Putin's actions, however, are nothing new to the Baltic people, it's a familiar 50 year KGB template) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 11:43:25 2007 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:43:25 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Newtonmas wishes References: Message-ID: <040301c847b4$87e8de90$0202fea9@cpd01> This reminds me of a question. Why the Newtonmas topic was banned from Wikipedia? "Amara Graps" December 25, 2007 3:00 PM Newtonmas wishes > from the boat yesterday... > http://www.flickr.com/photos/spaceviolins/2135085028/ > > Wishing you all a Merry Newtonmas! > Amara From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 11:43:55 2007 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:43:55 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Nuclear Space (was: Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit) References: <200712242048.lBOKmPp8021082@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <011f01c846b7$e3a8a920$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <040401c847b4$99a1c3e0$0202fea9@cpd01> There's a site www.nuclearspace.com Anyway, I'd very much like to see some information on this working model test. Any youtube movie? Any pictures? "John K Clark" December 25, 2007 3:34 AM Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit >(...) > Wernher von Braun though all this was a dumb idea, then he saw a movie of > the launch of a one meter working model of Orion that shot 6 carefully > timed > high explosives chemical bombs out the back of the model, it rose 300 feet > into the air in stable controlled flight. Wernher von Braun became a vocal > supporter of project Orion. >(...) From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 14:31:52 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:31:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Nuclear Space (was: Asteroid on track for possible Mars hit) In-Reply-To: <040401c847b4$99a1c3e0$0202fea9@cpd01> References: <200712242048.lBOKmPp8021082@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <011f01c846b7$e3a8a920$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> <040401c847b4$99a1c3e0$0202fea9@cpd01> Message-ID: <200712260831.52575.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 26 December 2007, Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) wrote: > Anyway, I'd very much like to see some information on this working > model Yes, shouldn't that working model of the original Project Orion be in a museum somewhere or up for grabs somehow? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From jonkc at att.net Wed Dec 26 16:49:45 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:49:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hot Rod (was:Nuclear Space) References: <200712242048.lBOKmPp8021082@andromeda.ziaspace.com><011f01c846b7$e3a8a920$0bef4d0c@MyComputer><040401c847b4$99a1c3e0$0202fea9@cpd01> <200712260831.52575.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001f01c847df$5f4a19b0$2def4d0c@MyComputer> "Bryan Bishop" > Yes, shouldn't that working model of the original Project Orion be in a > museum somewhere or up for grabs somehow? The working model was called "Hot Rod" and was launched in 1959 at Point Loma California and is now is now in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. It used 6 explosive charges to reach an altitude of 105 meters, the first charge was of black powder but the other 5 were high explosives, PETN (Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate) . You can read what George Dyson and his father say about the test flight in his book, a little is online: http://books.google.com/books?id=4S2KocYp8AkC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=orion+explosives+model+%22hot+rod%22&source=web&ots=yQQ9JTzSrr&sig=7i_YeMRWmREqKXp7I9-GqqFzIO0#PPA157,M1 There is also some interesting stuff about Hot Rod at: http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/11/project-orion-hot-rod-revisited.html John K Clark From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 26 17:54:34 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:54:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Hot Rod (was:Nuclear Space) In-Reply-To: <001f01c847df$5f4a19b0$2def4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200712261756.lBQHuePp027229@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark ... > > The working model was called "Hot Rod" and was launched in 1959 at > Point Loma California and is now is now in the Smithsonian Air and > Space Museum. It used 6 explosive charges to reach an altitude of > 105 meters, the first charge was of black powder but the other 5 were > high explosives, PETN (Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate)... > John K Clark Interesting. John I realized after I read the site that an nuclear atmospheric launch and a deep space nuclear thruster are two very different things. We were talking about two completely different concepts, both of which use nukes as an energy source. Reasoning: an atmospheric launch Orion vehicle would actually use air as a momentum transfer fluid as opposed to an ablative material from the pusher plate. For the moment, ignore practical issues such as the legality of nuclear blasts in the atmosphere, the hordes of protestors, all that messy real world stuff. In an atmospheric Orion launch, air would be superheated from the nuclear blast. The air itself would then transfer momentum via a shock wave to the pusher plate. The air behind the pusher plate would momentarily be rarified, but would come rushing back from atmospheric pressure. Then the next blast would cause the air to push the bird again. We might want to design the pusher plate to ablate as little as possible, letting the air do the work. When the air gets really thin as the bird rises, and no longer an effective momentum transfer mechanism, then the thrust would need to result from momentum transfer via ablation of the material on the pusher plate. Altho these two concepts have some similarities, from an engineering point of view they are two different things. The deep space version would be very low acceleration, for instance, so that solves a bunch of the structural headaches instantly. The engineering of a deep space Orion is way easier to do, waaaaaay easier, than the other. I still don't see how the air launched Orion could be made to work. The acceleration loads, guidance problems from asymmetric thrust and aerodynamic forces on an air launch Orion would make me flee silently in the night. On the other hand, think of how relatively simple could be collecting a pile of nuclear fusion devices on a rocky asteroid a few hundred meters on a side, by lifting them via conventional means, all fifty year old technology. The center of gravity of the asteroid is located via star navigation and rocking the asteroid, a nuclear device is placed on the opposite side of the asteroid from your pile of bombs, a spring-loaded device pushes the bomb away and the detonation takes place when the bomb is perhaps a radius away from the surface, or perhaps a little less (I haven't done the calcs on that yet.) The surface ablates, the results is an acceleration of perhaps a half G for a tenth of a second, which is half a meter per second delta vee. The entire rock goes into a slow rotation from asymmetric thrust, which needs to be cancelled by intentional compensation from the next blast. It would take sixty thousand such blasts to get to the 30 km/sec we used in an earlier example. This process could take months to get up to a really big sexy delta vee, but the engineering is very simple, and what's the hurry anyway? spike From pjmanney at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 19:57:05 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:57:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle In-Reply-To: <200712251746.36257.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <29666bf30712251108u17174612gffe5080f92c55ebe@mail.gmail.com> <200712251746.36257.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30712261157j4be10315s9a6a84fd2fbe5352@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 25, 2007 3:46 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > What do you mean by "at least"? Mainstream attention is detrimental to > the well-being of the alt-cog or augcog industry. The public will want > to ban it: those who can't afford it will question why it is that > others get to be smarter by some 'miracle pill', among other things. I don't make the news. I just report it. :) What I mean by "at least" is, the New York Times, Washington Post and European news organizations, among others, have already been discussing these issues -- and the ramifications -- in print over the last couple of years. You and the LA Times are a little late on the uptake. More importantly, what do you recommend the people who develop these drugs and/or use them to do? Hide under a rock? Are all the consumers who are altering themselves or self-experimenting going to disappear? Since when has that ever happened? A societal dialogue should and will take place, like it has to a greater or lessor extent on every other H+ tech/modification. We haven't banned cosmetic surgery or personal communications technologies, just because some people can afford them and other's can't. Does the argument for inequality exist in those areas? Of course. We did ban steroids, but for different reasons than fear of inequality -- they're dangerous. If certain alt-cog techniques prove dangerous, they'll be banned, too. [However, steroids were only banned in sports for the PR appearances, as window dressing to maintain an illusion of a level playing field. Franchises and leagues have to be seen as prohibiting them, but they secretly encourage their use. Trust me, there is no sports franchise on Earth that feels bad for a kid on 'roids making millions of dollars a year as a sports entertainer because he'll suffer from negative side effects, no more than a movie exec feels bad about the negative side effects of an actress' plastic surgery or consumption of diet drugs. That's the price of admission for these kids and they all know it. The fact that they are made to feel they have to enhance is the consequence of the big-money distribution system they work in.] In reality, while some people debated the ethical issues and paved the way for acceptance, the tech snuck into the marketplace and found consumers. And money talks. I believe alt-cog is simply one of the next arenas for this progression. > Luckily, as the article suggests, there are some fronts that seem to be > OK, like the ADHD scene (ahem) with quiet dissmissal of any of the > issues so far. If you think hiding this phenomenon (or any other H+ one) is going to make its eventual acceptance easier, I think you're wrong. New ideas only become acceptable or mainstream through exposure and trial, plus repetition, repetition, repetition. When "yuck" becomes "yeah", then they are taken for granted. And a consumer only knows if they are interested in or capable of pursuing a choice like this with access to information. PJ From pjmanney at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 19:58:50 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:58:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle In-Reply-To: <200712260500.lBQ50tOK021118@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712260500.lBQ50tOK021118@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30712261158g6461616dsa4f5758af7aaa023@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 25, 2007 8:32 PM, spike wrote: > The top chess players are still using good old caffeine after all these > years. Would you really know if they weren't? Do you think they would be advertising their use of Ritalin or Modifinil? PJ From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 26 19:57:37 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:57:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Hot Rod (was:Nuclear Space) In-Reply-To: <200712261756.lBQHuePp027229@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712261959.lBQJxhAn008167@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > The entire rock goes into a slow rotation from asymmetric thrust, which needs to be cancelled by intentional compensation from the next blast. > > It would take sixty thousand such blasts to get to the 30 km/sec we used > in an earlier example... > > spike > After I wrote this, I realized the rotation doesn't need to be cancelled. On the contrary, it would be intentionally preserved. Imagine a roughly round rock a km in diameter, rotating at 1 revolution per minute. Assume we want to detonate the device at about half a radius from the surface, say about 250 meters. We would have our pile of nukes and a spring launcher all in one spot. We set the spring launcher to push the device to rise 250 meters in 30 seconds, 8 cm per second, then set the device to explode in 30 seconds after release, at which time we and our pile of nukes would be over on the other side of the rock from the blast. Rinse and repeat, sixty thousand times. And pray to evolution or your favorite deity that the timer and the spring launcher work perfectly every single time. At one detonation per minute, you could get R done in about six weeks. spike From jonkc at att.net Wed Dec 26 20:52:51 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:52:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hot Rod (was:Nuclear Space) References: <200712261756.lBQHuePp027229@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <002e01c84801$57c3dc40$65f04d0c@MyComputer> "spike" Wrote: > We might want to design the pusher plate to ablate as little as > possible, letting the air do the work. I think that is true. > When the air gets really thin as the bird rises, and no longer an > effective momentum transfer mechanism, then the thrust would need to > result from momentum transfer via ablation of the material on the pusher > plate. I believe you'd always want to minimize ablation, I think you'd have to if you wanted it to last through 2000 nuclear blasts. The idea was to encase a 200 pound bomb as powerful as the one that destroyed Nagasaki inside a capsule full of water that weighed several times as much, the water provides most of the momentum transfer. > I still don't see how the air launched Orion could be made to work. I admit that was my first reaction too, but Hot Rod worked; and it also sounds crazy to evenly compress a solid sphere of Uranium with high explosives, it's laughable, it's like trying to compress Jello with rubber bands, but son of a bitch they made implosion work too! Artists have even etched beautiful murals onto solid steel using high explosives, and that also sounds ridiculous; apparently you can do lots of delicate things with high explosives if you know exactly what you're doing. Ted Taylor, the head of Orion, designed a nuclear bomb where almost all the energy came out in 2 narrow jets 180 degrees apart, he thought one bomb like that could instantly create a ready to use 1000 foot tunnel through solid granite. Ready to use except for the radiation, but don't bother me with minor details. The launch of an Orion spacecraft would be just about the most spectacular thing a mere human being could ever see, although I'd want to be at least 5 miles away in a bunker with thirty foot steel reinforced concrete walls. John K Clark From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 26 21:22:11 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:22:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712261157j4be10315s9a6a84fd2fbe5352@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712262150.lBQLovTt005051@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of PJ Manney ... > > ... We haven't banned cosmetic surgery or personal communications > technologies, just because some people can afford them and other's > can't. Does the argument for inequality exist in those areas? Of > course. We did ban steroids, but for different reasons than fear of > inequality -- they're dangerous. ... PJ PJ, have you noticed those who take the greatest interest in cosmetic surgery are those who are already beautiful? The most advanced communications tech is used by those who already communicated effectively, and steroids are mostly used by the already buff. Perhaps society will accept that cognitive enhancers should be explored by the already smart. spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 26 22:04:22 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:04:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712261158g6461616dsa4f5758af7aaa023@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712262206.lBQM6RAD012693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of PJ Manney > Subject: Re: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle > > On Dec 25, 2007 8:32 PM, spike wrote: > > The top chess players are still using good old caffeine after all these > > years. > > Would you really know if they weren't? Do you think they would be > advertising their use of Ritalin or Modifinil? > > PJ Good point. It would intentionally be kept secret. As an entertaining aside, consider the world chess championship between Gary Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov in 1984. The championship title was to go to the first player to win six games, draws didn't count. Karpov was using massive doses of caffeine, equivalent to about ten strong cups before each game, then coffee during the game. Karpov won four of the first nine games, but then Kasparov (correctly) recognized that Karpov couldn't keep on with that much stimulant, so he began playing very conservatively. Karpov won one game after 17 consecutive draws(!), pulling the score to 5 to 0, where it stayed for a long time. Kasparov won one in another marathon string of draws, bringing the score to 5-1. Karpov kept on with the massive doses of caffeine. Was he able to sleep after all that no-doz? How long did it take to wear off? As the weeks drew on with draw after draw, Karpov steadily wore down until he finally collapsed. Kasparov suddenly won two consecutive games, bringing the score to 5-3. It was a *very* exciting time for those of us who don't like commies, for Kasparov was an outspoken opponent of the Soviet system even way back then when in his late teens. It appeared Karpov was unable to continue playing. The quality of his play in the last two games showed he was punch drunk, the victim of a technical knockout. No one knows how it happened, but evidently the commies (tricky bastids are they, never trust em) managed to influence the officials, either by bribery or threats or both. They inexplicably stopped the match and declared Karpov and Kasparov co-champions. This was after 48 games and almost five months of play, when most realized only three more games would have been necessary to crown an unambiguous champion. In our hearts we know who *really* won that match. Kasparov was recognized as the real world champion, until his retirement over twenty years later. With all his shameless capitalistic notions, he started his own professionals chess league, which prospered. Karpov's star faded, along with the phony and corrupt world chess organization (FIDE) and its now-disgraced championship matches. The true world championship is just now being established in 2008. An American will play in it, woohoo! {8-] This much we now know: massive doses of caffeine work for some mental applications in the short run. Long term it has its risks. spike From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Wed Dec 26 22:10:27 2007 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:10:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712261158g6461616dsa4f5758af7aaa023@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712260500.lBQ50tOK021118@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <29666bf30712261158g6461616dsa4f5758af7aaa023@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Spike wrote: > The top chess players are still using good old caffeine after all these > years. To which PJ responded: > Would you really know if they weren't? Do you think they would be > advertising their use of Ritalin or Modifinil? Well, just Google Chess and Ritalin and you'll come up with articles accusing chess champions of "mental doping," see e.g., http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006/11/drug-testing-controversy.html -------------------------- James Clement, J.D., LL.M. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.8/1196 - Release Date: 12/25/2007 12:18 PM From pjmanney at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 22:24:55 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:24:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle In-Reply-To: <200712262150.lBQLovTt005051@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <29666bf30712261157j4be10315s9a6a84fd2fbe5352@mail.gmail.com> <200712262150.lBQLovTt005051@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30712261424t32aab9c8sa74a937a944b5a64@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 26, 2007 1:22 PM, spike wrote: > > PJ, have you noticed those who take the greatest interest in cosmetic > surgery are those who are already beautiful? The most advanced > communications tech is used by those who already communicated effectively, > and steroids are mostly used by the already buff. Perhaps society will > accept that cognitive enhancers should be explored by the already smart. I suspect this observation is not statistically accurate and more an impression left behind from media exposure. Cultural consumers are interested in role models and the beautiful/talented/connected/powerful are better used to sell their commensurate technologies than middle classed John Smith of Middletown -- although there is the power in the "Cinderella" story of extreme makeover and the inspirational story of overcoming great hardship, aided by [fill in the H+ tech blank] that didn't exist to help them before. For instance, if you look at the statistics of cosmetic surgery use, non-genetically gifted people use it far more than gifted ones. It's how they overcome their lack of genetic gifts. As for steroids, they're harder to use because they're illegal and one needs to have something on the line to justify hurting one's self in the long run. Also, the gifted/talented are using those gifts and talents to make money and any edge helps. And we all try to lead with our strengths, don't we? PJ From jonkc at att.net Thu Dec 27 05:50:45 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:50:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year References: <29666bf30712261157j4be10315s9a6a84fd2fbe5352@mail.gmail.com><200712262150.lBQLovTt005051@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <29666bf30712261424t32aab9c8sa74a937a944b5a64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001a01c8484c$89837fb0$65ee4d0c@MyComputer> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================= One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================= Happy New Year all. I predict that a paper reporting positive psi results will NOT appear in Nature or Science in the next year. This may seem an outrageous prediction, after all psi is hardly a rare phenomena, millions of people with no training have managed to observe it, or claim they have. And I am sure the good people at Nature and Science would want to say something about this very important and obvious part of our natural world if they could, but I predict they will be unable to find anything interesting to say about it. You might think my prediction is crazy, like saying a waitress with an eight's grade education in Duluth Minnesota can regularly observe the Higgs boson with no difficulty but the highly trained Physicists at CERN in Switzerland cannot. Nevertheless I am confident my prediction is true because my ghostly spirit guide Mohammad Duntoldme spoke to me about it in a dream. PS: I am also confident I can make this very same prediction one year from today. John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 27 06:45:04 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:45:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: <001a01c8484c$89837fb0$65ee4d0c@MyComputer> References: <29666bf30712261157j4be10315s9a6a84fd2fbe5352@mail.gmail.com> <200712262150.lBQLovTt005051@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <29666bf30712261424t32aab9c8sa74a937a944b5a64@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c8484c$89837fb0$65ee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071227004202.021fe8f8@satx.rr.com> >Happy New Year all. > >I predict that a paper reporting proof that Islam is the true word >of God will NOT appear >as a Papal Bull in the next year. This may seem an outrageous >prediction, after all adherence to Muslim doctrines is hardly a rare >phenomena, a billion people with no training have managed to observe it From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Dec 27 08:36:45 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:36:45 +1100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Drugs to build up that mental muscle In-Reply-To: References: <200712260500.lBQ50tOK021118@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <29666bf30712261158g6461616dsa4f5758af7aaa023@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 27/12/2007, James Clement wrote: > Well, just Google Chess and Ritalin and you'll come up with articles > accusing chess champions of "mental doping," That's not exactly new. People have been taking stimulants like cocaine for centuries, probably millenia. They can help fight fatigue and improve concentration in small doses for short periods, which might give someone a slight edge in a long tournament, but the limitations of these drugs are well-known. There are people who claim they function better on stimulants, alcohol, cannabis etc., and maybe they do under certain circumstances, but this does not make their substance of choice a "smart drug". BTW, cocaine, amphetamines, methylphenidate are all pharmacologically similar. "Ritalin" (methylphenidate) is mainly a marketing exercise so that people don't realise they're giving their kid speed. -- Stathis Papaioannou From jonkc at att.net Thu Dec 27 15:17:35 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:17:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year References: <29666bf30712261157j4be10315s9a6a84fd2fbe5352@mail.gmail.com><200712262150.lBQLovTt005051@andromeda.ziaspace.com><29666bf30712261424t32aab9c8sa74a937a944b5a64@mail.gmail.com><001a01c8484c$89837fb0$65ee4d0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20071227004202.021fe8f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001601c8489c$3b2b2340$f6f04d0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > I predict that a paper reporting proof that Islam > is the true word of God will NOT appear as a > Papal Bull in the next year. Give credit where credit is due, if your prediction is correct then that is to the Pope's credit, just as ignoring psi is to Nature's credit, however I don't think that is what you were trying to say. You seem to be saying that in order to take psi seriously one must assume that the editors of Science and Nature and Physical Review Letters and all the top science journals in the last century have had no more credibility than the Pope, and that this unfortunate situation will not improve in the coming years. And that my dear Damien is indeed Bull. John K Clark From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 27 16:17:20 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:17:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: <001601c8489c$3b2b2340$f6f04d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200712271646.lBRGk4jq005719@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year > > "Damien Broderick" > > > I predict that a paper reporting proof that Islam > > is the true word of God will NOT appear as a > > Papal Bull in the next year. Sometimes words just translate funny across cultures and languages. "Papal Bull" is a jewel, as the term "bull" is a common USism, a polite way to say bullshit. spike From pjmanney at gmail.com Thu Dec 27 19:24:50 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:24:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Scientists can't get their minds around Alzheimer's Message-ID: <29666bf30712271124q175cfa45l7ac202d9e760880b@mail.gmail.com> Apparently, no one can come up with agreement as to the causes or mechanisms behind Alzheimer's. And that's causing problems. "...after listening to scientists discussing Alzheimer's and how to fix it, it is hard to come to any conclusion but that, at least for the moment, the Alzheimer's endeavor is a mess." "More common are sentiments such as that expressed by Eli Lilly's Karran in the talk he gave to open the San Francisco conference. After describing his notion of what the Alzheimer's disease process was, he said: 'If the pharmaceutical industry had known what this looked like, we never would have started working on it.'" @#$%... (fill in your favorite profanity) PJ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-alzheimers27dec27,0,1354769.story?coll=la-home-center >From the Los Angeles Times Scientists can't get their minds around Alzheimer's They still aren't sure what causes the disease or how to cure it. And the stakes have never been higher. By Terry McDermott Los Angeles Times Staff Writer December 27, 2007 SAN FRANCISCO ? On a warm autumn afternoon, toward the end of a daylong barrage of PowerPoint presentations, a white-haired, gentlemanly fellow named Michael Merzenich faced a room full of neuroscientists and pharmaceutical executives and declared that, really, they could all pack up and go home. He thought he could stop Alzheimer's disease by doing nothing more than sitting old people down for a few months in front of computer screens and retraining their brains. What was odd about Merzenich's pronouncement was that it hardly seemed odd at all. He had been preceded to the stage -- and was followed the next day -- by a procession of researchers who offered widely variant prescriptions for confronting the disease, many as complicated as Merzenich's was comparatively simple. The scientists blamed Alzheimer's on misfolded proteins, broken neural pathways, misprinted gene maps, everything, it seemed, but the stage of the moon. Here and elsewhere for years they have laid plans to fight the disease with all of the Big Pharma firepower they could muster. But they also talked about inhaling insulin, eating turmeric, fixing vitamin deficiencies, injecting stem cells and inventing neuro-protective vaccines. They couldn't all have been talking about the same disease, could they? A month after San Francisco, at another conference (this time in New York), some of the same participants delivered much of the same data, but with yet more novel approaches piled on. A month later, the road show moved on to San Diego, where even more alternate explanations were added to the roll. As with Merzenich, when someone stands in front of a crowd of excessively bright and dedicated scientists and delivers a theory radically different from what everyone else in the room has been saying, nobody blinks. Or even seems to notice. It wasn't that the other scientists thought Merzenich was wrong or right or crazy. He is a highly respected neuroscientist. In Alzheimer's research, lots of people seemed to have quit believing anything is wrong or right or crazy. Mainly, they shrug. Surveying the ideas proposed at the New York meeting, Grant Krafft, chairman of Acumen Pharmaceuticals Inc. of South San Francisco, shook his head and sighed. "There was a lot of mucked-up science here today," he said. There are currently five medications approved for treatment of Alzheimer's in the United States, one of which causes severe problems and is rarely prescribed. The other four take in an estimated $4 billion a year. They do nothing to stop the disease and have only marginal, often transitory effects on its symptoms. They're on sale because there is little else to offer people afflicted with the mind-crippling disease. There are 56 more drugs in some stage of the clinical trials regulated by the Food and Drug Administration; few people other than their creators have great hopes they will work. Sometimes, not even the creators are optimistic. Wyeth, a New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company, has 10 candidate Alzheimer's drugs in clinical trials. Drug companies have had such difficulty translating their research into effective neural disease treatments that Wyeth has decided to push everything it had into trials and see what, if anything, worked. Internally, Wyeth calls this the "fail faster" approach. Neil Buckholtz, chief of the dementias of aging branch of the National Institute on Aging, said the pharmaceutical industry had little choice. "This is basically a 'throw the spaghetti against the wall' strategy. . . . We just have to try these various approaches. It's very time consuming, very expensive, but it's the only way we'll know if things work or not." Spaghetti or not, after listening to scientists discussing Alzheimer's and how to fix it, it is hard to come to any conclusion but that, at least for the moment, the Alzheimer's endeavor is a mess. What's at stake The individual devastations of Alzheimer's disease are by now well known. It is one of several, and by far the most common, of so-called neurodegenerative diseases; literally, diseases that destroy the brain. Alzheimer's first afflicts the areas where new memories are encoded. Early symptoms include the incidental episodes of forgetfulness often brushed off as "senior moments." The symptoms progress, slowly at first, to more frequent memory disruptions, to broader cognitive problems -- confusion, disorganization, disorientation. Eventually, as the disease works its way through more areas of the brain, it alters personality and destroys the self, reducing the victim to little more than a warm body greatly in need of care. An estimated 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's. That number has lately been growing exponentially; ironically, as medical care improves and people live longer every decade, it will continue to do so. By 2010, Alzheimer's care will cost Medicare about $160 billion a year. By 2035, it could overtake the defense budget. One analysis has estimated that by 2050, Alzheimer's will cost Medicare more than $1 trillion annually. Those numbers do not include privately insured and uninsured costs. "From a social and economic view, it is about the money, the growing diversion of resources to sustain life in those increasingly unaware of their own lives," Harry Tracy wrote recently in NeuroInvestment, his industry newsletter. "There is no greater public health issue looming in the developed world." While the cost of Alzheimer's soars, federal money spent on research has flattened and is expected to decline in real terms in the future as the competition for federal money heightens. The rising costs of treating the disease coupled with reduced research funding is, to some, a foreboding combination. Andy Grove, the former chairman of Intel Corp., spoke at this year's Society for Neuroscience convention in San Diego. Grove, who has Parkinson's disease, lamented the lack of a full-scale attack on neurodegenerative disorders: "We are about to experience an explosion of Alzheimer's disease cases. . . . This situation is best compared to astronomers following a meteor hurdling toward San Diego, aimed to hit a very precisely calculated place and time. What would we do if we had such a situation? I think we would take it a little more seriously than we take the economic meteor that's coming just as predictably our way." Research confusion It's been 101 years since Alzheimer's disease was first theorized, and 30 years since the federal government began funding research on it, spending, to date, more than $8 billion. Private industry has spent billions more. What has been learned? The answer is perplexing. There have been more than 35,000 scientific papers published on Alzheimer's just in the last decade. They include hundreds of impressively detailed descriptions of purported disease mechanisms. But in all that wealth of information, there are some rather obvious gaps. For example, the leading hypothesis of the cause of Alzheimer's, called the amyloid hypothesis, is centered on the overproduction, or inadequate clearance, in the brain of a protein called beta amyloid. Fragments of the protein aggregate into clumps called plaques. These plaques were first observed more than a century ago by the man after whom the disease is named, Alois Alzheimer. For most of the century since, scientists have believed the plaques were associated with the disease. But to date, they don't know whether amyloid plaques are the cause of the disease or a result. They don't know whether they are vital to the progress of the disease or incidental. They don't even know whether their presence is indicative of the disease. A rival idea, called the tau hypothesis, is no more definitive. Where beta amyloid generally aggregates outside brain cells, the protein tau aggregates into fibrous structures, called tangles, inside the cells. The processes by which either amyloid or tau cause brain cells to malfunction, and in some cases die, are neither well understood nor completely coincident with observations of the disease itself. For a long while, the Alzheimer's field was divided between the two warring camps -- the so-called (beta amyloid) Baptists and Tauists. Now, the two-front war has exploded. The lack of resolution has produced a surfeit of competing hypotheses, the most prominent of which focuses on what happens with beta amyloid before plaques form. Beta amyloid is common in the brain and not harmful when it exists in single strands. Plaques contain thousands of strands. This new hypothesis holds that much smaller accumulations of the proteins, containing as few as half a dozen strands, are the real culprit in Alzheimer's. These smaller accumulations, called oligomers, are, because of their small size, able to travel between neurons in a way that plaques cannot. Researchers have discovered that oligomers can be toxic to brain cells long before plaques ever form. This would explain why some people who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's were not found to have plaques. The evidence that oligomers are dangerous has been so persuasive that many of the leading proponents of the amyloid hypothesis have incorporated them into their models. Inconveniently for scientists, there are no definitive physical markers for Alzheimer's in living patients. There is no blood test or tissue sample that can be taken and examined. It is diagnosed by the symptoms a patient exhibits, and there is no way to know definitively what is going on inside a patient's brain. Complicating matters are preliminary results from the first long-term studies. David Bennett of the Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center in Chicago persuaded more than 2,000 older people who had no signs of dementia to undergo cognitive testing, beginning in 1992. As they aged, some of the people developed cognitive difficulties. Some had mild cognitive symptoms. Some none. Some developed full-bore Alzheimer's. The participants agreed that after death their brains would be available for autopsy. Bennett has examined 660 of the brains. Only about a third of the people had developed symptoms of dementia. Yet Bennett found that more than 90% of the brains bore the plaque/tangle hallmarks of the disease. Some people who had the symptoms did not have the tau tangles or the beta amyloid plaques. Some who didn't have the symptoms had the plaques or tangles; some had both. The implications of this are confounding and frightening. Could it be that Alzheimer's is not a specific disease, but a normal part of growing old? Bennett recoils at the implication. Alzheimer's might be associated with aging; that doesn't mean it is caused by it, he said. "Alzheimer's disease is extremely common. The estimates are probably gross underestimates. Is it statistically normal? Yes. But if you use normal to mean the same as puberty, something inevitable, no, absolutely not." He notes that ancient Egyptians all developed tooth decay by age 40. "But there was nothing normal about it -- it was the environment," he said. Marcelle Morrison-Bogorad, associate director of the National Institute on Aging's neuroscience and neuropsychology of aging program, finds Bennett's data deeply disturbing. She said "the distinction is getting fuzzier and fuzzier between normal aging and diseases like Alzheimer's disease. This brings into question if these people are normal or not. I don't think we can tell anymore who is normal. "It worries me a lot, actually, because we've been trying to reassure people who are older that small lapses in memory are part of normal aging. . . . This research is suggesting, not proving, that it might be a sign of something down the road. That's not good news." To say that Alzheimer's is normal is not something anyone wants to hear. Medicine can't stop people from getting old. And you can't fix old age. Other than the simple arithmetic of it, no one really even knows what aging is. They know what accompanies it; they haven't a clue what causes it. Some people, of course, live to be 100 and never suffer dementia. But dementia is clearly associated with old age. Any individual's probability of having Alzheimer's is the sum total of a variety of factors. Gary Lynch of UC Irvine summarized those factors as a combination of an individual's genetic endowment, pre-birth conditions, life experiences, environmental conditions and health accidents. If, for example, you were born with a mutation of a particular lipid transport gene and you had banged your head on the pavement when you were 12, your chances of having Alzheimer's would be many times greater than someone who had the right genes and wore a helmet religiously when skateboarding. Pharma difficulties Eric Karran, chief scientific officer at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co., states the obvious when he says his industry is "in a lot of trouble at the moment." New drug candidates are failing trials. Old drugs are the subjects of lawsuits. The industry is accused of having insufficient concerns about the safety of its products while being urged by specific patient groups to take more risks to develop medicines for them. Patents are expiring on successful drugs, meaning revenue for many companies is about to fall off what is darkly referred to within the industry as the patent cliff. The failure to learn what causes Alzheimer's has made development of ways to treat it problematic, but the pharmaceutical industry has already sunk billions into Alzheimer's programs. The disease is too tempting a financial target to ignore. Much of the basic research of the last decade has been aimed at building an understanding of how the normal process within brain cells can break down. That process is an elaborate one, involving what biologists call cascades of events -- dozens, to perhaps hundreds, of steps long. Every step represents a point of potential failure. Each also represents a point of potential intervention. Science has learned to intervene in many normal biological processes by manufacturing molecules that will disrupt one step, thus halting the cascade. That's the theory, but it is also the biggest obstacle. The cascade wouldn't exist if it didn't do something useful. Here's an example. So far, the primary genetic contribution to normal, or late-onset, Alzheimer's, the most common form of the disease, occurs with the mutation of a gene that makes a protein called ApoE. It might be possible to devise a way to render that protein inactive. But that causes other, potentially larger, problems. ApoE is a lipid transporter. Its main job is to carry lipids, including cholesterol, from the interior of cells to be broken down, destroyed and carried away for disposal. Think of it as taking out the garbage. A drug to attack ApoE would destroy one of the body's natural systems of disposing of cholesterol. Alzheimer's has been particularly intractable, but there are optimists. Dennis Selkoe of Harvard University, one of the most prominent Alzheimer's researchers, thinks there might be an effective therapy found within the next year or two. He thinks the disease process is now sufficiently understood. "If drugs fail, it will be because they are not potent enough," he said, not because they don't attack the disease process. Buckholtz, of the National Institute on Aging, said the wide variety of proposals now in circulation reflected the vigor of the underlying science. "The therapeutics are targeted at different pathways that may be involved. I think that's a good thing," he said. "Although it's frustrating they haven't been more efficacious, I continue to be optimistic that by having all these targets available we'll have something soon." More common are sentiments such as that expressed by Eli Lilly's Karran in the talk he gave to open the San Francisco conference. After describing his notion of what the Alzheimer's disease process was, he said: "If the pharmaceutical industry had known what this looked like, we never would have started working on it." terry.mcdermott at latimes.com From painlord2k at yahoo.it Thu Dec 27 17:29:29 2007 From: painlord2k at yahoo.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:29:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia In-Reply-To: <200712251818.26102.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com> <200712251818.26102.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4773E0F9.2080101@yahoo.it> Bryan Bishop ha scritto: > Are Guantanamo psychologists better programmers than the religious? Does > their mindwipe go deep enough? Or is the rule of thumb now going to be: > once susceptible, always susceptible? > > I wonder if anybody else realizes that this is government reprogramming > the (deeply) religious. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would run > with that one. > > On Tuesday 25 December 2007, PJ Manney wrote: >> But for three years, the Interior Ministry has been trying to turn >> impressionable militants away from radicalism through six weeks of >> psychological counseling, religious reeducation, job training and art >> therapy that can produce Jackson Pollock knock-offs and stark desert >> scenes. Those who complete the program, such as Al-Dossari, receive >> outreach counseling and are kept under surveillance. > Six weeks? Is that all it takes? Six years in Guantanamo and six weeks in rehab. I would not underestimate the educative effect of six years in Guantanamo (or any close place) or the educative effect of becoming six years older under hard conditions. Also, living the "real" Jihad and not watching it on TV or by tales put it on a more "realistic" light. If we could "rehab" the extremist in only six weeks, we could for sure "rehab" many more people like psychiatric cases and drug addicts in a similar time frame. And the money saving would be considerable. Mirco -- [Intangible capital is] the preponderant form of wealth. When we look at the shares of intangible capital across income classes, you see it goes from about 60 percent in low-income countries to 80 percent in high-income countries. That accords very much with the notion that what really makes countries wealthy is not the bits and pieces, it's the brainpower, and the institutions that harness that brainpower. It's the skills more than the rocks and minerals. ?Kirk Hamilton Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sun Dec 23 08:01:47 2007 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:01:47 +0700 (GMT+07:00) Subject: [ExI] Fw: Jonathan's Space Report, No. 589 Message-ID: <18706014.1198396908538.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- >From: Planet4589 >Sent: Dec 22, 2007 5:32 AM >Subject: Jonathan's Space Report, No. 589 > >Jonathan's Space Report >No. 589 2007 Dec 21, Somerville, MA >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Shuttle and Station >------------------- > >The next launch is Shuttle mission STS-122, Station flight 1E, carrying >the European Columbus module to the Station. Launch will be no earlier >than 2008 Jan. > >Peggy Whitson and Dan Tani made a spacewalk, US EVA-13, on Dec 18. The >Quest airlock was depressurized at about 0948 UTC and repressurized at >1646 UTC; the astronauts inspected the malfunctioning solar array >rotation joint and beta gimbal assembly. > > >Kosmos-2434 >------------ > >A Globus communications satellite built by NPO PM for the Russian >Defense Ministry was launched on Dec 9 on a Proton-M/Briz-M and given >the cover name Kosmos-2434. Previous Globus satellites were given the >Raduga-1 cover name. The Briz-M probably entered an initial 173 x 173 km >orbit; it then reached a 273 x 4991 km x 49 deg intermediate orbit, and >next a 400 x 35815 km x 49 deg geostationary transfer orbit. By Dec 18 >the payload was at 79.6E in a 35569 x 35956 km x 0.1 deg orbit. It's not >clear what happened to the Briz-M jettisonable propellant tank. > >Cosmo 2 >-------------- > >The second Italian military radar satellite in the Cosmo-Skymed system >was launched on Dec 9 by a Boeing Delta 7420-10. At second stage first >cutoff the orbit was 185 x 645 km x 97.8 deg; a second burn at 0325 UTC >put the satellite in a 620 x 637 km orbit. > >Space Command is now calling the satellite Skymed 2, but the Boeing >launch booklet referred to it as Cosmo. > >Radarsat 2 >---------- > >Canada's Radarsat 2 satellite was launched on Dec 14 by a Russian >Soyuz-FG/Fregat into a 790 x 798 km x 98 deg orbit. The Soyuz third >stage was in a 169 x 206 km parking orbit and reentered later the >same day; the Fregat stage was deorbited after releasing Radarsat. > > >Erratum: >-------- >In my discussion of the Delta 4 Heavy launch I inadvertently referred >to the upper stage as a Centaur. Although it uses a similar RL-10 family >rocket engine, the Delta 4 Second Stage is of course not a Centaur. > >A source reports that the orbit of the Nanosat-2 satellite launched in >Dec 2004 on the first Delta 4 Heavy was 105 x 196 km x 27 deg. >Nanosat-2, which consisted of two small satellites which remained >attached to each other, is believed to have reentered less than one hour >after launch. > >Yaogan 3 >-------- > >As I reported previously, China's new radar satellite Yaogan 3 was >launched at 2248 UTC on Nov 11. The Yaogan 3 satellite originally >reached a 456 x 612 km x 97.9 deg orbit and separated from the third >stage at 2309 UTC on Nov 11. Although China announced that the rocket >had a new restart capability on the third stage, I can't tell if this >was used. At first apogee about 2315 UTC on Nov 11, Yaogan used its own onboard >engine to raise orbit to 613 x 623 km; on Nov 20 and 21 small adjustment >burns trimmed the orbit to 627 x 629 km. > >EPOXI >----------- > >The EPOXI (formerly Deep Impact) probe made a course correction on Nov 1 >to set up for a Dec 31 Earth flyby, and an encounter with comet >103P/Hartley 2 on 2010 Oct 11, just before the comet reaches perihelion >at 1.06AU on 2010 Oct 28. > >EPOXI will pass 15566 km over Australia at 1930 UTC on Dec 31. The flyby >will change its solar orbit from 0.98 x 1.64 AU x 0.7 deg to 0.91 x 1.09 >AU x 4.2 deg. > >NROL-24 >------- > >Atlas V mission AV-015 launched a classified satellite for the US >National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The payload for launch NROL-24 has >been given the cover name USA-198 and is thought to be >an SDS (Satellite Data System) data relay satellite used to relay >surveillance imagery and data from low altitude polar orbiting >NRO spacecraft. > >The Centaur entered a low parking orbit and then a deployment orbit of >261 x 16776 km x 60.0 deg (according to visual observations reported by >independent sources). This compares with the 267 x 15379 km x 58.0 deg >deployment orbit of the previous mission in the series, USA 179. The >payload will use its own on-board propulsion to raise the orbit to >around 1000 x 39400 km x 63 deg. > >Some observers speculated that the SBIRS HEO-2 infrared missile warning >package and the TWINS-B magnetospheric research package might also be >aboard, although I believe that next year's NROL-28 mission is a more >likely fit for these and for the third Interim Polar Adjunct >communications package. > >The first generation SDS satellites were launched by Titan 34B/Agena D >rockets and deployed directly into 12-hour orbits. Here is a list of >more recent SDS HEO (highly elliptical orbit) satellites: > >SDS HEO Launches > Parking orbit Deployment orbit > >1989-61B USA 40 401 x 502 x 57.0 532 x 8135 x 57.0 >1992-86B USA 89 364 x 380 x 57.0 372 x 7300?x 56.9 >1996-38A USA 125 292 x 300 x 54.9 383 x 14072 x 55.4 >1998-05A USA 137 (CAPRICORN) 191 x 795 x 62.5 Unknown >2004-34A USA 179 (NROL-1/NEMESIS) 191 x 400 x 58.4 267 x 15379 x 58.0 >2007-60A USA 198 (NROL-24/SCORPIUS) 209 x 262 x 60.0 261 x 16776 x 60.0 > >Another constellation of NRO spacecraft uses a similar final orbit and >are thought to be primarily signals intelligence payloads associated >with the code-name TRUMPET. There were three such launches in 1994-1997. >A more recent launch may be related; USA 184 also carries the TWINS-A >and SBIRS HEO-1 payloads. NROL-28 is likely to be similar to USA-184. >Unlike the SDS launches, these flights deploy their payloads directly >into the 12-hour orbit. > >1994-26A USA 103 200 x 200?x 57 1323 x 39035 x 64.4 >1995-34A USA 112 245 x 255 x 56.1 Unknown >1997-68A USA 136 (+IPA-1?) 185 x 185 x 55.0 1098 x 39012 x 63.6 > >2006-27A USA 184 (NROL-22) 193 x 2215 x 62.5 1111 x 37594 x 62.4 > (+TWINS-A/SBIRS-HEO-1/IPA-2?) >2008? USA ? (NROL-28 + TWINS-B/SBIRS-HEO-2/IPA-3?) > > >GPS 57 >------ > >The Navstar Global Positioning System GPS space vehicle 57, the 18th >GPS IIR and 5th upgraded IIR-M, was launched from Cape Canaveral at 2004 >UTC on Dec 20. It reached a preliminary 174 x 203 km x 37.5 deg parking >orbit at 2014 UTC and was delivered to elliptical transfer orbit at 2114 UTC. > >Ariane L530 >----------- > >Arianespace launched Ariane 5GS vehicle L530 (flight V180) on Dec 21. >The EPC core stage reached a 30 x 1730 km x 7.3 deg orbit, reentering >on the first perigee. The EPS upper stage reached geostationary >transfer orbit and deployed two telecommunications satellites, >RASCOM-QAF-1 and Horizons 2. > >RASCOM-QAF-1 is a Thales (Cannes) Spacebus 4000B3 with a hybrid Ku/C-band >payload for RascomStarQAF of Port Louis, Mauritius, a subsidiary of the >Regional African Satellite Communications Organization (RASCOM) based >in Cote d'Ivoire. The mission and satellite control centers are >in Cameroun and Libay; the satellite will provide voice, data and >internet in Africa. > >Horizons 2 is an Orbital Star 2 Ku-band satellite for Horizons Satellite >Holdings LLC, a joint venture of Intelsat and the Japanese JSAT company. > > > >Table of Recent (orbital) Launches >---------------------------------- >Date UT Name Launch Vehicle Site Mission INTL. > DES. >Nov 1 0051 SAR-Lupe 3 ) Kosmos-3M Plesetsk LC132/1 Radar 53A > AIS ) 53B >Nov 11 0150 DSP 23 Delta 4H Canaveral SLC37B Early Warn 54A >Nov 11 2248 Yaogan 3 Chang Zheng 4C Taiyuan Radar 55A >Nov 14 2206 Skynet 5B ) Ariane 5ECA Kourou ELA3 Comms 56B > Star One C1 ) 56A >Nov 17 2239 Sirius 4 Proton-M/Briz-M Baykonur LC200/39 Comms 57A >Dec 9 0015 Kosmos-2434 Proton-M/Briz-M Baykonur LC81/24 Comms 58A >Dec 9 0231 Cosmo 2 Delta 7420-10 Vandenberg SLC2W Radar 59A >Dec 10 2205 USA 198 (NROL-24) Atlas V 401 Canaveral SLC41 Comms? 60A >Dec 14 1317 Radarsat-2 Soyuz-FG/Fregat Baykonur LC31 Radar 61A >Dec 20 2004 GPS 57 Delta 7925 Canaveral SLC17A Nav 62A? >Dec 21 2141 Rascom-QAF-1 ) Ariane 5GS Kourou ELA3 Comms 63A? > Horizons 2 ) Comms 63B? > >.-------------------------------------------------------------------------. >| Jonathan McDowell | phone : (617) 495-7176 | >| Somerville MA 02143 | inter : jcm at host.planet4589.org | >| USA | jcm at cfa.harvard.edu | >| | >| JSR: http://www.planet4589.org/jsr.html | >| Back issues: http://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/back | >| Subscribe/unsub: mail majordomo at host.planet4589.org, (un)subscribe jsr | >'-------------------------------------------------------------------------' > > > > > Terry W. Colvin Ladphrao (Bangkok), Thailand Pran Buri (Hua Hin), Thailand From dagonweb at gmail.com Thu Dec 27 20:34:31 2007 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:34:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia In-Reply-To: <4773E0F9.2080101@yahoo.it> References: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com> <200712251818.26102.kanzure@gmail.com> <4773E0F9.2080101@yahoo.it> Message-ID: > > If we could "rehab" the extremist in only six weeks, we could for sure > "rehab" many more people like psychiatric cases and drug addicts in a > similar time frame. And the money saving would be considerable. Good idea. The psychiatric case can be treated with cold/hot water exposure, or prolonged confinement in a cell with loud sounds. After that we may move on to sexual deviants, such as homosexuals. We can work our way up to people with broken limbs; a good thrashing will save society billions in lost work days. We need to act, dammit, before civilization itself collapses under the burden of waistrels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Thu Dec 27 21:46:53 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:46:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year References: <200712271646.lBRGk4jq005719@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000901c848d1$fffec2f0$e3931f97@archimede> From: "spike" > Sometimes words just translate funny > across cultures and languages. There is a collection of beautiful/funny words, in the German link below. 'Yakamoz' = 'the reflection of the moon in water', from Turkey, ranked #1 The Italian 'Jella' = bad luck of course ranked #17 (#17 means 'bad luck' in Italy: a paranormal thing?) The Arabisch 'Donia' seems to be interesting and ranked very high, but I do not know its meaning: 'welt, leben' (world?, love?) An 'inuit' friend told me that 'Nuannaarpoq' (not in that collection) should mean 'taking an inordinate [or extravagant] pleasure in being alive'. Pleasure? s. reference: 'The most beautiful ABC of the world' http://cms.ifa.de/fileadmin/content/informationsforum/images/abc/abc_broschu ere.pdf From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Dec 27 21:56:43 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:56:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <580930c20712271356y4e97af91p9662110299cfaa51@mail.gmail.com> On 12/26/07, Amara Graps wrote: > That 'election' was rigged from every perspective by every observer > (who were permitted to observe). The fact that he is popular > in Russia does _not_ make that 'election' (let's call it a theatre) > the slightest bit democratic. I do not want to be overly cinic, but which election is not rigged? Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 27 23:17:40 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:17:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: <000901c848d1$fffec2f0$e3931f97@archimede> Message-ID: <200712272319.lBRNJhRP014532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of scerir ... > 'Yakamoz' = 'the reflection of the moon in water', Is that the definition of Yakamoz? I always thought a yakamoz was a derogatory term meaning a very talkative convert to middle eastern religion. ... > ... 'Nuannaarpoq' ... should mean 'taking an inordinate [or extravagant] pleasure in being alive'. Pleasure? s. Pleasure? Definitely, thanks for this, s. Taking pleasure in being alive can never be sufficiently extravagant, for being alive is so damn cool that the whole concept deserves all the pleasure we can possibly pack into it. Regardless of how much gratitude, joy and heartfelt woohoo we experience, it should be considered justifiably vagant, ordinate pleasure in being not dead. Clearly I am one of these nuannaarpoqers, even though I do not often end a word with the letter q, and will intentionally construct an awkward sentence in order to convert the word form to avoid it. I have cheerfully nuannaarpoqed since long ago. I have been nuannnaarpoqing for nearly all of my life. So should we all, and remember every day how very made we have it, in so many ways it is difficult to innumerate. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 28 00:01:30 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:01:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <580930c20712271356y4e97af91p9662110299cfaa51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712280003.lBS03X77020492@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > That 'election' was rigged from every perspective by every observer > > (who were permitted to observe)... Amara > ... but which election is not rigged? Stefano Vaj Amara, Stefano, we discussed this topic at length in 2004, but I have thoughts that contribute new material to the old discussion. At that time we were thinking of ways to design a verifiably fair election. Let us list the criteria for meeting the definition of a fair election: 1. Verify the votes to convince everyone that the election was fair and square. 2. Avoid running up huge bills in the verification; (minimize labor by election workers.) 3. Minimize cost of the necessary machines. 4. Verify one's own vote was recorded as intended. 5. Insure against anyone buying votes, either by bribery or threats. 6. Insure that everyone gets a secret ballot. 7. Eliminate voting by those not eligible, such as dead people. 8. Prevent ballot box stuffing. 9. Prevent news agencies from influencing the outcome of the election by the act of reporting the outcome before the polls close. 10. Allow all practical voting conveniences, such as absentee balloting. Any others I missed? Any on the list that shouldn't be? I have a bunch of new ideas to share since last time, but first I will hold back a while to allow others to toss in their thoughts if they wish, and reach agreement on the criteria for a fair election. Gene you wrote a lot of useful stuff last time as I recall. My notion here is that election verification is not just a luxury, but rather a critical element in the survival of democracy worldwide. If we do nothing to build confidence in our general elections, we won't be having them much longer. They will be unneeded, a pointless exercise. We can meet all ten of the above with current technology and not excessive expense (certainly small in comparison to the amount of money spent on elections currently). The fact that no democratic government is currently doing so makes me queasy. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 28 00:23:15 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:23:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: <200712272319.lBRNJhRP014532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712280025.lBS0PI6l008642@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > > Clearly I am one of these nuannaarpoqers... spike I do hope the makers of the board game Balderdash eschew this term in all future editions. You know that some joker will define a nuannaarpoqer as one who has sexual relations with one's grandmother. spike From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Dec 28 00:48:21 2007 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:48:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712280003.lBS03X77020492@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712280003.lBS03X77020492@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Dec 27, 2007, at 4:01 PM, spike wrote: > Amara, Stefano, we discussed this topic at length in 2004, but I have > thoughts that contribute new material to the old discussion. At > that time > we were thinking of ways to design a verifiably fair election. As a meta-comment, "fair elections" as most people would describe them are generally a hard problem, even if every vote is always counted correctly. See: Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem, Duggan-Schwartz Theorem, and Arrow's Theorem (among others). While we could do a better job of making sure that individual votes are always counted as cast, mathematics is not sanguine about the creation of an ideal democratic process even though most people seem to intuit that such things are possible. Manipulability is a basic property of the system no matter how you try to re-arrange the deck chairs given the current non-negotiable assumptions of democratic voting commonly in use. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 28 01:43:12 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:43:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of J. Andrew Rogers > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:48 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] elections again;was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: > Putin(!),my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] > > > On Dec 27, 2007, at 4:01 PM, spike wrote: > > Amara, Stefano, we discussed this topic at length in 2004, but I have > > thoughts that contribute new material to the old discussion. At > > that time > > we were thinking of ways to design a verifiably fair election. > > > As a meta-comment, "fair elections" as most people would describe them > are generally a hard problem, even if every vote is always counted > correctly. See: Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem, Duggan-Schwartz > Theorem, and Arrow's Theorem (among others)... J. Andrew Rogers Thanks J. Andrew, this I cheerfully recognize. There is a lot of game theory involved in national elections. Paradoxes abound. For instance assume there are elections between mauves and taupes. Assume a person is mauve to the core. She realizes her choice in the primaries appears safe (or hopelessly lost, either way.) Game theory suggests she should register as a taupe, then vote for the least electable candidate of the bunch. I am not suggesting this process can be perfected, but I have some ideas which would at least restore confidence in the admittedly imperfect election process as described in the US constitution. As it is, the utter lack of effort on the part of the US government (and all the other democracies) begs for a modicum of credibility, and simultaneously suggests systematic and intentional corruption. Incumbents are a class of politicians who have vested interest in maintaining the current unverifiable election process. We must send a message that if they do not work to lend credibility in this process, we will throw them all out and elect their opponents, who will then be offered the same ultimatum: fix this or pack your bags. spike From mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Dec 28 06:01:10 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:01:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712280101.10858.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Thursday 27 December 2007 20:43, spike wrote: > Thanks J. Andrew, this I cheerfully recognize. There is a lot of game > theory involved in national elections. Paradoxes abound. For instance > assume there are elections between mauves and taupes. Assume a person is > mauve to the core. She realizes her choice in the primaries appears safe > (or hopelessly lost, either way.) Game theory suggests she should register > as a taupe, then vote for the least electable candidate of the bunch. Pretending to register for a party that one doesn't really believe in, and then sabotaging the other party's vote is dishonest (or misleading at best). I belive most voters would refuse to do this on moral grounds. There is no paradox why most people don't use game theory to elect leaders. The elections are not a game. They are intended to poll the opinion of the populous. Using the system to do anything other than represent one's opinion violates the principal of the thing, and may even be illegal. I expect a good lawyer could argue that this practice constituted fraud and election tampering. Registering as a member of a party to sabotage it rather than support it might be considered fraud. If a number of people agreed to do this plan, it might be considered conspiracy. I don't know how the election ballots are exactly worded, but voting for someone not your own choice but to disrupt the system could be a violation of what one signs and submits during the process. Clearly, the intent is to disrupt the true polling of the party's opinions, so on the basis of intent alone, it would be attempted election tampering. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 11:47:21 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:47:21 +1100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Scientists can't get their minds around Alzheimer's In-Reply-To: <29666bf30712271124q175cfa45l7ac202d9e760880b@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30712271124q175cfa45l7ac202d9e760880b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 28/12/2007, PJ Manney wrote: The following passages are particularly interesting: > Marcelle Morrison-Bogorad, associate director of the National > Institute on Aging's neuroscience and neuropsychology of aging > program, finds Bennett's data deeply disturbing. > > She said "the distinction is getting fuzzier and fuzzier between > normal aging and diseases like Alzheimer's disease. This brings into > question if these people are normal or not. I don't think we can tell > anymore who is normal. > > "It worries me a lot, actually, because we've been trying to reassure > people who are older that small lapses in memory are part of normal > aging. . . . This research is suggesting, not proving, that it might > be a sign of something down the road. That's not good news." > > To say that Alzheimer's is normal is not something anyone wants to > hear. Medicine can't stop people from getting old. And you can't fix > old age. Other than the simple arithmetic of it, no one really even > knows what aging is. They know what accompanies it; they haven't a > clue what causes it. The implication is that if Alzheimer's is something that accompanies aging then it's normal, and if it's normal then we just have to accept it. And then what will we do when it becomes clear that cancer, heart disease, osteoarthritis etc. are just part of aging and therefore "normal"? -- Stathis Papaioannou From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Dec 28 11:48:43 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:48:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712280101.10858.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712280101.10858.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <36930.72.236.102.68.1198842523.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Harvey writes: > Pretending to register for a party that one doesn't really believe in, and > then sabotaging the other party's vote is dishonest (or misleading at best). > I belive most voters would refuse to do this on moral grounds. There is no > paradox why most people don't use game theory to elect leaders. The > elections are not a game. They are intended to poll the opinion of the > populous. > > Using the system to do anything other than represent one's opinion violates > the principal of the thing, and may even be illegal. I expect a good lawyer > could argue that this practice constituted fraud and election tampering. > Registering as a member of a party to sabotage it rather than support it > might be considered fraud. If a number of people agreed to do this plan, it > might be considered conspiracy. I don't know how the election ballots are > exactly worded, but voting for someone not your own choice but to disrupt the > system could be a violation of what one signs and submits during the process. > Clearly, the intent is to disrupt the true polling of the party's opinions, > so on the basis of intent alone, it would be attempted election tampering. > So what to do when the *state* one lives in has removed the party of ones choice from the ballot? There's a two-party-only setup in my area unless one can show (subject to those two party's approval) sufficient voters and *money* to get back on the ballot. Frankly, I'm getting very tired of voting for a least objectionable candidate. I'd like to be positively inclined toward a candidate. Instead I find myself often voting *against* a candidate. I'm not a gamer. I'm just discouraged. Regards, MB From mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Dec 28 13:15:17 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:15:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <36930.72.236.102.68.1198842523.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712280101.10858.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <36930.72.236.102.68.1198842523.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200712280815.17684.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Friday 28 December 2007 06:48, MB wrote: > So what to do when the *state* one lives in has removed the party of ones > choice from the ballot? There's a two-party-only setup in my area unless > one can show (subject to those two party's approval) sufficient voters and > *money* to get back on the ballot. > > Frankly, I'm getting very tired of voting for a least objectionable > candidate. I'd like to be positively inclined toward a candidate. Instead > I find myself often voting *against* a candidate. > > I'm not a gamer. I'm just discouraged. I wish I knew the answer to that one. There are no good choices, as far as I can tell. And it is discouraging. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 28 13:25:58 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:25:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712280815.17684.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712280101.10858.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <36930.72.236.102.68.1198842523.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <200712280815.17684.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <20071228132557.GZ10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:15:17AM -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > I'm not a gamer. I'm just discouraged. > > I wish I knew the answer to that one. There are no good choices, as far as I > can tell. And it is discouraging. Yes, people suck. Unfortunately, secession of minorites to escape poor solutions of majorities are not in our cards, at least not yet. From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 15:22:55 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:22:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Universal languages (was: wta-talk Voting Members ...) In-Reply-To: <9536d1d60712280622m35ac5686ud41904bd197574bc@mail.gmail.com> References: <9536d1d60712280622m35ac5686ud41904bd197574bc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712280922.55338.kanzure@gmail.com> This is off-topic (again), but the topic of communication is important, and it seems to me that this would be more appropriate for the extropian mailing list. On Friday 28 December 2007, Riccardo Campa wrote: > If we want to overcome the language barrier we should invent a new > common World language. On the subject of a universal language ... Computer communication already uses a worldwide protocol (stuff like ASCII and Unicode). Computers then run extra software to interpret the information and display it in a language that the user finds suitable. So, in a sense, there's already an underlying world language. But you might argue that it is not truly a language like English or Japanese or Esperanto, and in a sense you would be correct because meaning is not directly communicated nor necessarily 'understood' by the computers. To this I might point out that it is the same with any natural language and any artifiicial language. The words themselves have context, and this context must be embraced and understood and explored in order to fully comprehend ... no matter the language, artificial or natural, a World one or not. To create an "international codified meaning system" would be stifling; just look all around you at the millions of diverse cultures and the so many strange, bizarre meanings that different people hold. Are we to codify all of these and rule with an iron fist? No, I can't imagine that as ever being useful. Instead, what we need is a way to approach any 'meaningful' thing in the world -- no matter it be a person, an object, an alien culture, a foreign idea, whatever (contexts) -- and somehow synchronize our meanings together (which sounds forceful) or if not to sync then to find an interface or translation gradient by which our information can be codified per that system (just as a child might only think in simple terms, an adult explaining a topic must encode greater thoughts into simpler thoughts, a difficult task). Oddly the above leads to questions like, "What would it be like to share meaning with a boulder," but those questions stray from the original intentions of interfacing with people-contexts. Anyway, if we ever discover this art of interfacing with contexts, I would think it end up a sort of institution to train people to work and think in such a way so that they *can* communicate with anybody in the world if they spend enough time. Many of us should know the pains we go through just to communicate with each other even though we already speak the same language. By training more individuals in this art, which I suspect others could discover (or already have discovered) on their own, we can communicate more effectively without imposing Standards upon the rest of the world with an iron fist. After all: the world is already interfacing with itself, thanks to contextualism and the laws of thermodynamics stating that this is not a closed system. A World Language would not provide that. At best, and with the best possible magic, you could go around the world and do intense studies to codify every living person's "meaning framework" at this very moment, and then have that as your World Language, but how are you going to keep up with the growth of populations, of meanings and of contexts? And I just feel like mentioning Leibniz's universal language project: > Leibniz believed that much of human reasoning could be reduced to > calculations of a sort, and that such calculations could resolve many > differences of opinion: > "The only way to rectify our reasonings is to make them as tangible as > those of the Mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a > glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: > Let us calculate [calculemus], without further ado, to see who is > right." (The Art of Discovery 1685, W 51) > Because Leibniz was a mathematical novice when he first wrote about > the characteristic, at first he did not conceive it as an algebra but > rather as a universal language or script. Only in 1676 did he conceive > of a kind of "algebra of thought," modeled on and including > conventional algebra and its notation. The resulting characteristic > included a logical calculus, some combinatorics, algebra, his analysis > situs (geometry of situation) discussed in 3.2, a universal concept > language, and more. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From xuenay at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 15:56:06 2007 From: xuenay at gmail.com (Kaj Sotala) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:56:06 +0200 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Scientists can't get their minds around Alzheimer's In-Reply-To: References: <29666bf30712271124q175cfa45l7ac202d9e760880b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a13bb8f0712280756n61eadea1iae2012bc0fd57d63@mail.gmail.com> On 12/28/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > The implication is that if Alzheimer's is something that accompanies > aging then it's normal, and if it's normal then we just have to accept > it. And then what will we do when it becomes clear that cancer, heart > disease, osteoarthritis etc. are just part of aging and therefore > "normal"? Maybe that would help somewhat against the "since aging is normal and there's no reason to fight against it" meme. What is needed is campaigns for broader general awareness of Alzheimer's and related diseases, both for the sake of the Alzheimer patients themselves and to show how horrible aging really can get. -- http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ | http://xuenay.livejournal.com/ Organizations worth your time: http://www.singinst.org/ | http://www.crnano.org/ | http://lifeboat.com/ From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 28 17:32:01 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:32:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my voteinstead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712280101.10858.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200712281734.lBSHY3xm026035@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom >...Game theory suggests she should > register > > as a taupe, then vote for the least electable candidate of the bunch. > > Pretending to register for a party that one doesn't really believe in, and > then sabotaging the other party's vote is dishonest (or misleading at > best). > I belive most voters would refuse to do this on moral grounds... > Harvey Newstrom Of course, and I heartily agree with your entire post Harvey. But it isn't the *moral* voters that worry me, its the other kind. spike From x at extropica.org Fri Dec 28 17:13:43 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:13:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Universal languages (was: wta-talk Voting Members ...) In-Reply-To: References: <9536d1d60712280622m35ac5686ud41904bd197574bc@mail.gmail.com> <200712280922.55338.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/28/07, x at extropica.org wrote: > involved ideas such as E-Prime and General Semantics, Loglan and > Logban, and more fundamental approaches to effective interaction with s/Logban/Lojban From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 28 17:49:06 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:49:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <36930.72.236.102.68.1198842523.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200712281817.lBSIHmeY011218@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of MB ... > > So what to do when the *state* one lives in has removed the party of ones > choice > from the ballot? There's a two-party-only setup in my area unless one can > show > (subject to those two party's approval) sufficient voters and *money* to > get back on > the ballot.... > MB The system I will soon propose works for arbitrarily many candidates, and can deal with *any and all * write-in candidates, for it would include a qwerty keyboard. We could learn for the first time how popular some of the minor and write-in candidates are. MB you are actually describing a feature of the mainstream news media rather than strictly the election system. The minor candidates do not get the ink. But with electronic communications and the resulting decline of the importance and credibility of the mainstream press, the previously sidelined candidates can now have their day. spike From dradetsky.lp at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 18:00:35 2007 From: dradetsky.lp at gmail.com (daniel radetsky) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:00:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: References: <200712280003.lBS03X77020492@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Spike: you forgot n. Verify that verifications in steps n-k (where 0 < k < n-1) are performed correctly. n+1. Verify that step n was performed correctly. ... On Dec 27, 2007 4:48 PM, J. Andrew Rogers < andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote: > As a meta-comment, "fair elections" as most people would describe them > are generally a hard problem, even if every vote is always counted > correctly. See: Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem, Duggan-Schwartz > Theorem, and Arrow's Theorem (among others). These only apply to ranked choice voting schemes. See Range Voting. > Manipulability is a basic > property of the system no matter how you try to re-arrange the deck > chairs given the current non-negotiable assumptions of democratic > voting commonly in use. > If you assume that certain properties are non-negotiable, and those properties imply manipulability, then manipulability is guaranteed. But why should we assume that properties implying manipulability are non-negotiable? If a property leads to manipulability, that's a sure sign that it ought to be negotiated. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andres at thoughtware.tv Fri Dec 28 19:10:10 2007 From: andres at thoughtware.tv (Andres Colon) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:10:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Thoughtware.TV Video: 3d Augmented Reality Straight from Japan Message-ID: You're missing out on some cool technolicious content from Thoughtware.TV: *Amazing New 3D technology from Japan* "Must watch! - This footage, taken from Japanese TV, gives a hint of the things to come in terms of Augmented Reality. Our ability to enhance reality is changing thanks to emerging technology. As innovation races forth, our ability to perceive things differently is increasing, we can mold and shape-shift reality to our heart's content." URL: http://www.thoughtware.tv/videos/show/1225 Andres, Thoughtware.TV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From x at extropica.org Fri Dec 28 19:10:12 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:10:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Universal languages (was: wta-talk Voting Members ...) In-Reply-To: References: <9536d1d60712280622m35ac5686ud41904bd197574bc@mail.gmail.com> <200712280922.55338.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: [Resend] On 12/28/07, Bryan Bishop wrote: > This is off-topic (again), but the topic of communication is important, > and it seems to me that this would be more appropriate for the > extropian mailing list. > > On Friday 28 December 2007, Riccardo Campa wrote: > > If we want to overcome the language barrier we should invent a new > > common World language. Thanks Bryan for touching upon a subject both subtle and deep, crucial to much of extropian discourse, at least as it was during this list's earlier days, infused with the spirit of pan-critical rationality, dynamic optimism and similar guiding (rather than defining) principles. Familiarity and adeptness distinguishing symbol from meaning, the map from the territory, and the importance of context and its inherently G?delian nature are essential to forming an increasingly coherent model for intentional action within an co-evolving world. Riccardo suggests a **solution** involving the adoption of Esperanto to facilitate (or would it impose?) a more effective framework for communication. In contrast, past discussions on the extropy list involved ideas such as E-Prime and General Semantics, Loglan and Lojban, and more fundamental approaches to effective interaction with extra-terrestrials, robots, and entities organic, inorganic, or perhaps otherwise. My intent with this post is partly to celebrate the past (and future?) depth and creativity of the extropy discussion list, but also to highlight contrasting philosophies with regard to possible futures. One hand offers **solutions** -- ostensibly applicable but within an unknown and necessarily unknowable future context. The other hand offers **approaches**, based on increasingly sound principles, applicable with increasing effectiveness to discovering the future by creating it. From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Dec 28 19:45:08 2007 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: References: <200712280003.lBS03X77020492@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <00CC9C7D-9D8A-4080-BE81-E048DC27C09B@ceruleansystems.com> On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:00 AM, daniel radetsky wrote: >> On Dec 27, 2007 4:48 PM, J. Andrew Rogers < andrew at ceruleansystems.com >> > wrote: >> As a meta-comment, "fair elections" as most people would describe >> them >> are generally a hard problem, even if every vote is always counted >> correctly. See: Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem, Duggan-Schwartz >> Theorem, and Arrow's Theorem (among others). > > These only apply to ranked choice voting schemes. See Range Voting. Range voting is not immune to the basic problems of ordered schemes, and appears to collapse to something equivalent to conventional systems in most cases. > If you assume that certain properties are non-negotiable, and those > properties imply manipulability, then manipulability is guaranteed. > But why should we assume that properties implying manipulability are > non-negotiable? If a property leads to manipulability, that's a sure > sign that it ought to be negotiated. While it has not always been true in the past, concepts like "one man, one vote" and "every vote counts equally" are going to be really hard to negotiate away today. If you look at the various alternative conditions for maximizing preferences that cannot (easily) be gamed, they are culturally unacceptable for the most part, at least in western European culture. The philosophical nature of the process is quite apparently *at least* as important as the quality of the result. There is an assumption that people choose voting systems primarily to ensure a particular result with respect to population preferences but it seems obvious to me that people choose voting systems to primarily ensure particular voting rules. J. Andrew Rogers From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 28 20:24:16 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:24:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my voteinstead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712281817.lBSIHmeY011218@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712282052.lBSKqwXU003475@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike .. > > MB you are actually describing a feature of the mainstream news media > rather than strictly the election system. The minor candidates do not get the ink. But with electronic communications and the resulting decline of the > importance and credibility of the mainstream press, the previously > sidelined candidates can now have their day... spike After I wrote this, I realized it was an understatement. The mainstream press can simply ignore a candidate of course, but they have more influence than that, as was demonstrated by the way the mainstream press de-elected the scream guy, Dean somebody, back in 2000. (What was his name? James? No, that was the sports car crashing actor. Jimmy? No, he is the country singing sausage guy. Dizzy? No he was a baseball player.) In any case, Dean somebody was being treated pretty well until after a pep rally of his own people, his volunteers and supporters, in which he bellowed a (quite legitimate under the circumstances) heeyaargh. He was reported to have shrieked this into a microphone, but if one views the video, he specifically stepped away from the podium before he actually heeyaarghed. However he had a radio mic clipped to his lapel, which turned it into the ear-splitting heeyaarghing of an apparent madman. It wasn't! It was a perfectly understandable mistake; any one of us could have found ourselves being similarly labeled an insane heeyaargher. The mainstream press immediately turned on him, and ruined the man by playing the pep rally heeyaarghage incessantly. I am not defending Dean or heeyaarghism, but the actions of the press helped me recognize that their influence on the election process is illegitimate and harmful to the credibility of the process. The bigger immediate issue is mainstream press reporting on elections while the polls are still open. Earlier I commented in the ten point goal statement: > 9. Prevent news agencies from influencing the outcome of an election by the act of reporting the outcome before the polls close. Is anyone here ready to argue that the mainstream press does not influence the outcome of elections or that it does but such influence is proper? If so, do state your case clearly and carefully, and be prepared for an enthusiastic rebuttal. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 21:57:38 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:57:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Hot Rod (was:Nuclear Space) In-Reply-To: <001f01c847df$5f4a19b0$2def4d0c@MyComputer> References: <200712242048.lBOKmPp8021082@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <011f01c846b7$e3a8a920$0bef4d0c@MyComputer> <040401c847b4$99a1c3e0$0202fea9@cpd01> <200712260831.52575.kanzure@gmail.com> <001f01c847df$5f4a19b0$2def4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <580930c20712281357h61919466q593312dd1103349b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/26/07, John K Clark wrote: > "Bryan Bishop" > The working model was called "Hot Rod" and was launched in 1959 at > Point Loma California and is now is now in the Smithsonian Air and > Space Museum. Actually, the first pulse rocket was the V-1. This may be the reason why von Braun initially did not like Orion too much. Old III Reich rivalries... :-) Stefano Vaj From dradetsky.lp at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 22:27:20 2007 From: dradetsky.lp at gmail.com (daniel radetsky) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:27:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andrew: I'm not sure what you mean by the claim that range voting is not immune to the basic problems of ordinal voting schemes. The G-S, D-S, and Arrow theorems explicitly do not apply. I'm also unsure of the justification for and the significance of saying that range voting collapses into conventional voting schemes most of the time. Even if range voting did collapse into scheme X almost always, it would still be as good as scheme X almost always. Do you believe that range voting is inferior to scheme X (where X = your preferred scheme) in those situations where it does not collapse into X? I doubt this. If you do believe it is inferior, how do answer the theoretical claims of the proponents of range voting ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting#Properties)? I do not see how proposing range voting contradicts the principles of "one man, one vote" or "every vote counts equally." But in any case, culture is not some fixed constant, but something which we can change and which we have changed for as long as we have existed. If proposal X is better for people but culturally unacceptable, the solution is to fix the culture. Obviously this is hard, but that's no excuse for not doing it, even if you fail or do not fully succeed. Likewise, if people choose voting systems to ensure certain voting rules, this is just to say that we chose our system in order to guarantee that we would have our system. This is another telltale sign that there is an assumption here which needs challenging. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Dec 28 22:43:25 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:43:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness Message-ID: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship to progress and change within the context of perception and its transformation? Would you: 1. reframing role of risk a. for catalytic action to push through boundaries of risk b. for catalytic action to maintain and further boundaries of risk 2. reframing innovation recreate the familiar a. for cognitive absorption of information/knowledge b. for enhanced connectivity of people to view familiar ideas as a connective intelligence 3. reframing innovation to shake up creative activity that stems from everyday behavior of regular/normal activities a. creating a consumer culture for progress-based consciousness b. creating a consumer culture of perception which leads to transformation 4. reframing conceptual innovation to see, feel and experience more a. creating conceptual experiences to provide richer experiences b. creating conceputal experiences to satisfy needs for the purpose of an emotional calming Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Dec 28 22:46:57 2007 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:46:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480E4CBD-F477-4858-9850-AB5311D69572@ceruleansystems.com> On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:27 PM, daniel radetsky wrote: > If you do believe it is inferior, how do answer the theoretical > claims of the proponents of range voting ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting#Properties) > ? I was not trying to imply that Range voting is inferior, only that it is not "ideal" in the sense that it will always reflect the preferences of the voter pool under all conditions. Range voting is relatively resistant to manipulation and gaming, but not immune to it. I agree that voting systems, both implementation and theory, can be improved and should be. I'm less optimistic that any such system will reliably produce sane results. J. Andrew Rogers From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 23:03:19 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:03:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia In-Reply-To: References: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com> <200712251818.26102.kanzure@gmail.com> <4773E0F9.2080101@yahoo.it> Message-ID: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> On 12/27/07, Dagon Gmail wrote: > Good idea. The psychiatric case can be treated with cold/hot water > exposure, > or prolonged confinement in a cell with loud sounds. > > After that we may move on to sexual deviants, such as homosexuals. We > can work our way up to people with broken limbs; a good thrashing will save > society billions in lost work days. We need to act, dammit, before > civilization > itself collapses under the burden of waistrels. In fact, the West shows here once again its undeniable superiority over the Al-Qaeda amateurs, including in the brain-washing department... :-) Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 23:04:13 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:04:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia In-Reply-To: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com> <200712251818.26102.kanzure@gmail.com> <4773E0F9.2080101@yahoo.it> <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712281504n7854bffat9058b441717b1a6f@mail.gmail.com> I meant of course "the West and its friends", since Saudi Arabia hardly qualifies as western in any reasonable sense. On 12/29/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 12/27/07, Dagon Gmail wrote: > > Good idea. The psychiatric case can be treated with cold/hot water > > exposure, > > or prolonged confinement in a cell with loud sounds. > > > > After that we may move on to sexual deviants, such as homosexuals. We > > can work our way up to people with broken limbs; a good thrashing will > save > > society billions in lost work days. We need to act, dammit, before > > civilization > > itself collapses under the burden of waistrels. > > In fact, the West shows here once again its undeniable superiority > over the Al-Qaeda amateurs, including in the brain-washing > department... :-) > > Stefano Vaj > From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 23:10:26 2007 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:10:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Universal languages (was: wta-talk Voting Members ...) In-Reply-To: <200712280922.55338.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <9536d1d60712280622m35ac5686ud41904bd197574bc@mail.gmail.com> <200712280922.55338.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bryan, doesn't your post assume that meanings already exist, that they can't be created? If it does, then I disagree: the creation of new meanings is very much a part of the art of language, and so there's little hope for a world language to be able to keep up with all the innovations that accrue in every valley, village, and town. This happens often enough *within*languages. For instance, even ten years ago, anyone speaking of blogs would be met with wonder what language that word came from. Another example to bring in with the addition of new meanings would be something like tangerine-orange, which is not just orange but a bright highlighter orange: one would have to have seen such a color to know what the word means. Yet, I do think it would be great if we could accomplish the spirit of your post. At the same time, I think it's already happening. As the world both communicates, and finds the need to communicate, across national and lingual boundaries, I think what must happen is a change to language itself. There will eventually must be, if globalism is to continue at an accelerated pace, a global language that I would call the World Core which would represent a common subset of all meanings that people across languages [i]must[/i] know for various purposes. Now I think that there will always be a great deal of meanings that can't be included in World Core, but we can hope and facilitate the World Core to grow larger: to decrease miscommunication as well as enriching all of us. We already have a great deal literature: translation dictionaries and tools to facilitate learning other languages; for the purpose of communicating between the world's major languages. Indeed, the World Core will almost entirely consist of the world's major languages. But to me, I think it would be interesting and useful for there to be a dictionary of World Core itself: not itself obsessing on the intricacies of any one language, but forming a series of narrow bridges and ridiculously-spaced stepstones [i]between[/i] languages, as international communication will probably always be the World Core equivalent of "broken English". Such a dictionary would probably be more like an encyclopedia, as much of it's utility would have to come from training readers in not just new words or symbols, but in their meanings. The word for an animal may require a picture and some information on the habits and behaviors of that animal, or even a discussion of it's cultural significance in the use of idioms or figures of speech in that language. Needless to say, I oppose those movements that crop up every now and then, such as recently in Arizona that has made English our state's "official language." This movement can only really be understood in two lights: the first which is xenophobia, which is a conservatism that believes that our current culture, unparelleled, must be protected, and sees any merging of cultures as inherently distructive; and the second is a war waged by the simple-minded who, having difficulty with a single language, panic at the thought of there being two and even more is unthinkable to them. Now, it makes absolute sense for them to be resistant to this idea; so this is just one of those issues where they and I should part ways (and why, contrary to ideology, democracy isn't always the best decision-making process: when you have self-interest governing all sides, you hardly result in what's best for everyone, or even best for other things like nation, culture, and wisdom), Best regards, *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 28 23:12:27 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:12:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712280003.lBS03X77020492@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712282314.lBSNET9l000987@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Earlier I suggested: > > 1. Verify the votes to convince everyone that the election was fair and > square. > > 2. Avoid running up huge bills in the verification; (minimize labor by > election workers.) > > 3. Minimize cost of the necessary machines. > > 4. Verify one's own vote was recorded as intended. > > 5. Insure against anyone buying votes, either by bribery or threats. > > 6. Insure that everyone gets a secret ballot. > > 7. Eliminate voting by those not eligible, such as dead people. > > 8. Prevent ballot box stuffing. > > 9. Prevent news agencies from influencing the outcome of the election by > the act of reporting the outcome before the polls close. > > 10. Allow all practical voting conveniences, such as absentee balloting. ... > spike Various commentators opined: > Pretending to register for a party that one doesn't really believe in, > and then sabotaging the other party's vote is dishonest (or misleading > at best). Harvey Noted. The system I will propose doesn't fix this, but helps reduce the problem for it reduces the significance of the whole primary election two-party system. > As a meta-comment, "fair elections" as most people would describe them > are generally a hard problem, even if every vote is always counted > correctly. J. Andrew Rogers Noted. The system I will propose doesn't fix this either, but may help reduce the problem. Do stand by. > Frankly, I'm getting very tired of voting for a least objectionable > candidate. I'd like to be positively inclined toward a candidate. > Instead I find myself often voting *against* a candidate. MB Noted. The system I will propose may help reduce the problem. Stand by. > Yes, people suck. Eugene Noted. Do supply names and phone numbers if such persons are female and available. {8^D Kidding bygones. > ... the *state* one lives in has removed the party of ones choice > from the ballot? There's a two-party-only setup in my area unless one can > show (subject to those two party's approval) sufficient voters and *money* > to get back on the ballot. MB Noted. We are seeing an artifact of the inherent limitations of the old mechanical punch-holes-in-paper-card systems. See if the following proposals may help. > n. Verify that verifications in steps n-k (where 0 < k < n-1) are > performed correctly. n+1. Verify that step n was performed correctly. Daniel Noted. I will toss all verifiability issues in with criterion 1 above. My freedom-loving extropian friends, look at what has happened in election practice, especially in the last approximately fourteen years, since the web showed up. The web is a tool which would theoretically enable us to repair the election system, a process that has been broken for a long time, indeed since always. Suddenly in 1994, we as a society were handed the tools to make elections fair, transparent and verifiable, and to meet all ten goals listed above. In those fourteen years, we have spent a ton of money to revolutionize the election process. Governments bought paperless computerized voting machines. What we got for all that money is a system which is less transparent and verifiable (so for all that investment we gained nothing but we lost ground on criterion 1 above.) We bought a system with enables the mainstream press to start reporting the winner before the polls even open in Taxifornia (so for all that investment we gained nothing but we lost ground on criterion 9 above.) We have lost ground in the legitimacy of elections. Democracy itself is seriously threatened, without a single shot having yet been fired. Here is my idea: Arrange all voting machines as extremely simple stand alone devices, just a standard computer with a printer, no LAN or modem. The software is so simple we could use recycled 8086 computers, or any computer, and any screen including those old CRTs that currently have negative value (we cannot legally toss them in the trash in Taxifornia, but rather we must pay actual money to legally dispose of them). The software merely goes down the list, asking: President? You type in a name, any name, no party affiliation necessary. Vice President? In my proposed system one may split parties, choosing an unmatched president and veep for instance, for at one time in the states the second place winner of the president election automatically became VP. We can go back to that if necessary. This helps reduce the importance of parties. And so on all the way down the list. Just as one may type in any name, one can type in any honorary office, even if one doesn't exist, and type in any nominee. The winners of such can be listed on a website for exactly no cost to the people, but perhaps would be a gimmick to attract voters, adding still more legitimacy to the election process. We could, for instance, type in Harvey Newstrom for Prime Minister, Eugene Leitl for Grand Poobah of ExiChat Moderation, spike Jones for Vice Chucklemeister, and so on. These positions, having no actual power, protect the officeholders from corruption. Here is the critical part. Each machine is connected to only a printer or bar-code generating device. (Printers are cheap, many are obsolete but still perfectly useful for this purpose.) When you are finished voting, the screen displays all your choices, which you verify. The machine then generates two pieces of paper, a ballot and a nearly identical receipt (ordinary, cheap, common 8x11 copy paper) with a bar code, not human readable but machine readable (criterion 6) on both pages. The machine generates a random code, which you can later use for verification that your vote was counted and recorded correctly (criterion 1) which I will describe in greater detail, and which is printed on the ballot but not printed on the receipt. The voter remembers or writes it down. The paper ballots go into a box which is watched constantly by arbitrarily many observers from arbitrarily many parties (criteria 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7). The final question, after all the voting is finished, is used to bust vote buying (criterion 5). It is a question that was inspired by the Red Cross. (I am a three gallon blood donor to the Red Cross. After the 23 July 2006 ambulance incident, I would not donate to the Red Cross my dirty toenail clippings, but the following idea is still good.) The Red Cross recognizes that people may give blood for the wrong reasons, such as to schmooze with the boss, (even after a night out with the boys when one awoke draped over the back of the sofa naked from the waist down and unable to recall what exactly happened.) Clearly, such blood can pose a risk to the recipients. The Red Cross is cool about such things, and has designed a question that is something like "Do you have any reason to recommend the Red Cross not use this blood?" The yes or no answer is then bar coded in a machine readable (but not human readable) form on the labels, which allows the "no" donations to be discarded while maintaining the appearance of donation to impress the boss. We could do the same trick with the ballots. Consider the case where your boss, Mr. Burns, threatens to fire you unless you vote for Dingledork, Carbunkle and Phartz. But the comely Lureleen Rottencrotch offers to reward you nicely if you vote for Buhtphuk, Hosenose and Bluster. But you favor Himmeroid, Shleezbucket and McBarf. (Let us call these ballots DCP, BHB, and HSM for short.) The last question asks you to identify whether this ballot is your true choices or a mere Burns/Rottencrotch decoy. For each answer it gives you a randomly generated verification code (for instance, yes-count on DCP is K3NF6 and no-count is UB8A4.) This code shows up on the screen and on the actual ballot but not the receipt printout. You may submit as many ballots as you want, but only the one yes-count is counted. If you submit two or more yes-counts, all are rejected. The no-counts go on the website, but show as no-counts if you have the secret code, and show as yes-counts if one enters a false yes-code. You print out receipts for your true ballot plus the decoys, and write down the yes-count and no-count codes. You show the DCP yes-code to Burn, thus keeping your job, and the BHB yes-code to Lureleen, thus collecting your reward, then you go home, get on the web and verify that your HSM vote was counted as a yes-count, and the other two were not counted, using the true yes-count code that only you know. Here is the part that must be carefully understood: if you identify to the election board that the ballot as a decoy, only the true yes-coded ballot gives you the code necessary to verify the true yes-code. The others are phony, and allow you (only) to verify that your single yes-count coded ballot counted and the others didn't. From an outsider's perspective, who cannot verify the codes on your screen or your ballot, the website will show the decoys as a yes-count when that ballot was actually a no-count. So the vote-threateners and vote buyers can no longer verify that their people actually voted as directed, whereas the actual voter can verify. This makes the buying of votes a pointless exercise. This gets criterion 5. To prevent ballot stuffing, the voter is assigned a randomly generated code when she registers for voting privileges (which is done before the election.) The poll worker enters the random code when the voter submits her completed ballot (and all decoys). The voting machine would read the voter number on each ballot, and toss the ballots if no voter number is entered or if two are found with the same number (criterion 6, 8 and 10.) No registration number, no count. Keep the absentee balloting similar to the current system, but all absentee ballots must be received before the election and must be kept secret (criteria 9 and 10). Specifically disallow all voting machines that count votes real-time, or that contain any external communication devices such as modems (criterion 9.) Remove the plastic case so that any inspector can verify no radio communications gear or LAN is present. Specifically disallow any ballots to be fed to the feeder/readers until the last ballot closes in Alaska and Hawaii (by which time it is now near dawn in Maine). Given enough automatic feeder/readers, the election results could be announced simultaneously before the second cup of coffee is devoured on the US east coast. Within a day, a central website has links to the fifty states, which lists everyone's votes, ready to verify (criterion 1). If the news agencies set up exit polling stations, educate the proles that such pollsters are lower than telemarketers, therefore this is one circumstance in which it is perfectly legitimate and acceptable to say something delightfully rude. Such as "What part of SECRET BALLOT do you not understand you [fill in favorite insult, such as "cowardly terrorist-sympathizing ultra-(choose direction)-wing throwback entropic totalitarian phone-spamming commu-nazi pollster. It is none of your dam business who I voted for."] This hits criterion 9 with a pleasantly satisfying thump. This system satisfies every one of the ten criteria above, while reducing the significance of the absurd primary system (we allow our candidates to be first chosen by Iowa. Iowa!) It isn't technically difficult or expensive (criterion 2) being as it requires a random collection of stand-alone and probably obsolete cast-off computers and printers, prints everything on standard copy paper and uses only current bar code reading and paper handling technology, along with a very simple web site. If such a thing isn't implemented, I am suspicious as hell. I would recommend an election strategy of voting against the incumbent. When in doubt, toss em out. When not in doubt, toss em out anyway. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 28 23:52:46 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:52:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my voteinstead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712282314.lBSNET9l000987@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712282354.lBSNsriS011767@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > ... > > The software merely goes down the list, asking: > > President? You type in a name, any name, no party affiliation necessary. > > Vice President? In my proposed system one may split parties, choosing an > unmatched president and veep for instance, for at one time in the states > the second place winner of the president election automatically became VP ... spike After I wrote this I realized my notion of allowing a party split between P and VP is no good. I might add an 11th criterion that says the new system must require no changes in the actual legal system as it now stands, but rather is restricted to the mechanics of counting votes. Legal infrastructure is difficult to change. So the president and veep need to be voted as a pair. The only possible legal change, one that would be easily done, is to require that the ballot boxes may not be opened for counting until the last one closes. We could encourage Alaska and Hawaii to close the polls at 6PM however (and open at 0400 on election morning), in which case the counting starts at midnight east coast time. This would be a small price to pay to avoid a repeat of the November 2000 election. That turning point event demonstrated to us and the whole world that we were attempting to extract six digits of precision from a process inherently good to only two, or at very best three digits. The counting need not take long, a few hours perhaps. Most of us have seen those hand held laser bar code readers that could easily read four to six pages per minute per volunteer, which could git R done that night. I would gladly stay up all night and help. Europeans and others, my apologies for using US-centric language throughout this discussion. It's the only system I know. The US appears to me to be the nation most immediately and desperately threatened by loss of confidence in the democratic process. (Well, other than Russia, and I fear Mr. Putin would intentionally defeat such reforms in any case, should they be proposed. We saw what happened to Kasparov and others.) spike From amara at amara.com Sat Dec 29 00:04:06 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:04:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit Message-ID: An update of the probability of impact on Mars is described here: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24386 Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From aiguy at comcast.net Sat Dec 29 00:16:13 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:16:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia In-Reply-To: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com><200712251818.26102.kanzure@gmail.com> <4773E0F9.2080101@yahoo.it> <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> I realize that most of the responses to this thread have been of a sarcastic and satirical nature. But lets think about this for a few minutes. All the terrorists know about America is what they've been told growing up in Islamic schools or on the street. I would think that after the subject has gone through his initial denial and anger phases of incarceration and some amount of sensory deprivation which goes along with solitary confinement that they would be open to talking with and establishing some sort of dialogue with his captors just to ease the sensory deprivation. The US has probably gone to good lengths to produce documentaries chronicling the history of the terrorism, the United States and the middle east. Simply by honestly portraying our successes and failures at trying to intervene and make things better. The terrorist would gain an appreciation over time that even though we may be motivated by our need for oil, that we have always pumped much money into that part of the world to reduce human suffering and have tried to unsuccessfully broker peace many times. Such movies would be supplemented with success stories of how much freedom and prosperity Muslims enjoy in the United States and in other Muslim countries such as the Emirates which do not spend all of their oil wealth on weapons and fighting the west. They may allow them visits by trusted Muslim clerics who preach peaceful coexistence with the other religions of the world. And even though the terrorist may feel at first that this is all propaganda and lies. Eventually as his captors begin treating him better as his attitude improves a certain amount of Stockholm Syndrome will set in and eventually his captors may not seem like such bad guys. Of course if this person was viewed as a key player and brutally interrogated, it would take a lot of convincing and time to make up for those acts of cruelty but if given time the captive may even come to appreciate why the information he held or his captors thought he held was so important that we would resort to barbarism to obtain it. Terrorism is not pedophilia or homosexuality which are tied to deep seated biological drives. The terrorist may be a terrorist for money, for religious ideals, or for hatred of Americans who he has been taught to blame all of the evils of the world on. Education I believe is our most effective weapon against terrorism. Unfortunately the time to start educating is when they are children and haven't already killed many people with improvised IEDs. Or convinced women and children to become suicide bombers and blow themselves and innocent civilians up along with them. Many terrorists after they've passed the course and are released may revert back to their old hatred. But as long as we tell them the truth, they won't find out we were lying to them. Once released I doubt many of them will be trusted enough by their uncaptured brethren to reenter the terrorist organization anyway. And once they've been there for a few years any information that they managed to withhold would be so stale as to be worthless anyway. From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 00:25:17 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:25:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Universal languages (was: wta-talk Voting Members ...) In-Reply-To: References: <200712280922.55338.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712281825.17870.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 28 December 2007, Kevin H wrote: > Bryan, doesn't your post assume that meanings already exist, that > they can't be created? If it does, then I disagree: the creation of I hope it doesn't (and I can't see how). I agree with your disagreement. > new meanings is very much a part of the art of language, and so > there's little hope for a world language to be able to keep up with > all the innovations that accrue in every valley, village, and town. > This happens often enough *within*languages. For instance, even ten > years ago, anyone speaking of blogs would be met with wonder what > language that word came from. Another Same thing happens with "hard words". > example to bring in with the addition of new meanings would be > something like tangerine-orange, which is not just orange but a > bright highlighter orange: one would have to have seen such a color > to know what the word means. > > Yet, I do think it would be great if we could accomplish the spirit > of your post. At the same time, I think it's already happening. As It most definitely is already happening. But that doesn't mean we can't find our own places in the growing context of the world. :) > the world both communicates, and finds the need to communicate, > across national and lingual boundaries, I think what must happen is a > change to language itself. There will eventually must be, if Why must their be a change to languages? Naturally, languages change over time, but it sounds like you want to have a new language-standard published and so on. > globalism is to continue at an accelerated pace, a global language > that I would call the World Core which would represent a common > subset of all meanings that people across languages [i]must[/i] know > for various purposes. Now I think that there will always be a great As communities grow larger, they tend to shift from "we should try to understand and accomodate an increasingly larger section of everything/everybody else" to "everybody else should respect our monumental size, rawr!" A global business language will only come about dynamically, or from grassroot operations, and if something else does pop up, you'll get lots of other smaller, competing operations. Competition is good! Microsoft bad! (Sorry.) Though I would like to point out that rumor has it that Microsoft has internal competition going on, but it's still under one "flag". > deal of meanings that can't be included in World Core, but we can > hope and facilitate the World Core to grow larger: to decrease > miscommunication as well as enriching all of us. We already have a Miscommunication is otherwise known as an opportunity to learn. > But to me, I think it would be interesting and useful for there to be > a dictionary of World Core itself: not itself obsessing on the > intricacies of any one language, but forming a series of narrow > bridges and ridiculously-spaced stepstones [i]between[/i] languages, The computational linguists have been trying for ages. The online translators are barely functioning. But perhaps you can recommend some other tools to add to the set? And some people are arguing that ai would be needed for true language-language translation, but why not just have a person (like it is now) to do that? To actually learn a new language. > as international communication will probably always be the World Core > equivalent of "broken English". Such a dictionary would probably be > more like an encyclopedia, as much of it's utility would have to come > from training readers in not just new words or symbols, but in their > meanings. The word for an animal may require a picture and some You'd end up with another Wikipedia with even less user review/access. > information on the habits and behaviors of that animal, or even a > discussion of it's cultural significance in the use of idioms or > figures of speech in that language. That does sound interesting, though. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From aiguy at comcast.net Sat Dec 29 00:27:32 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:27:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008901c849b1$9bd49b20$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> If the asteroid was to make impact with Mars would the Hubble telescope be in such a position as to capture the event? Such a video may motivate people to fund a long term prevention research program. From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 00:42:13 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:42:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200712281842.13978.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 28 December 2007, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship > to progress and change within the context of perception and its > transformation? How is it usually framed? > 1. reframing role of risk > a. for catalytic action to push through boundaries of risk > b. for catalytic action to maintain and further boundaries of > risk What is risk in extropic terms? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 01:08:04 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:08:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia In-Reply-To: <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <29666bf30712251111q18e56aa3u2ba8a27018b5f998@mail.gmail.com> <200712251818.26102.kanzure@gmail.com> <4773E0F9.2080101@yahoo.it> <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <580930c20712281708s2620eaa6we2e9929b65ec2915@mail.gmail.com> On 12/29/07, Gary Miller wrote: > I realize that most of the responses to this thread have been of a sarcastic > and satirical nature. > > But lets think about this for a few minutes. > > All the terrorists know about America is what they've been told growing up > in Islamic schools or on the street. Frankly, all that sounds as a radical lack of perspective. People who do not suffer from the Stockholm syndrome must certainly have their perception altered from the fact that they have been exposed to the distorting influence of the outside world and do not realise that their kidnappers are ultimately their best friends. Americans who keep Al-Qaeda militants captive never benefitted from an orthodox Islamic education, and thus cannot appreciate how accomplished a human being a successful martyr is, etc. All those "delusions" may sometimes be corrected, by applying a sufficent pressure on the subject. What else is new? Stefano Vaj From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 01:19:42 2007 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:19:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Universal languages (was: wta-talk Voting Members ...) In-Reply-To: <200712281825.17870.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712280922.55338.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712281825.17870.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/28/07, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > I hope it doesn't (and I can't see how). I agree with your disagreement. I thought I might have misunderstood that point, hence the conditional. > It most definitely is already happening. But that doesn't mean we can't > find our own places in the growing context of the world. :) Right. That was something I wanted to get around to, but when a post achieves a certain length I'm less willing to make it longer. But the World Core dictionary was an idea to that end. > Why must their be a change to languages? Naturally, languages change > over time, but it sounds like you want to have a new language-standard > published and so on. Okay, sorry for the confusion. I meant that world languages must change, but on their own, not externally. I'm not talking about a new language standard being published by some committee. What I'm saying, basically, is that whenever two cultures and languages meet, this causes a change to both languages. Part of this change is that the two languages begin assimilating each other. On the global scale, this will eventually mean all major languages incorporating elements of each other. This is sort of the idea of World Core, but is limited to what global citizens find that they require in order to communicate their own needs. While learning an entire foreign language is probably enriching on it's own right, but more widespread will probably be parts of those languages that are needed for, for example, government, commerce, technological and scientific cooperation, and not aspects of a language that are valued for their own sake. > As communities grow larger, they tend to shift from "we should try to > understand and accomodate an increasingly larger section of > everything/everybody else" to "everybody else should respect our > monumental size, rawr!" A global business language will only come about > dynamically, or from grassroot operations, and if something else does > pop up, you'll get lots of other smaller, competing operations. > Competition is good! Microsoft bad! (Sorry.) > Yeah, sorry about the miscommunication. I should have taken greater effort to explain that what I had in mind *wasn't* an attempt to force a language standard onto people. World Core is rather a sort of mix-mash of languages that will occur on it's own as a consequence of the inner necessity of communicating in an increasingly globalized world, and we can't say, before hand, what form it will take. There, do you agree with that? > Miscommunication is otherwise known as an opportunity to learn. Now you're just being a smart ass :) When foreign branches of the same company lose millions of dollars on a simple misunderstanding, what a great opportunity to learn that was! When scientists over seas inadvertantly destroy decades worth of research due to some parody of language, how educational! Sorry, now I'm being the wise guy, but it's all in good humor :) The computational linguists have been trying for ages. The online > translators are barely functioning. But perhaps you can recommend some > other tools to add to the set? And some people are arguing that ai > would be needed for true language-language translation, but why not > just have a person (like it is now) to do that? To actually learn a new > language. Well, I agree that automated translations are horrible, and even human translators have difficulties given the incommensurability of languages. At some point, there's always going to be something that is impossible to translate completely given that languages don't always share the same meanings. But the World Core dictionary idea isn't a translator, but it's meant to be, just like any other dictionary, a description of that common international language that develops on it's own. So rather than having to learn pretty much every major language out there, and perhaps several minor ones (not to make a value judgment on any language) in order to do our business in a globalized world, the idea is just to learn World Core and your own primary language to get by. Maybe it's not a good theory, but it's what I'll contribute to this list for now. > You'd end up with another Wikipedia with even less user review/access. It might be Wikipedia, for all I know. Anyway, thanks for responding. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 01:20:20 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:20:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712281720q4d6af288p1c18e6de1d9d2429@mail.gmail.com> On 12/28/07, spike wrote: > Thanks J. Andrew, this I cheerfully recognize. There is a lot of game > theory involved in national elections. Paradoxes abound. For instance > assume there are elections between mauves and taupes. Assume a person is > mauve to the core. She realizes her choice in the primaries appears safe > (or hopelessly lost, either way.) Game theory suggests she should register > as a taupe, then vote for the least electable candidate of the bunch. Mmhhh, this is really very American. First, in many countries there no primaries. Second, a system where the number of elected officers (say, parliament members) were not proportional to the number of people who voted for them countrywide would be considered as a "rigged" system. Third, limiting the money the candidates can invest in their campaigns would be considered as an infringement of their freedom to compete as best as they can. Fourth, a choice between only two self-perpetuating parties that have very limited differences in their views on the political regime to be adopted or maintained would be considered as fairly restrictive. Fifth, what about direct democracy? Let us accept that elections are a better method in most cases to renew officers than duels, hereditary monarchy or ordalic judgments, and put all the other fancy ideas at rest. Stefano Vaj From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Dec 29 02:03:17 2007 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:03:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <580930c20712281720q4d6af288p1c18e6de1d9d2429@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <580930c20712281720q4d6af288p1c18e6de1d9d2429@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2007, at 5:20 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Mmhhh, this is really very American. First, in many countries there no > primaries. The primary process varies considerably from state to state. Remember, people don't vote for presidents, the states do, and each state does it their own way. NB: the US President is the elected representative of the states, *not* the people; most Americans are clueless about this but involving the people at all in the selection of the President is a 20th century invention. In the first part of the 20th century, the individual member states voted for the President without any election by the people. Primaries are a convenience, and let people decide who gets to represent political parties rather than the party bosses -- a good thing. > Second, a system where the number of elected officers (say, > parliament members) were not proportional to the number of people who > voted for them countrywide would be considered as a "rigged" system. I agree. This is why EU representation is directly proportional to the number of people that vote for them. > Third, limiting the money the candidates can invest in their campaigns > would be considered as an infringement of their freedom to compete as > best as they can. I'm pretty sure you can spend as much of your own money as you want. Plenty of politicians in both parties have essentially bought their own seats. > Fourth, a choice between only two self-perpetuating > parties that have very limited differences in their views on the > political regime to be adopted or maintained would be considered as > fairly restrictive. The party dynamics are a little more complicated than this, as you have fluid coalitions of political factions within the individual parties and which move between the parties. In parliamentary systems, factions are more obvious to the outside observers. For example, the "neocon" faction in the Republican party were essentially disaffected southern Democrats that switched parties around the time of Nixon. One could make No True Scotsman arguments all day long, but both current parties have contained just about every significant faction at one time or another. In addition to significant movement of factions under party umbrellas, major political parties *have* been created and destroyed -- the Democrats and Republicans have not both existed since the beginning of the United States. And on top of all that you have a huge swath of political independents who can choose to caucus with neither political party, selecting their individual candidates ? la carte (which I believe is more difficult in a parliamentary system). > Fifth, what about direct democracy? For what? The US mostly has a facsimile of that at the level of political jurisdiction where people are involved. You are correct that this is all very American, but one gets the impression that you only have passing familiarity with the "federation of sovereigns" model that the US is based on. The closest analogue in the modern world is the EU, not your average European country (which would be analogous to individual member states of the US). J. Andrew Rogers From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Sat Dec 29 04:14:10 2007 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:14:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit Message-ID: <622789.3161.qm@web52709.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Gary Miller wrote: > If the asteroid was to make impact with Mars would > the Hubble telescope be in such a position as to > capture the event? > > Such a video may motivate people to fund a long > term prevention research program. NASA's eveready rovers are still rollin around Mars and sendin back postcards: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-144 If the asteroid impacts Mars, the visual fields of the rovers could be affected, if not profoundly or catastrophically, at least in terms of seeing dust in the upper atmosphere from the impact. It might be thick enough to shutdown their solar power. ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "Priests dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight." - Thomas Jefferson ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sat Dec 29 04:51:50 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:51:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <20071228132557.GZ10128@leitl.org> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712280815.17684.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071228132557.GZ10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Friday 28 December 2007 08:25, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Yes, people suck. Sad but true. > Unfortunately, secession of minorites to escape poor solutions of > majorities are not in our cards, at least not yet. Is escape the only answer? Will futurists create these escapes? We have to be careful to create technologies that do not impose our will on others, or they will rebel. For example: How can someone create a super-AI without threatening the people who don't want the possibility of an AI dictator? How can someone carry guns without threatening people who don't want the possibility of being shot? How can someone get an abortion without threatening people who think all abortion is murder? How can someone build robot workers without threatening people who don't want to lose their jobs? All of these so-called freedom technologies threaten other groups that do not have the same belief systems. These technologies will always be controversial until they can somehow be limited to the people who want them without disrupting the rest of the people who don't. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sat Dec 29 04:56:26 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:56:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my voteinstead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712281734.lBSHY3xm026035@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712281734.lBSHY3xm026035@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712282356.26326.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Friday 28 December 2007 12:32, spike wrote: > Of course, and I heartily agree with your entire post Harvey. Of course. :-) > But it isn't the *moral* voters that worry me, its the other kind. Happily (sadly?) there are not enough organized strategic voters to overcome the unthinking masses. So the possibility seems theoretical only. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 04:59:30 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:59:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071228132557.GZ10128@leitl.org> <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200712282259.30248.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 28 December 2007, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > Is escape the only answer? Yes. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From amara at amara.com Sat Dec 29 05:10:12 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:10:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit Message-ID: Gary Miller aiguy at comcast.net : >If the asteroid was to make impact with Mars would the Hubble telescope be >in such a position as to capture the event? I would think that one of the 4 or 5 (? I am losing track of the number of Martian spacecraft taking data now) in the nearer vicinity could do a better job. I think many Americans have not heard very much about Mars Express: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/index.html Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sat Dec 29 05:40:53 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:40:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <200712282314.lBSNET9l000987@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712282314.lBSNET9l000987@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712290040.53734.mail@harveynewstrom.com> OK, if you guys really want to know how insecure our voting machines are, take a look at the work NIST is doing at their voting improvement website and their faq . And for something really scary, they point to this presentation showing real-world examples of how electronic voting machines can be used to skew an election: -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 29 06:04:15 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:04:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Marshit In-Reply-To: <622789.3161.qm@web52709.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200712290606.lBT66G7g020627@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard ... Ian Goddard! How the heck are ya man? Welcome back bud. {8-] > > NASA's eveready rovers are still rollin around Mars > and sendin back postcards: > > http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-144 Those craft were well built devices, ja? > > If the asteroid impacts Mars ... It might be > thick enough to shutdown their solar power. ~Ian > > http://IanGoddard.net If the asteroid impacts Mars and the rovers are lost, Lockmart will be happy to build new ones. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 29 06:16:32 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:16:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <200712290040.53734.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200712290618.lBT6IX4m025538@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom ... > > And for something really scary, they point to this presentation showing > real-world examples of how electronic voting machines can be used to skew > an election: > > > > -- > Harvey Newstrom That long winded post on elections earlier can be easily summarized. The whole notion of electronic voting machines is madness. It went off in exactly the wrong direction. This is one rare case where less really is more: we need and can easily design a very simple system built from obsolete computers, CRTs and printers that creates bar coded paper ballots, machine readable but not human readable, which are then recorded on a website so that the voters can independently verify their own votes, and simultaneously verify that there are not a bunch of orphan votes with no apparent corresponding voters. spike From davidmc at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 06:30:59 2007 From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:30:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <200712290618.lBT6IX4m025538@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712290040.53734.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <200712290618.lBT6IX4m025538@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2007 11:16 PM, spike wrote: > that the voters can independently verify their own votes, and simultaneously > verify that there are not a bunch of orphan votes with no apparent > corresponding voters. How could you verify there are not a bunch of orphan votes? From dradetsky.lp at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 06:42:40 2007 From: dradetsky.lp at gmail.com (daniel radetsky) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:42:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <480E4CBD-F477-4858-9850-AB5311D69572@ceruleansystems.com> References: <480E4CBD-F477-4858-9850-AB5311D69572@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2007 2:46 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > I was not trying to imply that Range voting is inferior, only that it > is not "ideal" in the sense that it will always reflect the > preferences of the voter pool under all conditions. Okay, but that's a ridiculous standard. Here's a better one: a voting system is "ideal" if there are no circumstances under which it does not reflect the preferences of the voter pool, but another system does, and "optimal" if reflects the preferences of the voter pool with higher probability than any other system. Do you believe that it is not ideal or optimal in the above sense? I ask because range voting advocates believe that there is compelling experimental evidence that range voting is optimal, and in fact very nearly ideal. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dradetsky.lp at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 06:46:16 2007 From: dradetsky.lp at gmail.com (daniel radetsky) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:46:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: References: <200712290040.53734.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <200712290618.lBT6IX4m025538@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2007 10:30 PM, David McFadzean wrote: > How could you verify there are not a bunch of orphan votes? > Panopticon ftw! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sat Dec 29 07:07:05 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:07:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hot Rod (was:Nuclear Space) References: <200712242048.lBOKmPp8021082@andromeda.ziaspace.com><011f01c846b7$e3a8a920$0bef4d0c@MyComputer><040401c847b4$99a1c3e0$0202fea9@cpd01><200712260831.52575.kanzure@gmail.com><001f01c847df$5f4a19b0$2def4d0c@MyComputer> <580930c20712281357h61919466q593312dd1103349b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008501c849e9$7d729cd0$62ef4d0c@MyComputer> "Stefano Vaj" > Actually, the first pulse rocket was the V-1. This may be the reason > why von Braun initially did not like Orion too much. Old III Reich > rivalries... :-) That is a interesting point, that is a very interesting point. I confess I had not considered that before, I wish I had. John K Clark From x at extropica.org Fri Dec 28 17:10:04 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:10:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Universal languages (was: wta-talk Voting Members ...) In-Reply-To: <200712280922.55338.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <9536d1d60712280622m35ac5686ud41904bd197574bc@mail.gmail.com> <200712280922.55338.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/28/07, Bryan Bishop wrote: > This is off-topic (again), but the topic of communication is important, > and it seems to me that this would be more appropriate for the > extropian mailing list. > > On Friday 28 December 2007, Riccardo Campa wrote: > > If we want to overcome the language barrier we should invent a new > > common World language. Thanks Bryan for touching upon a subject both subtle and deep, crucial to much of extropian discourse, at least as it was during this list's earlier days, infused with the spirit of pan-critical rationality, dynamic optimism and similar guiding (rather than defining) principles. Familiarity and adeptness distinguishing symbol from meaning, the map from the territory, and the importance of context and its inherently G?delian nature are essential to forming an increasingly coherent model for intentional action within an co-evolving world. Riccardo suggests a **solution** involving the adoption of Esperanto to facilitate (or would it impose?) a more effective framework for communication. In contrast, past discussions on the extropy list involved ideas such as E-Prime and General Semantics, Loglan and Logban, and more fundamental approaches to effective interaction with extra-terrestrials, robots, and entities organic, inorganic, or perhaps otherwise. My intent with this post is partly to celebrate the past (and future?) depth and creativity of the extropy discussion list, but also to highlight contrasting philosophies with regard to possible futures. One hand offers **solutions** -- ostensibly applicable but within an unknown and necessarily unknowable future context. The other hand offers **approaches**, based on increasingly sound principles, applicable with increasing effectiveness to discovering the future by creating it. From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 29 09:57:49 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:57:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Hot Rod (was:Nuclear Space) In-Reply-To: <008501c849e9$7d729cd0$62ef4d0c@MyComputer> References: <580930c20712281357h61919466q593312dd1103349b@mail.gmail.com> <008501c849e9$7d729cd0$62ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20071229095749.GF10128@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 02:07:05AM -0500, John K Clark wrote: > That is a interesting point, that is a very interesting point. I confess I > had not considered that before, I wish I had. Continuous-burn rockets were unheard-of in all early science fiction novels (up to 1920/30?). Operation was by a sequence of detonations of classical explosive charges, in a conic (not de Laval) chamber, (which is still a considerable improvement on using heavy artillery). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 29 10:19:34 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:19:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia In-Reply-To: <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 07:16:13PM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > All the terrorists know about America is what they've been told growing up > in Islamic schools or on the street. All the Americans know about terrorists is what they've heard from mass media. I would normally disregard this as the usual naive provincialism, but unfortunately such beliefs result in policies which kill millions, and cause suffering for a whole lot more. Ignorance kills. Don't make yourself an accomplice. > I would think that after the subject has gone through his initial denial and > anger phases of incarceration and some amount of sensory deprivation which > goes along with solitary confinement that they would be open to talking with > and establishing some sort of dialogue with his captors just to ease the > sensory deprivation. >From which basis do you derive this thinking? Why not broken apathy? Why not plotting revenge? We've got a good case exhibit in South America, perhaps we should study those to see what happens to those who're locked up and tortured for a long time. (For that matter, good luck with resocializing the veterans. It's rather futile, but will cost you dearly, and not just in shiny thalers). > The US has probably gone to good lengths to produce documentaries > chronicling the history of the terrorism, the United States and the middle > east. Unfortunately, this is completely wishful thinking. There's very little understanding in the intelligence community, and what little is understood is being completely ignored from above. When you've made up your mind, knowledge is only confusing, and a distraction. > Simply by honestly portraying our successes and failures at trying to > intervene and make things better. The terrorist would gain an appreciation > over time that even though we may be motivated by our need for oil, that we > have always pumped much money into that part of the world to reduce human > suffering and have tried to unsuccessfully broker peace many times. Can it be that you also have no clue about the U.S foreign policy? > Such movies would be supplemented with success stories of how much freedom > and prosperity Muslims enjoy in the United States and in other Muslim > countries such as the Emirates which do not spend all of their oil wealth on You do know where the indoctrination, the money, weapons and fighters come from? > weapons and fighting the west. They may allow them visits by trusted Muslim > clerics who preach peaceful coexistence with the other religions of the > world. All cults are bad, but some are worse than the others. > And even though the terrorist may feel at first that this is all propaganda > and lies. Eventually as his captors begin treating him better as his > attitude improves a certain amount of Stockholm Syndrome will set in and > eventually his captors may not seem like such bad guys. Assuming, any of the parties is acting rationally. But wait... > Of course if this person was viewed as a key player and brutally > interrogated, it would take a lot of convincing and time to make up for > those acts of cruelty but if given time the captive may even come to > appreciate why the information he held or his captors thought he held was so > important that we would resort to barbarism to obtain it. Cloud cuckoo land called. They want their escaped lunatic back. > Terrorism is not pedophilia or homosexuality which are tied to deep seated > biological drives. The terrorist may be a terrorist for money, for Suicide terrorists, especially. > religious ideals, or for hatred of Americans who he has been taught to blame > all of the evils of the world on. Education I believe is our most effective > weapon against terrorism. Unfortunately the time to start educating is when > they are children and haven't already killed many people with improvised That's not education. That's indoctrination. Hey, but since they're doing it, it must be ok if we do it, too. > IEDs. Or convinced women and children to become suicide bombers and blow > themselves and innocent civilians up along with them. > > Many terrorists after they've passed the course and are released may revert > back to their old hatred. But as long as we tell them the truth, they won't > find out we were lying to them. Once released I doubt many of them will be > trusted enough by their uncaptured brethren to reenter the terrorist > organization anyway. And once they've been there for a few years any > information that they managed to withhold would be so stale as to be > worthless anyway. How about we outsource all politics threads to a dedicated list, where we can put all the heat (but very little light) to drive a nice Carnot engine? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 29 11:18:50 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:18:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712280815.17684.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071228132557.GZ10128@leitl.org> <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <20071229111850.GA10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:51:50PM -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > Is escape the only answer? Will futurists create these escapes? It seems that way. Old cultures stratify into rigidity, with most of progress happening on yet unregulated frontiers. However, we'll run out of physical frontiers within out biological lifetimes. Virtual environments provide to sustainable escape hatch, since regulation is moving to there on a massive scale. Free flow of information at the grassroot scale will not be tolerated long-term, being a threat to the established order. Being an outlaw is not for everybody. > We have to be careful to create technologies that do not impose our will on > others, or they will rebel. Some technologies allow you to get away from others. For all practical reasons, early colonist ships were the equivalent of modern spacecraft. It took resources of largest and richest nations to equip such exploration fleets. Things got cheaper, after a while. There's no plunder to be had in space, but perhaps freedom could become a suitable carrot. Short-term, there is lateral segregation of some services already, even though mobility (as in physical relocation) is still expensive. > For example: > How can someone create a super-AI without threatening the people who don't I'm not sure all existential threats are preventable. There is no survival guarantee to anybody, long-term. > want the possibility of an AI dictator? How can someone carry guns without > threatening people who don't want the possibility of being shot? How can We do have spatial segregation in enclaves in some places already. On a larger scale, we've got national-state compartments, with slightly varying policies. > someone get an abortion without threatening people who think all abortion is By going elsewhere, where abortions are normal. > murder? How can someone build robot workers without threatening people who > don't want to lose their jobs? That's a complicated one. > All of these so-called freedom technologies threaten other groups that do not > have the same belief systems. These technologies will always be > controversial until they can somehow be limited to the people who want them > without disrupting the rest of the people who don't. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 aiguy at comcast.net Sat Dec 29 14:07:16 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:07:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta) In-Reply-To: <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> References: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com><008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Eugene asked: "How about we outsource all politics threads to a dedicated list, where we can put all the heat (but very little light) to drive a nice Carnot engine?" I agree 100% Eugene, but how about we don't wait until we're 10 or 15 posts into it and only the anti-American sentiments have been expressed. Such one-sidedness creates a strong impression in the reader and potential donor's mind that such topics are allowed as long as they are sufficiently Anti-American. And that by presenting a counterpoint that they are subject to ridicule or moderation. Intelligent reasonable disagreement does not require ridicule and aggression. I also feel that moderators should hold themselves to a higher standard and make their points without attempting to ridicule or berate contributors. By creating a hostile environment readers are not encouraged to contribute or become more deeply involved with the organization. I suspect that that the ratio of lurkers to contributors is very high for just such reasons! And once you decide that a thread is to be discontinued or moderated, I would suggest that it be done in a neutral fashion so as to not give the readers the impression that you are trying to get the last one-sided word before the topic is banned. From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 29 14:53:21 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:53:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] META: (was Re: LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta)) In-Reply-To: <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <20071229145321.GD10128@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 09:07:16AM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > I agree 100% Eugene, but how about we don't wait until we're 10 or 15 posts There is no wta-politics equivalent for extropy-chat yet. Given that a sink for noisy discussions has worked well for other communities (ccm-l, etc.) there perhaps should be one. Do y'all agree? Yea or nay, to me privately, please. (I don't promise there's going to be one, in fact I don't have sufficient admin rights nor the final authority to make that decision, but at least we can sample the public opinion space). > into it and only the anti-American sentiments have been expressed. Shouldn't that fact give us reason to worry? > Such one-sidedness creates a strong impression in the reader and potential It is curious what you perceive as one-sided in a geographically and nationally diverse list. Perhaps the apparent bias has been due to a previously sheltered discussion environment. Perhaps, just hypothetically, the local view does differ from global view, and due to legitimate reasons? But I do agree, political threads should not be tolerated on the list. There many online communities to cover that particular area of interest, but there are very few watering holes for transhumanists. Let's keep this one clear of excrement. > donor's mind that such topics are allowed as long as they are sufficiently > Anti-American. And that by presenting a counterpoint that they are subject Perhaps my ridicule was not adressed at the counterpoint, but at how poorly it was presented. I do believe you're well-meaning, and a potentially valuable contributor, but I would try to put more effort into your posts. The style is fine, but the idea part is a bit lacking. > to ridicule or moderation. Intelligent reasonable disagreement does not I'm all for intelligent and reasonable. Unfortunately, in our current forum incarnation, this is getting increasingly rare. Especially, among political threads. > require ridicule and aggression. > > I also feel that moderators should hold themselves to a higher standard and > make their points without attempting to ridicule or berate contributors. By > creating a hostile environment readers are not encouraged to contribute or No offense, but my job is to create an environment in which particular posters do not feel welcome. I don't mean you particularly. > become more deeply involved with the organization. Which organisation? > I suspect that that the ratio of lurkers to contributors is very high for > just such reasons! Possible. If any lurkers are reading this, don't be afraid to post. I won't kill you. (Well, not immediately). > And once you decide that a thread is to be discontinued or moderated, I > would suggest that it be done in a neutral fashion so as to not give the > readers the impression that you are trying to get the last one-sided word > before the topic is banned. I don't think we're due to a politics ban yet. At least, as long as there's no alternative venue where people can vent, uncensored. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 29 16:00:54 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:00:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712291602.lBTG2tqL017598@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David McFadzean > Subject: Re: [ExI] elections again > > On Dec 28, 2007 11:16 PM, spike wrote: > > that the voters can independently verify their own votes, and > simultaneously > > verify that there are not a bunch of orphan votes with no apparent > > corresponding voters. > > How could you verify there are not a bunch of orphan votes? Orphan votes could be discovered by keeping count of the number of voters that enter and leave the polling place by district and verify that the number of votes cast in that district agrees exactly (or at least does not exceed) the number of persons who entered) the voting booth. Vote privacy could still be maintained, while simultaneously offering a mechanism for detecting ballot box stuffing. The randomly generated code on each ballot could be kept in a table which would keep count of the time and place of each vote, offering a mechanism for detecting a phantom polling place. Plenty of pairs of eyes from all over the political spectrum would be scouring the information. To verify that votes had not been altered by some means, you would depend on some number of voters visiting the website to verify their own votes were recorded correctly. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 29 16:16:35 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:16:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] META: (was Re: LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia(Meta)) In-Reply-To: <20071229145321.GD10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712291618.lBTGIaYC016305@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl > Subject: [ExI] META: (was Re: LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi > Arabia(Meta)) > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 09:07:16AM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > > > I agree 100% Eugene, but how about we don't wait until we're 10 or 15 > posts > > There is no wta-politics equivalent for extropy-chat yet. > Given that a sink for noisy discussions has worked well for > other communities (ccm-l, etc.) there perhaps should be one. > > Do y'all agree? Yea or nay, to me privately, please... > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org Eugen asked for yea-or-nay privately, but related comments can go onlist and this is mine: I have been hanging out here for over ten years. The last couple years have been the calmest and least politically heated of the decade. We used to have ferocious political flame wars on a regular basis. Check the archives, oy vey. Thanks are due to Eugen for (somehow) getting that mess under control. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Dec 29 16:54:51 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:54:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <200712281842.13978.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <200712281842.13978.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071229165453.NZUM17668.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 06:42 PM 12/28/2007, you wrote: >On Friday 28 December 2007, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship > > to progress and change within the context of perception and its > > transformation? > >How is it usually framed? Usually innovation is framed in the domains of business and marketing. > > 1. reframing role of risk > > a. for catalytic action to push through boundaries of risk > > b. for catalytic action to maintain and further boundaries of > > risk > >What is risk in extropic terms? Good question. Interestingly enough I was reading about the diffusion of innovation theory, visual masking, "Real AI" (Goertzel and Pennachin) and notes from the Singularity Summit 07. I have not put all this together yet because I was distracted by thinking about all the consciousness discussions and conferences are fine and all, but why isn't someone producing a Tiesto rave in the sky hovering over the war-zones of the world. Natasha From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 20:14:39 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:14:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Universal languages (was: wta-talk Voting Members ...) In-Reply-To: References: <200712280922.55338.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712291414.40140.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 28 December 2007, x at extropica.org wrote: > Riccardo suggests a **solution** involving the adoption of Esperanto > to facilitate (or would it impose?) a more effective framework for > communication. ?In contrast, past discussions on the extropy list > involved ideas such as E-Prime and General Semantics, Loglan and > Logban, and more fundamental approaches to effective interaction with > extra-terrestrials, robots, and entities organic, inorganic, or > perhaps otherwise. I doubt language would be any immediate method of communicating with alien/foreign intelligence, although an emergent language ("meaning exchange protocol" ?) may develop over time through interactions with the alien presence. Cosmic OS is interesting, but probably going in the wrong direction. Previously I've tried to imagine building up a fundamental minimalist language, and the more I thought about its implementation the more I realized I was trying to capture the essence of actions into a conlang, which makes little sense: you should just _do_ the action instead. Oh, and happy birthday. :) - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From robotact at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 21:27:30 2007 From: robotact at gmail.com (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:27:30 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Universal languages (was: wta-talk Voting Members ...) In-Reply-To: <200712291414.40140.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712280922.55338.kanzure@gmail.com> <200712291414.40140.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 29, 2007 11:14 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Previously I've tried to imagine building up a fundamental minimalist > language, and the more I thought about its implementation the more I > realized I was trying to capture the essence of actions into a conlang, > which makes little sense: you should just _do_ the action instead. > You might also want to communicate a thought that has no apparent action counterpart. Some highlights from Douglas Hofstadter's article that I think are relevant here ( http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/hofstadter/analogy.html ): I pack my mental goods down into tight, neat bundles, I load them as carefully as I can into the metafora truck of language, it drives from my brain to yours, and then you unpack. What a metaphor for communication! And yet it has often been said that all communication, all language, is metaphorical. Since I believe that metaphor and analogy are the same phenomenon, it would follow that I believe that all communication is via analogy. Indeed, I would describe communication this way: taking an intricate dance that can be danced in one and only one medium, and then, despite the intimacy of the marriage of that dance to that medium, making a radically new dance that is intimately married to a radically different medium, and in just the same way as the first dance was to its medium. [...] Most people's (and most linguists') model of translation is as dry as the powder that carries dehydrated ideas from brain to brain; indeed, they conceive of translation as a mapping from one purely dehydrated chain of symbols to another dehydrated chain of symbols, without any need for "adding water" at any stage of the process. The whole process happens purely at the level of the dry symbols. Translation would thus be an activity for drones ? and hence ideal for computers to carry out. [...] Or, as the early machine-translation pioneer Warren Weaver once wrote (Weaver 1955), "When I look at an article in Russian, I say, 'This is really written in English, but it has been coded in some strange symbols. I shall now proceed to decode.'" Since translation is but the challenge of communication rendered crystal-clear, and since communication is but metaphor, and since metaphor is but analogy, I shall spend the rest of this article on analogy focusing on translation and showing how at its core translation is analogy, and indeed, is analogy at its most sublime and enchanting. So there is little point in 'mechanizing' language semantics on syntax level. Main purpose of language is to evoke thoughts and imagery in listener's mind that are analogous to ones in communicator's. Appropriate language may depend on kinds of thoughts it needs to communicate, but there is no escaping learning structures from which process of text perception can construct required imagery. Existing languages mainly pose a syntactic barrier, languages like Lojban provide succinct ways of communicating certain kinds of thoughts. 'Communication with aliens' would require extensive learning of common concepts, not special kind of language. Communication with other kinds of minds depends on kinds of imagery and processes that can exist in them and consists in evoking of analogous thought processes in communicating persons by any available means. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:robotact at gmail.com From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 21:56:00 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:56:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta) In-Reply-To: <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <580930c20712291356i3d1559b5uc27ffc5d37bd2f6b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/29/07, Gary Miller wrote: > I agree 100% Eugene, but how about we don't wait until we're 10 or 15 posts > into it and only the anti-American sentiments have been expressed. > > Such one-sidedness creates a strong impression in the reader and potential > donor's mind that such topics are allowed as long as they are sufficiently > Anti-American. And that by presenting a counterpoint that they are subject > to ridicule or moderation. Intelligent reasonable disagreement does not > require ridicule and aggression. As a relativist, I think that expecting or demanding Americans to be anti-American (or unAmerican, as senator McCarty liked to put it) would be naive and stupid. On the other hand, I am always surprised how many Americans - including and perhaps above all the American "Left" - blindly believe in their Manifest Destiny and "moral superiority by definition". In other terms, there is nothing wrong in the fact that the US, and their citizens, try to look after their interests as well as they can, or are fond of their identity and constitutional system and way of life. This is why their fathers emigrated there in the first place, after all. Only, they cannot and should not expect other peoples to do and to be any different in this respect, be they Chinese, Muslim, or... European. And in any event, I would expect from transhumanists anywhere in the world some higher-than-average ability to put things into perspective. Especially since identities and old-style political splits are going to be profoundly redefined by any kind of posthuman change. Stefano Vaj From painlord2k at yahoo.it Sat Dec 29 19:28:44 2007 From: painlord2k at yahoo.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:28:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712280815.17684.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071228132557.GZ10128@leitl.org> <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <47769FEC.3030407@yahoo.it> Harvey Newstrom ha scritto: > On Friday 28 December 2007 08:25, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> Yes, people suck. > > Sad but true. > >> Unfortunately, secession of minorites to escape poor solutions of >> majorities are not in our cards, at least not yet. > > Is escape the only answer? Will futurists create these escapes? > > We have to be careful to create technologies that do not impose our will on > others, or they will rebel. >From a libertarian point-of-view, I find this notion confuse and blurry. My freedom stop where someone else freedom begin in equal terms, it doesn't stop where the feeling of someone else start. Because it could not be technologies but lifestyle or religious believes or others. > For example: > How can someone create a super-AI without threatening the people who don't > want the possibility of an AI dictator? Doing it in secret? > How can someone carry guns without > threatening people who don't want the possibility of being shot? Concealed carry? > How can > someone get an abortion without threatening people who think all abortion is > murder? This is the most confusing. How is that they feel threatened when they are not in danger or menaced? > How can someone build robot workers without threatening people who > don't want to lose their jobs? They are not interested in the job, but in the income derived by the job. But do they have any entitlement to it? > All of these so-called freedom technologies threaten other groups that do not > have the same belief systems. These technologies will always be > controversial until they can somehow be limited to the people who want them > without disrupting the rest of the people who don't. You missed a few question: 1) How can someone leave Islam, when so many Muslims feel threatened by this simply act? This simply act threaten the Ummah itself that have not the same belief system like other kaffir (impure) groups 2) How can someone be atheist....? 3) How can someone be homosexual...? 4) ....? The problem is not with freedom technologies, but with freedom itself. Any free act will, in a way or another, conflict with the direct or indirect, immediate or delayed interests of someone else. Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts? Mirco -- [Intangible capital is] the preponderant form of wealth. When we look at the shares of intangible capital across income classes, you see it goes from about 60 percent in low-income countries to 80 percent in high-income countries. That accords very much with the notion that what really makes countries wealthy is not the bits and pieces, it's the brainpower, and the institutions that harness that brainpower. It's the skills more than the rocks and minerals. ?Kirk Hamilton Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 29 22:30:22 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:30:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta) In-Reply-To: <580930c20712291356i3d1559b5uc27ffc5d37bd2f6b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712292232.lBTMWRKw009226@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj ... > > And in any event, I would expect from transhumanists anywhere in the > world some higher-than-average ability to put things into perspective. > Especially since identities and old-style political splits are going > to be profoundly redefined by any kind of posthuman change. > > Stefano Vaj Stefano, as an American and an America-phile, I seldom get uncomfortable with America bashing; I am cool with it. You have likely heard me dissing the commies; I have little regard for Russia. But these are two guys with broad shoulders, they can take the criticism. If we started seeing a lot of piling on of one of the smaller kids on the playground, such as Papua New Guinea or Luxembourg or one of those others that no one has ever heard of, I would be squirmy. As a co-moderator I would feel the need to urge people to lay off of PNG and Luxembourg. Is Luxembourg really a country, or did someone slip it in there to see if we were paying attention?* spike * Luxembourgers: kidding bygones, I Googled, there really is a Luxembourg. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 23:04:24 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:04:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta) In-Reply-To: <200712292232.lBTMWRKw009226@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <580930c20712291356i3d1559b5uc27ffc5d37bd2f6b@mail.gmail.com> <200712292232.lBTMWRKw009226@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712291504q284fb7dahb1d53af147a4437c@mail.gmail.com> On 12/29/07, spike wrote: > Stefano, as an American and an America-phile, I seldom get uncomfortable > with America bashing; I am cool with it. I an pretty cool myself with anti-Italianism. :-) But this is perhaps not too hard, since most Italians, except in the event of a soccer international match, identify to a stronger extent to their ideology, church, or with the European culture in general... Stefano Vaj From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Dec 30 01:36:18 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:36:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <47769FEC.3030407@yahoo.it> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <47769FEC.3030407@yahoo.it> Message-ID: <200712292036.19185.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Saturday 29 December 2007 14:28, Mirco Romanato wrote: > Harvey Newstrom ha scritto: > > We have to be careful to create technologies that do not impose our will > > on others, or they will rebel. > > From a libertarian point-of-view, I find this notion confuse and blurry. > My freedom stop where someone else freedom begin in equal terms, it > doesn't stop where the feeling of someone else start. > Because it could not be technologies but lifestyle or religious believes > or others. I didn't mention feelings of others. I said not impose our will on others. I think most libertarians would agree that nobody should have somebody else's will imposed upon them. But in general, I agree that the concept becomes blurry. Say you claim the right to carry a gun. Fine. Say you want to shoot me. Not fine. Say you want to sit on your property with your gun aimed at me while I move around on my property. Blurry. I would find this intolerable. But you might argue it is your right to point your gun anywhere you want on your property. The tragedy of the commons is where your rights could suddenly disrupt my rights. I feel like there must be away to protect all rights, but it is not always clearly possible. > > For example: > > How can someone create a super-AI without threatening the people who > > don't want the possibility of an AI dictator? > > Doing it in secret? This doesn't solve the problem for those who fear an AI dictator. It merely forces them to become more invasive and suspicious in routing out the AIs being developed. I think this approach, while seemingly obvious and straightforward, actually compounds the problem and makes it worse. > > How can someone carry guns without > > threatening people who don't want the possibility of being shot? > > Concealed carry? Same problem as above. > > How can > > someone get an abortion without threatening people who think all abortion > > is murder? > > This is the most confusing. > How is that they feel threatened when they are not in danger or menaced? They believe that babies are being murdered and must be protected. In their world-view this is an obvious danger and menace. Asking your question is the same as asking why people would need to stop child abuse or murders of strangers. To someone who believe that life begins at conception, not birth, abortion is the same as murdering babies. I don't know how to resolve this, but explaining that we think it's OK to do this doesn't resolve the issue. > > How can someone build robot workers without threatening people who > > don't want to lose their jobs? > > They are not interested in the job, but in the income derived by the > job. But do they have any entitlement to it? I don't know. Many people in this country object to humans coming from other countries to take jobs away. They feel like citizens are more entitled to these jobs then foreigners. Imagine how much more adamant they would be that humans deserve these jobs more than machines. It doesn't even matter if they believe in entitlements or not. They have to work to feed their families, and these machines are threatening their families. > You missed a few question: > 1) How can someone leave Islam, when so many Muslims feel threatened by > this simply act? > This simply act threaten the Ummah itself that have not the same belief > system like other kaffir (impure) groups This is a very good example of the problem. Freedom of religion is fine where one can choose one's own religion. But the problem comes in where religions believe that they must be the only religion allowed. Then we have a problem. > 2) How can someone be atheist....? > 3) How can someone be homosexual...? Same issues. I don't know how to resolve these to everyone's satisfaction. Forbidding the atheists and homosexuals their existence is not a possible answer. But many religions will not tolerate their existence either. How can we coexist with intolerance? > The problem is not with freedom technologies, but with freedom itself. > Any free act will, in a way or another, conflict with the direct or > indirect, immediate or delayed interests of someone else. > > Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts? I prefer that we suppress conflicts. There must be some win-win scenarios. It should be possible to build an AI without threatening to overthrow humanity's governments. It should be possible for everyone to practice their own religions without forbidding anybody else's. It should be possible to end one pregnancy while maintaining the fetus' viability elsewhere. There should be an answer to most conflicts. Simply having one side override the other side is usually not the answer. (Sometimes it is when one side is just unreasonable.) But often, there are legitimate concerns that should be addressed rather than ignored when developing new disruptive technologies. But it is much more complicated and messy than people like to imagine. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Dec 30 01:57:03 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:57:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit In-Reply-To: <008901c849b1$9bd49b20$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <008901c849b1$9bd49b20$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <200712292057.04111.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Friday 28 December 2007 19:27, Gary Miller wrote: > If the asteroid was to make impact with Mars would the Hubble telescope be > in such a position as to capture the event? > > Such a video may motivate people to fund a long term prevention research > program. I'm afraid that I am predicting the opposite reaction. People will see the asteroid impact on Mars producing a crater and that's it. It will not produce planetary-wide destruction, so people will cite this as evidence that an earth-strike will produce localized damage only. I believe this event, if it occurs, will make people less interested in defending earth from asteroids. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Dec 30 02:24:43 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:24:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200712292124.43277.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Friday 28 December 2007 17:43, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship to > progress and change within the context of perception and its > transformation? Wow. What an amazing question with such a detailed set of options. Such rigorous thinking and precision of expression are becoming increasingly rare on chat lists. Thank you! My personal interests go toward reframing the role of risk. But that is not to imply what other people or organization should do. That's just what I think is most important, interesting, and most neglected by many futurists. I see this as making progress toward workable solutions. The other options seem more toward promotion of existing solutions more than contributing to new solutions. I think reframing innovation to recreate the familiar is a way to educate people on existing solutions. I think reframing innovation to shake up creative activity improves consumer demand for future solutions. And, I think reframing conceptual innovation enables the consumers to utilize the new solutions better. So, obviously, my viewpoint is skewed by my profession. And these are very complex questions, so I may not be understanding all the meanings and ramifications of your presented options. But I see the first option as being aspects of pre-innovation development, while the other options are aspects of post-innovation marketing. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From amara at amara.com Sun Dec 30 06:36:54 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:36:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta) Message-ID: >or Luxembourg or one of those others that no one has ever heard of, I >would be squirmy. As a co-moderator I would feel the need to urge >people to lay off of PNG and Luxembourg. Is Luxembourg really a >country, or did someone slip it in there to see if we were paying >attention?* Mamma mia! Spike, please don't sound dumb. Can I give you a glimpse? http://www.flickr.com/photos/spaceviolins/sets/72157601827435015/ Are you aware that Luxembourg is one of the three major seats of the European Parliament? >* Luxembourgers: kidding bygones, I Googled, there really is a Luxembourg. with a history and culture and language (Luxembourgish) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Sun Dec 30 06:31:01 2007 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:31:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Marshit Message-ID: <754592.94229.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> spike wrote: > Ian Goddard! How the heck are ya man? Welcome > back bud. {8-] Thanks Spike! I've been doin well and gettin stronger everyday since I terminated my four-year experiment in calorie restriction (CR): http://iangoddard.net/muscleSeries.jpg Yeah yeah I know, I should smile. I need to work on a tough-guy smile... now that's a hard one. :) I'm not exactly a 'muscle man', but relative to how thin I was (look at that shirt in 2005, it's like a baggy potato sack draped over a skeleton) I'm pleased. But even more, self-sculpting is just plain fun! It's like building an object, a model or work of art that happens to be you. Of course I've got a long way to go, but I'm going to try to build a classical frame, even at my age of 42... Live for and be art. >> NASA's eveready rovers are still rollin around >> Mars and sendin back postcards: >> >> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-144 > > Those craft were well built devices, ja? I recall that when they arrived on Mars in 2004, their predicted lifespan was merely 6 months. > If the asteroid impacts Mars and the rovers are > lost, Lockmart will be happy to build new ones. Of all the things it looked like might stop the rovers, computer glitches, gettin stuck, sand on the panels, ... and of all the things the NASA team may have imagined might kill them, to think, an asteroid! I bet nobody imagined an asteroid hitting Mars was a likely demise for the rovers. Of course probably it won't be, but the odds arouse attention. It goes to show how suddenly we might realize there's a rollin stone out there with our name on it. :^o Hmmm, is building an asteroid shield a case where government might be useful or even necessary? ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "A proposition is a model of reality as we imagine it." - Wittgenstein ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 13:35:43 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:35:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <200712292036.19185.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <47769FEC.3030407@yahoo.it> <200712292036.19185.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <580930c20712300535j6851f4bj3a38799ec1b31480@mail.gmail.com> On 12/30/07, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > On Saturday 29 December 2007 14:28, Mirco Romanato wrote: > > Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts? > > I prefer that we suppress conflicts. I do not. If this put me for once in the "libertarian, randian, social darwinist" camp, so be it. :-) Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 30 15:54:50 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:54:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Marshit In-Reply-To: <754592.94229.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200712301556.lBUFusHv004114@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard > ...It goes to > show how suddenly we might realize there's a rollin > stone out there with our name on it. :^o > > Hmmm, is building an asteroid shield a case where > government might be useful or even necessary? ~Ian > > > http://IanGoddard.net Ian we still haven't come up with a design that would work, even theoretically. I need to see some compelling BOTECs; otherwise we are still back to the useless notion of prayer to one's favorite deity and the marginally useful standby of digging really deep holes in the ground and food storage technology. spike From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 16:08:36 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:08:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Marshit In-Reply-To: <754592.94229.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <754592.94229.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200712301008.37179.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 30 December 2007, Ian Goddard wrote: > ?Hmmm, is building an asteroid shield a case where > government might be useful or even necessary? ~Ian No. I think we can do it. What about a sort of loose-knit network of units in space that can weave a shield together, or be a dispendable shield themselves? They would be told to assemble in a certain sector of the sky, a good distance away from the planet, and attempt to provide enough thrust to sway the path of the object. I am all for the nuclear suggestions, but if that never goes down ... - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Dec 30 16:07:44 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:07:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <200712292124.43277.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <200712292124.43277.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <20071230160745.WVFS11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 08:24 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote: >On Friday 28 December 2007 17:43, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship to > > progress and change within the context of perception and its > > transformation? > >Wow. What an amazing question with such a detailed set of options. Such >rigorous thinking and precision of expression are becoming increasingly rare >on chat lists. Thank you! > >My personal interests go toward reframing the role of risk. But that is not >to imply what other people or organization should do. That's just what I >think is most important, interesting, and most neglected by many futurists. >I see this as making progress toward workable solutions. > >The other options seem more toward promotion of existing solutions more than >contributing to new solutions. I think reframing innovation to recreate the >familiar is a way to educate people on existing solutions. I think reframing >innovation to shake up creative activity improves consumer demand for future >solutions. And, I think reframing conceptual innovation enables the >consumers to utilize the new solutions better. > >So, obviously, my viewpoint is skewed by my profession. And these are very >complex questions, so I may not be understanding all the meanings and >ramifications of your presented options. But I see the first option as being >aspects of pre-innovation development, while the other options are aspects of >post-innovation marketing. Thank you Harvey, good point. This is a difficult area because reframining something requires knowing everything about it in order to be able to find loopholes. Alternatively, dealing with risk offers, as you say, may offer areas to explore. Futurists usually don't engage in areas of human consciousness and human perception. In fact, I don't think I have ever read a post on the Association for Professional Futurists email list that had anything to do with same. Since consciousness and human perception are the topics of interest in the domains of media arts, cognitive/neural sciences, psychology, and AI and AGI, as well as nano-neuromacrosensing, this is the environment to start digging around for relationships between innovation in relation to risk and human consciousness and perception. Perhaps the entire dimension of transhumanism proposes is risk in motion. But if risk is the probability that something will cause injury or harm, it is not the correct concept. I would not dare to enter an environment that probably will cause me harm. On the other hand, I would enter an environment that could cause me harm if I was not aware of dangers. So, I would opt for the possibility of injury or harm rather than probably of injury or harm. Thus, there is a loophole in the pre-innovation development of observing an environment for its potential and possible injury or harm rather than assuming that the probability of harm will ensue. What do you think? Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology School of Computing, Communications and Electronics Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 16:22:03 2007 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:22:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta) In-Reply-To: <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: On Dec 29, 2007 6:07 AM, Gary Miller wrote: > Eugene asked: "How about we outsource all politics threads to a dedicated > list, where we can put all the heat (but very little light) to drive a nice > Carnot engine?" > > I agree 100% Eugene, but how about we don't wait until we're 10 or 15 posts > into it and only the anti-American sentiments have been expressed. > > Such one-sidedness creates a strong impression in the reader and potential > donor's mind that such topics are allowed as long as they are sufficiently > Anti-American. And that by presenting a counterpoint that they are subject > to ridicule or moderation. Intelligent reasonable disagreement does not > require ridicule and aggression. Pure political discussion is (or should be) below this list. It's like arguing about the number of angles you can pack on a pin. Using current political examples to illustrate more general points about why humans have politics and what drives them is (or should be) a major focus. In this respect, the original topic of convincing violent Islamic militants to change their ways is smack on target. I don't understand how easy it is, but it is of vast importance to understand. Understanding it will require EP. Keith Henson From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Dec 30 16:28:48 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:28:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <580930c20712300535j6851f4bj3a38799ec1b31480@mail.gmail.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712292036.19185.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <580930c20712300535j6851f4bj3a38799ec1b31480@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712301128.49022.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Sunday 30 December 2007 08:35, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 12/30/07, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > On Saturday 29 December 2007 14:28, Mirco Romanato wrote: > > > Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts? > > > > I prefer that we suppress conflicts. > > I do not. If this put me for once in the "libertarian, randian, social > darwinist" camp, so be it. :-) I believe your choices were too limiting. I do not believe that one has to choose to ignore conflicts to claims rights, or that choosing to resolve/avoid conflicts will reduce rights. Even though we chose different choices from your dichotomy, I do not see these as opposite sides. For example, choosing gun rights in Washington, DC is fine, except that you will have to hide your guns, could be arrested for having them, and will have them taken away the first time they are ever seen or used. Resolving the gun laws first will greatly increase the ability to enjoy gun rights later. So in that example, I would expect a gun enthusiast to resolve the conflict (change the gun laws) or avoid the conflict (move out of DC) first rather than choosing to ignore the law and traffic in illegal guns instead. My entire point is that the choosing the rights will result in conflict and suppression of those rights unless the conflicts are resolved first. Resolving the conflicts is a path to enjoying the rights. Choosing the rights first, and ignoring the conflict, is a less effective path to enjoying expanded rights. Another example would be tax reform. Refusing to pay one's taxes and holing up in a house full of guns fighting off federal marshals is not an effectrive choice of "freedom from taxes". Only by changing tax laws and resolving other people's expectations that everyone must pay taxes can such a person hope to get away with it. Claiming these rights without resolving the conflicts will not work. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From dagonweb at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 16:32:54 2007 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:32:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So we have people picking on the hobbits again? Shame on you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Dec 30 16:42:37 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:42:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com><200712280815.17684.mail@harveynewstrom.com><20071228132557.GZ10128@leitl.org> <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <00ab01c84b03$0181fba0$47ee4d0c@MyComputer> "Harvey Newstrom" > We have to be careful to create technologies > that do not impose our will on others, or they will rebel. Or make certain the technology is so powerful that the rebellion is of trivial importance. > How can someone create a super-AI without > threatening the people who don't want the > possibility of an AI dictator? That is an easy question to answer, you can't. > How can someone build robot workers without > threatening people who don't want to lose their jobs? Ditto. > These technologies will always be controversial until > they can somehow be limited to the people who want them > without disrupting the rest of the people who don't. In other words these technologies will always be controversial, but I maintain that fact is of no practical importance, that is to say it will not effect the course of the future one iota. Well ok maybe an iota, but no more than that. John K Clark From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Dec 30 17:42:26 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:42:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <00ab01c84b03$0181fba0$47ee4d0c@MyComputer> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <00ab01c84b03$0181fba0$47ee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200712301242.26960.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Sunday 30 December 2007 11:42, John K Clark wrote: > Or make certain the technology is so powerful that the rebellion is of > trivial importance. That's great if you are the dictator. But do you want someone else gaining ultimate power of the entire world including you? > > How can someone create a super-AI without > > threatening the people who don't want the > > possibility of an AI dictator? > > That is an easy question to answer, you can't. Oh, ye of little faith. Of course we can. It just takes a little more effort. Are we really that lazy or impatient that we won't work to make our technology safe before we deploy it? We just want to plow ahead, damn the torpedoes? And isn't this just begging for somebody to preemptively nuke us in self-defense? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 17:42:23 2007 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:42:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2007 2:43 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship to > progress and change within the context of perception and its transformation? One thought might to be to put in it the context of 40k years. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10278703 Keith From jonkc at att.net Sun Dec 30 18:38:34 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:38:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com><200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com><00ab01c84b03$0181fba0$47ee4d0c@MyComputer> <200712301242.26960.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <020101c84b13$342a5330$47ee4d0c@MyComputer> ME: >> Or make certain the technology is so powerful that the rebellion is of >> trivial importance. "Harvey Newstrom" : >That's great if you are the dictator. I agree, and I am quite sure Mr. AI will agree too. > But do you want someone else gaining > ultimate power of the entire world including you? I wasn't talking about what I wanted, I was talking about what will be. > Are we really that lazy or impatient that we won't work to make our > technology safe before we deploy it? I am, I've got better things to do than trying to square the circle when I already know it can't be done. > We just want to plow ahead, damn the > torpedoes? What we want doesn't enter into it. > And isn't this just begging for somebody to preemptively nuke us in > self-defense? Could be. As I said before the Singularity will have lots of dangers we can't control and even more we can't even predict. John K Clark From x at extropica.org Sun Dec 30 18:53:25 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:53:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <20071230160745.WVFS11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <200712292124.43277.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071230160745.WVFS11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: On 12/30/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > At 08:24 PM 12/29/2007, Harvey wrote: > > On Friday 28 December 2007 17:43, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship to > > progress and change within the context of perception and its > > transformation? > > Wow. What an amazing question with such a detailed set of options. Such > rigorous thinking and precision of expression Are you serious?? I see some interesting thinking but far from rigorous or precise. > Perhaps the entire dimension of transhumanism proposes is risk in motion. > But if risk is the probability that something will cause injury or harm, it > is not the correct concept. I would not dare to enter an environment that > probably will cause me harm. On the other hand, I would enter an > environment that could cause me harm if I was not aware of dangers. So, I > would opt for the possibility of injury or harm rather than probably of > injury or harm. > > Thus, there is a loophole in the pre-innovation development of observing an > environment for its potential and possible injury or harm rather than > assuming that the probability of harm will ensue. > > What do you think? The above appears to be a statement involving the relative merits and applicability of a proactionary versus precautionary stance in regard to intentional action within a context of uncertain risk. [I'm going to try to express my response here without invoking the customary language of probability.] I think a fundamental point is that in any case action will be taken, even if it is a choice of "inaction." This fundamental bias, a defining attribute of agency, makes all the (subjective) difference in this game. Given that a choice will be made, always only within an ultimately uncertain context, the optimum strategy involves applying best-known (scientific) principles to the promotion of the best-known model of the present (subjective) values-complex. Then the assessed "rightness" of an action corresponds not with expected outcome (since expectations of specific consequences are unwarranted to the extent the future context is uncertain), but with the extent to which the action is assessed as implementing **principles** promoting an increasing context of increasingly coherent values over increasing scope of consequences. This schema is intended to highlight the logical imperative of the proactionary stance, applicable beyond the perceived tipping point (dependent on the particular context) where the influence [need a better term here] of the agent exceeds the influence of its environment of interaction. In (possibly) more intuitive terms, we should expect that the "wisdom", or effective intelligence of a highly adapted organism on any particular behavioral axis corresponds roughly with the "complexity" of its environment. [This may suggest an explanation for why so often evolved traits are observed to cluster around a roughly 50/50 mix of genetic vs. environmental influence.] To the extent that the organism perceives its level of [intelligence|influence|capacity for self-actualization?] to exceed that of its environment of interaction, then its optimum strategy should be proactionary. Note however that this implies the importance of increasing humility with increasing distance from home. Submitted (in very rough form) for your consideration and comments. From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 30 19:00:15 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:00:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] REMINDER: resurrecting WTA SL activities Message-ID: <20071230190015.GA2103@leitl.org> A reminder: that meeting is due in about an hour from now. ----- Forwarded message from Eugen Leitl ----- From: Eugen Leitl Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:37:00 +0100 To: ExI chat list , wta-talk at transhumanism.org, tt at postbiota.org Subject: resurrecting WTA SL activities User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) A small group is going to meet in Second Life (Extropia Core 162, 53, 22, Giulio's building with the double helix in front, 30th December, noon SL time (PST, I believe)) to discuss restarting transhumanist activities there. (This is resuming from the last time, at which we fell flat on our faces, and coulnd't get up again). Anyone would be willing to give a hand with that? ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 andres at thoughtware.tv Sun Dec 30 19:54:55 2007 From: andres at thoughtware.tv (Andres Colon) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:54:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Thoughtware.TV: On Artificial Life, Cybernetics and -H Memes Message-ID: Artificial Life: I'd like to bring to your attention this fake documentary on artificial Life: The Order Electrus Cybernetics: *Arlind *found this video on Bionic Eye Trials, which could help restore the sight of millions of blind people and could be available to patients within two years. Robotics/Enhanced Animals: Elvis the cat got into an accident with a truck and lost the use of his hind legs. His owner created technology so that Elvis could move around. Meet Elvis, the RobotCat. Negative Memes via Multimedia on Cybernetic Technology: I wonder if any of you have laid your eyes on the 100% fiction (and in my opinion notoriously -H) Metalosis Maligna. Its not something you will see posted by the Thoughtware.TV community, so its very unlikely you'll find it there. But I will share it here as I figure as transhumanist we should be aware of this multimedia content, in case you are confronted by people that have been fed these negative memes and have questions that need answering. Don't watch it if you are medically squeamish. Heed the warning, the video is *graphic*, *--H* and *weird*. Andres Thoughtware.TV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at yahoo.it Sun Dec 30 20:58:45 2007 From: painlord2k at yahoo.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:58:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <200712292036.19185.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <47769FEC.3030407@yahoo.it> <200712292036.19185.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <47780685.7040103@yahoo.it> Harvey Newstrom ha scritto: > On Saturday 29 December 2007 14:28, Mirco Romanato wrote: >> Harvey Newstrom ha scritto: >>> We have to be careful to create technologies that do not impose our will >>> on others, or they will rebel. >> From a libertarian point-of-view, I find this notion confuse and blurry. >> My freedom stop where someone else freedom begin in equal terms, it >> doesn't stop where the feeling of someone else start. >> Because it could not be technologies but lifestyle or religious believes >> or others. > I didn't mention feelings of others. I said not impose our will on others. I > think most libertarians would agree that nobody should have somebody else's > will imposed upon them. You can and must impose your will on others, if you like. You can not use force first. Against a thief I can impose my will stopping him from stealing my stuff. > But in general, I agree that the concept becomes blurry. Say you claim the > right to carry a gun. Fine. Say you want to shoot me. Not fine. Say you > want to sit on your property with your gun aimed at me while I move around on > my property. Blurry. I would find this intolerable. But you might argue it > is your right to point your gun anywhere you want on your property. The > tragedy of the commons is where your rights could suddenly disrupt my rights. > I feel like there must be away to protect all rights, but it is not always > clearly possible. If it would be always possible there would not be conflicts. It is a sad reality, but it is a reality, that sometimes there are conflicting interests and no way to solve the conflict. The law was developed to solve these conflicts in a consistent and predictable way, sometimes in a fair and useful way. >>> For example: >>> How can someone create a super-AI without threatening the people who >>> don't want the possibility of an AI dictator? >> Doing it in secret? > > This doesn't solve the problem for those who fear an AI dictator. It merely > forces them to become more invasive and suspicious in routing out the AIs > being developed. I think this approach, while seemingly obvious and > straightforward, actually compounds the problem and makes it worse. Only if you are catch before completing the AI and start exploiting it. >>> How can someone carry guns without >>> threatening people who don't want the possibility of being shot? >> Concealed carry? > Same problem as above. How can someone disarm me that don't want be disarmed when someone will try to attack me? This is because I write about feeling. Because "people who don't want the possibility of being shot" are speaking about feeling, not reality. There is no way they can be sure none will be able to shot them. They can only disarm the pacific people, not the people inclined to attack them. >>> How can >>> someone get an abortion without threatening people who think all abortion >>> is murder? >> This is the most confusing. >> How is that they feel threatened when they are not in danger or menaced? > > They believe that babies are being murdered and must be protected. Then, why don't we become all vegans? There are people that feel animals need to be protected against carnivores like me. Also, here they "feel" things. They feel "fetus" are "babies". You don't argue about vegan because they are not violent and don't go around killing, menacing, and so on. So, the only people feelings we need to care are the violent ones. That they use the violence themselves or use the state arm don't matter. > In their > world-view this is an obvious danger and menace. Asking your question is the > same as asking why people would need to stop child abuse or murders of > strangers. To someone who believe that life begins at conception, not birth, > abortion is the same as murdering babies. I don't know how to resolve this, > but explaining that we think it's OK to do this doesn't resolve the issue. If it is about world-view, there is no solutions. Because we are in the same world with them. Or we bow to them or they will bow to us. Do you know because these people is so easily offended with "us"? Because we don't bite back easily. This is because the same people don't bother to attack people that "bite" without warning for behaviors they would consider a greater insult and menace. E.G. Communist in Italy talk about "sex discrimination" against homosexuals and trans-gender, equality, etc. Then their leader (Oliviero Diliberto) go in Lebanon and talk with Hizbollah leader and define them a "quasi-normal party". There are many more examples, but this is not the place. >>> How can someone build robot workers without threatening people who >>> don't want to lose their jobs? >> They are not interested in the job, but in the income derived by the >> job. But do they have any entitlement to it? > > I don't know. Many people in this country object to humans coming from other > countries to take jobs away. They feel like citizens are more entitled to > these jobs then foreigners. Imagine how much more adamant they would be that > humans deserve these jobs more than machines. It doesn't even matter if they > believe in entitlements or not. They have to work to feed their families, > and these machines are threatening their families. They can, and the best will, change their jobs. They can pool their resources and work for each others or buy robots themselves to do work for others. >> You missed a few question: >> 1) How can someone leave Islam, when so many Muslims feel threatened by >> this simply act? >> This simply act threaten the Ummah itself that have not the same belief >> system like other kaffir (impure) groups > > This is a very good example of the problem. Freedom of religion is fine where > one can choose one's own religion. But the problem comes in where religions > believe that they must be the only religion allowed. Then we have a problem. > >> 2) How can someone be atheist....? >> 3) How can someone be homosexual...? > > Same issues. I don't know how to resolve these to everyone's satisfaction. You can not. Or they bow you or you bow them. Or was blow? > Forbidding the atheists and homosexuals their existence is not a possible > answer. But many religions will not tolerate their existence either. How > can we coexist with intolerance? We can not. Tolerance is only for tolerant people. It is a reciprocating thing. You could be tolerant to start, but be tolerant when the other party is clearly intolerant is only stupid. Saints against demons always lose. >> The problem is not with freedom technologies, but with freedom itself. >> Any free act will, in a way or another, conflict with the direct or >> indirect, immediate or delayed interests of someone else. >> Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts? > I prefer that we suppress conflicts. There must be some win-win scenarios. I would like too. But the harsh reality is different. > It should be possible to build an AI without threatening to overthrow > humanity's governments. Do you would not threaten the Saddams and the taliban of the day? Or would you let them do as they feel fit. > It should be possible for everyone to practice their > own religions without forbidding anybody else's. It is impossible if your religion support world domination and do it a duty. > It should be possible to > end one pregnancy while maintaining the fetus' viability elsewhere. There > should be an answer to most conflicts. Simply having one side override the > other side is usually not the answer. (Sometimes it is when one side is just > unreasonable.) But often, there are legitimate concerns that should be > addressed rather than ignored when developing new disruptive technologies. > But it is much more complicated and messy than people like to imagine. The way we consider "legitimate" concerns is more about how strong is the concerned, how strong we are and what both have to lose and gain. Mirco -- [Intangible capital is] the preponderant form of wealth. When we look at the shares of intangible capital across income classes, you see it goes from about 60 percent in low-income countries to 80 percent in high-income countries. That accords very much with the notion that what really makes countries wealthy is not the bits and pieces, it's the brainpower, and the institutions that harness that brainpower. It's the skills more than the rocks and minerals. ?Kirk Hamilton Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 01:28:32 2007 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:28:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Marshit In-Reply-To: <200712301008.37179.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <754592.94229.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <200712301008.37179.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: Not to interrupt your discussion, but it seems to me that detection is probably of much greater importance than deflection at this stage of the game, given that our ability to deflect an asteroid, comet, or other NEO is directly proportional to the amount of advanced warning we have that a strike is imminent or probable. My idea is a solar-system wide network of space telescopes, whether they be optical, radio, x-ray or other radiation, to improve our detection rates and so we don't have to depend so much on earth-based telescopes. What really strikes me is that we didn't even learn about this asteroid until late November, and it just shows how blind we are to such objects. Sorry to interrupt, the question on what to do with such an object when we find it is also interesting and valuable. I just wanted to put my two cents in. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Dec 31 01:40:17 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:40:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <020101c84b13$342a5330$47ee4d0c@MyComputer> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712301242.26960.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <020101c84b13$342a5330$47ee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200712302040.17341.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Sunday 30 December 2007 13:38, John K Clark wrote: > I wasn't talking about what I wanted, I was talking about what will be. > I am, I've got better things to do than trying to square the circle when I > already know it can't be done. > What we want doesn't enter into it. > Could be. As I said before the Singularity will have lots of dangers > we can't control and even more we can't even predict. Wow. These seem to be really defeatist attitudes. So many of your answers are based on helplessness. You seem to believe that we can't change the future, what we want doesn't matter, and it's all inevitable. Your answers are short to the point that it seems you don't want to even try discussing these issues because we can't do anything about them. Is that how you feel? Is it as all hopeless as that? Do you think you have any control over future destiny? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Dec 31 01:44:49 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:44:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <20071230160745.WVFS11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <200712302044.49845.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Sunday 30 December 2007 13:53, x at extropica.org wrote: > Are you serious?? I see some interesting thinking but far from > rigorous or precise. Did you not understand the question or the options? Or did they seem vague and ill-defined to you? In what way were they un-rigorous or imprecise? I'm sure any specifics would be as helpful as answers to the queries in exploring these topics. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Dec 31 01:55:31 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:55:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <200712292124.43277.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071230160745.WVFS11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <20071231015532.DBOX11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 12:53 PM 12/30/2007, you wrote: >On 12/30/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > > At 08:24 PM 12/29/2007, Harvey wrote: > > > > On Friday 28 December 2007 17:43, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > > How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship to > > > progress and change within the context of perception and its > > > transformation? > > > > Wow. What an amazing question with such a detailed set of options. Such > > rigorous thinking and precision of expression > >Are you serious?? I see some interesting thinking but far from >rigorous or precise. I admit that I was abbreviating data to be brief rather than overboard while at the same time attempting to get the point across, but your condemnation is a bit unrealistic. This list has a high comprehension level and all to often people waste time with overwriting what could be done simply. > > > > > Perhaps the entire dimension of transhumanism proposes is risk in motion. > > But if risk is the probability that something will cause injury or harm, it > > is not the correct concept. I would not dare to enter an environment that > > probably will cause me harm. On the other hand, I would enter an > > environment that could cause me harm if I was not aware of dangers. So, I > > would opt for the possibility of injury or harm rather than probably of > > injury or harm. > > > > Thus, there is a loophole in the pre-innovation development of > observing an > > environment for its potential and possible injury or harm rather than > > assuming that the probability of harm will ensue. > > > > What do you think? > >The above appears to be a statement involving the relative merits and >applicability of a proactionary versus precautionary stance in regard >to intentional action within a context of uncertain risk. No, please move from that line of thinking. I am not interested in the Proactionary Principle, but in innovation in relation to progress/change in regards to perception/consciousness. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From x at extropica.org Mon Dec 31 01:58:31 2007 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:58:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <200712302044.49845.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <20071230160745.WVFS11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <200712302044.49845.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: On 12/30/07, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > On Sunday 30 December 2007 13:53, x at extropica.org wrote: > > Are you serious?? I see some interesting thinking but far from > > rigorous or precise. > > Did you not understand the question or the options? Or did they seem vague > and ill-defined to you? In what way were they un-rigorous or imprecise? I'm > sure any specifics would be as helpful as answers to the queries in exploring > these topics. I personally found it *very* difficult to parse, but given your response and obvious sincerity, I will accept that I'm the exception. From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Dec 31 02:38:01 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:38:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <47780685.7040103@yahoo.it> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712292036.19185.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <47780685.7040103@yahoo.it> Message-ID: <200712302138.01775.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Sunday 30 December 2007 15:58, Mirco Romanato wrote: > You can and must impose your will on others, if you like. > You can not use force first. > Against a thief I can impose my will stopping him from stealing my stuff. I make a distinction betwen imposing my will on others, and preventing them from imposing their will on me. I don't see them as morally equivalent. So, I agree with your distinction that you can impose your will on others given your example. I just wouldn't call that imposing my will on others. > If it would be always possible there would not be conflicts. > It is a sad reality, but it is a reality, that sometimes there are > conflicting interests and no way to solve the conflict. > The law was developed to solve these conflicts in a consistent and > predictable way, sometimes in a fair and useful way. Agreed. And I think new technologies require new laws to solve new conflicts in a consistent and predictable way. But I fear that too many transhumanists don't want to do this. They want to just plow ahead with their interests, ignoring others' interests, without even trying to avoid conflict. > Only if you are catch before completing the AI and start exploiting it. I think such a plan would be evil. > How can someone disarm me that don't want be disarmed when someone will > try to attack me? I didn't understand how to parse this question. > This is because I write about feeling. > Because "people who don't want the possibility of being shot" are > speaking about feeling, not reality. > There is no way they can be sure none will be able to shot them. > They can only disarm the pacific people, not the people inclined to > attack them. You misunderstand. I am not asking to avoid all unknown risks. But I am talking about known risks. Having my neighbor pointing guns at me is a risk. Even if he says he won't shoot if I don't threaten him, I still find myself at some risk. This is a real risk to me. I want my private property out of gunshot range of my neighbor. > You don't argue about vegan because they are not violent and don't go > around killing, menacing, and so on. Actually, there are some rare militant vegans who believe killing animals is murder. They can represent a real threat, because they do get violent toward humans to protect animals. I don't know how to resolve these conflicts, but this is another excellent example of the conflicts I am talking about. Futurists are going to run into more and more conflicts where the general populace just don't agree with the way futurists think. > If it is about world-view, there is no solutions. > Because we are in the same world with them. > Or we bow to them or they will bow to us. Sadly, that seems to be the current trend. Is that the only answer, for one side to lose to the other? Are we so sure that there is no win-win or compromise, that we shouldn't even try to come up with solutions? I admit I don't have the answers, but I am concerned that most futurists aren't even interested in trying to look for answers. > Do you know because these people is so easily offended with "us"? > Because we don't bite back easily. > This is because the same people don't bother to attack people that > "bite" without warning for behaviors they would consider a greater > insult and menace. I don't believe this. I believe most people who are offended have serious reasons to be offended. Even if I don't agree, I can see their viewpoint in their world view. We futurists literally are a threat to the world as it is. People who don't want their world to change, really see us as destroying the world. People who can't tolerate abortion, foreigners, or gays certainly won't be able to tolerate uploading, non-human entities, or new human-nonhuman interactions. > They can, and the best will, change their jobs. > They can pool their resources and work for each others or buy robots > themselves to do work for others. This is a good example of the type of solutions I am asking about. If people are truly enabled to find alternate work or become beneficiaries of the new technology, they won't mind giving up the old ways. It is only when the old ways are clearly destroyed without an obvious replacement for their needs that people become reactionary. I think these kinds of examples are possible if we try to find them. > You can not. > Or they bow you or you bow them. Or was blow? Ha ha! It seems like that is how people think. It must be one way or the other. Maybe mutual is possible too. > We can not. > Tolerance is only for tolerant people. > It is a reciprocating thing. > You could be tolerant to start, but be tolerant when the other party is > clearly intolerant is only stupid. > Saints against demons always lose. Possibly. Maybe probably. But can we be more rigorous to prove this theorem? I don't want to become a demon if the angels ultimately win. But I don't want to stay an angel if the angels always lose. I don't know if skirting the line between them is even possible. If I must be a demon, do I be the most angelic demon possible, with only demonic qualities when necessary? Or do I become the most demonic demon possible? These really are good questions. Simplistic answers without proof or high reliability is not sufficient to convince me either way. > Do you would not threaten the Saddams and the taliban of the day? > Or would you let them do as they feel fit. Best choice would be to somehow protect ourselves without doing anything with them. (Yes, I don't know how, so this is theoretical.) Second choice would be to stop them as needed, but already this gets complicated. I see taliban as enemy who attacked U.S., and Saddam as incapable of attacking U.S. (So already, I am disputing the basis of your question here.) Third choice would be attack them after they attack us. Fourth choice would be preemptively attack them before they attack us. This last one is unacceptable with current administration which cannot be trusted to identify who is threat and who is not. The least acceptable choice is to preemptively kill people who may be innocent or may not have attacked us or who cannot be proven to be guilty. This least acceptable choice is too weak to be effective, will kill many innocents, and will squander our resources against non-threats, weakening our resources against real threats. (Again, these are theoretical preferences I have, with no guarantee that they would really work in the real world. But I don't see any other schemes that seem more likely to work either.) > > It should be possible for everyone to practice their > > own religions without forbidding anybody else's. > > It is impossible if your religion support world domination and do it a > duty. Right, which is what I meant with the second part about "without forbidding anybody else's". This is a big difference between compatible religions and incompatible ones. > The way we consider "legitimate" concerns is more about how strong is > the concerned, how strong we are and what both have to lose and gain. I may not understand what you mean. But I don't see how the strength of the concerned has any bearing on how legitimate the concern is. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Dec 31 02:43:31 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:43:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <20071231015532.DBOX11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <20071231015532.DBOX11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <200712302143.31732.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Sunday 30 December 2007 20:55, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > This list has a high > comprehension level and all to often people waste time with > overwriting what could be done simply. I know I am guilty of this. I think of a million subtle little points that I want to work into my response. I try to cram them all in there, and end up with a verbose tome that is tedious to read. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Dec 31 02:46:55 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:46:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Marshit In-Reply-To: References: <754592.94229.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <200712301008.37179.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200712302146.55991.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Sunday 30 December 2007 20:28, Kevin H wrote: > Not to interrupt your discussion, but it seems to me that detection is > probably of much greater importance than deflection at this stage of the > game, given that our ability to deflect an asteroid, comet, or other NEO is > directly proportional to the amount of advanced warning we have that a > strike is imminent or probable. I think you are absolutely right. In my field(s) of work, threats are countered with "controls". There are three types of controls: preventive controls, detective controls, and mitigative controls. All three are important and are used against any threat. First you have to detect it. Second you have to prevent it. And third, you have to response if the prevention doesn't work. All three are considered necessary to have a complete response to a threat. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Dec 31 03:51:10 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:51:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <200712302143.31732.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <20071231015532.DBOX11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <200712302143.31732.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <20071231035111.EJCT11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 08:43 PM 12/30/2007, you wrote: >On Sunday 30 December 2007 20:55, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > This list has a high > > comprehension level and all to often people waste time with > > overwriting what could be done simply. > >I know I am guilty of this. I think of a million subtle little points that I >want to work into my response. I try to cram them all in there, and end up >with a verbose tome that is tedious to read. And I am guilty of the opposite. I produce typographical errors, fragmented sentences, and missing verbs and pronouns. Often when I reread what I have written I am shocked in horror. But I assume that you all know me and realize that I would not post if I didn't have something of some value to say while at the same time, handling a dozen other things. Fortunately (or rather unfortunately) I have no grandchildren on my lap, but my animals and my rose garden nag me while I am working. No excuses or regrets, just plan 'ole facts. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Dec 31 04:54:21 2007 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:54:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Marshit Message-ID: <578916.91664.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> >> Hmmm, is building an asteroid shield a case where >> government might be useful or even necessary? ~Ian To which spike replied: > Ian we still haven't come up with a design that > would work, even theoretically. I need to see some > compelling BOTECs; [...] and Bryan Bishop replied: > No. I think we can do it. What about a sort of > loose-knit network of units in space that can weave > a shield together, or be a dispendable shield > themselves? They would be told to assemble in a > certain sector of the sky, a good distance away > from the planet, and attempt to provide enough > thrust to sway the path of the object. I am all for > the nuclear suggestions, but if that never goes > down ... If there are not working plans, who is going to pay for coming up with them? And if there are working plans, who is going to pay to implement them? Why would a private enterprise invest its limited resources in a project that would never reap profits for itself and at best would keep things as they are? And there would likely be continuous costs in maintaining such a defensive system. It seems unlikely that any private company would be motivated take on such a nonprofitable task by itself. ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "Priests dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight." - Thomas Jefferson ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Dec 31 05:15:05 2007 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:15:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Marshit Message-ID: <395380.59250.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kevin H wrote: > Not to interrupt your discussion, but it seems to > me that detection is probably of much greater > importance than deflection at this stage of the > game, given that our ability to deflect an > asteroid, comet, or other NEO is directly > proportional to the amount of advanced warning we > have that a strike is imminent or probable. My > idea is a solar-system wide network of space > telescopes, whether they be optical, radio, x-ray > or other radiation, to improve our detection rates > and so we don't have to depend so much on > earth-based telescopes. Great idea! Perhaps many small low-cost space buoys positioned widely throughout the solar-system that scan a wide regional area and together build a dynamic map of all the asteroids out there. Of course they are working on such a map, but not with such a network of mechanical 'observers'. You might not even need that many observer buoys. > What really strikes me is that we didn't even learn > about this asteroid until late November, and it > just shows how blind we are to such objects. In a way I hope it hits lifeless Mars with a devestating impact because that might be the only thing that will get people to take this very real existential threat seriously. Hay, we could be next! > Sorry to interrupt, the question on what to do with > such an object when we find it is also interesting > and valuable. I just wanted to put my two cents > in. Some do have the attitude that a third person can intrude in a dialog between two on a list. I know someone once said I was interrupt when I made a comment like yours. But I think if a dialog is taking place on a public list, there's no proper sense of interruption. If two interlocutors don't want to be interrupted, they should take it offlist. ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "All inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion, that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion." - Hume ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 06:25:29 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:25:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] PJ on Fast Forward Radio Message-ID: <29666bf30712302225p2feae0beme102bf3b232d4ac0@mail.gmail.com> Sorry for the late notice, but tonight I joined Stephen Gordon and Phil Bowermaster for their end of year wrap up on Fast Forward Radio. We talk about our favorite technological developments of 2007 and what they might mean. The best way to describe it is "three futurist Joes sittin' around yakkin'". All we were missing were bar stools and peanuts. Grab a beer or a glass of champagne, toast the New Year and enjoy. http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001596.html#more Happy New Year to you all, PJ From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 31 06:27:27 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:27:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25)Mars hit In-Reply-To: <395380.59250.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200712310629.lBV6TP2f003031@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard > Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of > 1:25)Mars hit > > Kevin H wrote: ... > > Sorry to interrupt, the question on what to do with > > such an object when we find it is also interesting > > and valuable. I just wanted to put my two cents > > in. > > Some do have the attitude that a third person can > intrude in a dialog between two on a list. ... ~Ian > > > http://IanGoddard.net All commentary on ExIchat is public domain. Anyone who wants, do feel free to toss in your two cents or as many cents as you wish. This is the beauty of the chat group medium: anyone can choose to read your unspecified number of cents or pass it over, nothing is taken away from the original discussion; it is not analogous to interrupting a real-time sound based discussion. If one's comments are smart and insightful, they add to the original discussion. We have seen the odds change from 1 in 75 to a delightful 1 in 25. Is there a central clearinghouse, or anyone who knows where to find info as soon as it is available? Is there a betting site anywhere analogous to ideas futures on this? Amara? spike From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 06:50:24 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:50:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Marshit In-Reply-To: <578916.91664.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <578916.91664.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200712310050.24935.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 30 December 2007, Ian Goddard wrote: > ?If there are not working plans, who is going to pay > for coming up with them? And if there are working > plans, who is going to pay to implement them? Why I am not sure about this money issue. I wonder if the mere aspect of, say, saving the planet from near total destruction would catalyze the right people to make the rockets and so on, maybe the new space industry. Perhaps Masten would know? I think he's subscribed here. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 07:45:27 2007 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:45:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <20071230160745.WVFS11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <200712302044.49845.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2007 5:58 PM, wrote: > On 12/30/07, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > On Sunday 30 December 2007 13:53, x at extropica.org wrote: > > > Are you serious?? I see some interesting thinking but far from > > > rigorous or precise. > > > > Did you not understand the question or the options? Or did they seem vague > > and ill-defined to you? In what way were they un-rigorous or imprecise? I'm > > sure any specifics would be as helpful as answers to the queries in exploring > > these topics. > > I personally found it *very* difficult to parse, but given your > response and obvious sincerity, I will accept that I'm the exception. I too find Natasha's words hard to parse. It's almost a problem of translating between languages. Worse the languages use the same words for rather different meanings. You simply can't assume the words mean the same thing between an artist using them and an engineer. Keith From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 31 07:55:05 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:55:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Marshit In-Reply-To: <395380.59250.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <395380.59250.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20071231075505.GY10128@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 09:15:05PM -0800, Ian Goddard wrote: > Great idea! Perhaps many small low-cost space buoys It doesn't have to be in space. What few people realize is how little being spent on systematic observation of the skies with classic astronomy. We're effectively blind there, because nobody wants to spend any money on what is perceived as victorian lady flower-pressing. A global array of smallish instruments hooked up to the Internet would be cheap. > positioned widely throughout the solar-system that > scan a wide regional area and together build a dynamic > map of all the asteroids out there. Of course they are > working on such a map, but not with such a network of The resources are so thing that amateurs are a major source of findings. It would be even cheaper to fund those to build a global instrument grid. > mechanical 'observers'. You might not even need that > many observer buoys. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 natasha at natasha.cc Mon Dec 31 14:54:09 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:54:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <20071230160745.WVFS11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <200712302044.49845.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <20071231145411.JAHB17668.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 01:45 AM 12/31/2007, Keith wrote: >You simply can't assume the words mean >the same thing between an artist using them and an engineer. Okay, I'll rethink the words, but I think that you too focused on segregating meaning. By the way, I am in an engineering department at my university :-) By the way, I thought your earlier email with the link was substantial. Natasha From amara at amara.com Mon Dec 31 14:59:49 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:59:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit Message-ID: Dear Spike: There must be other astronomers observing and calculating too, but the news report that I read indicated that at least this one office: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ is monitoring and calculating. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From jonkc at att.net Mon Dec 31 16:08:20 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:08:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com><200712301242.26960.mail@harveynewstrom.com><020101c84b13$342a5330$47ee4d0c@MyComputer> <200712302040.17341.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <002e01c84bc7$6b402480$caee4d0c@MyComputer> "Harvey Newstrom" > You seem to believe that we can't change > the future The future will be determined by what Mr. Jupiter Brain wants, not by what we want. Exactly what He (yes, I capitalized it) will decide to do I don't know; that's why it's called a Singularity. Maybe He will treat us like pampered pets; maybe He will exterminate us like rats, it's out of our hands. I do know one thing, I do know that it is childish to imagine that if we just put in the right line of code we can be certain that a rapidly evolving mind that is already a thousand times as powerful and a million times faster than human can remain our slave until the end of time. > Your answers are short to the point Thank you. > Do you think you have any control over future destiny? No. Well, maybe that was a little too short. As I've mentioned before I do have a strategy if I'm lucky enough to still be alive during the early stages of the Singularity; I think it will give me my best chance of making it through the eye of that hurricane. I don't delude myself, I don't claim my chances are anything but piss poor, but they are better than most because I am not burdened by certain superstitions that even Extropians seem unable to shake off. John K Clark From scerir at libero.it Mon Dec 31 16:17:58 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:17:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal retrodiction for the next year References: <29666bf30712261157j4be10315s9a6a84fd2fbe5352@mail.gmail.com><200712262150.lBQLovTt005051@andromeda.ziaspace.com><29666bf30712261424t32aab9c8sa74a937a944b5a64@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c8484c$89837fb0$65ee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002d01c84bc8$b7197360$5cbc1f97@archimede> Something interesting. Dr. Frank Lynn Meshberger of St. John's Medical Center in Anderson, Indiana, believes [1] that the famous "creation" panel of the Cappella Sistina (Vatican) contains something hidden or - to say it better - overlooked for 500 years: the image of the 'God-Brain' [2]. The usual interpretation of that 'fresco' is that what is being passed from God to Adam in the painting is the spark of life. But - of course - Adam was already alive. According to another interpretation what God is giving to Adam is intellect. The idea of God equated with Mind (oops, Brain), something like the big "U" of J.A.Wheeler [3], seems interesting (to me). s. [1] see his paper on 'Journal of American Medical Association', 264(14):1837-41, (1990) [2] http://www.mentalhealthandillness.com/creation_of_adam.htm http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DE143DF933A25753C1A9669 58260 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE7DF113DF935A15753C1A9669 58260 http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1440605 http://www.riflessioni.it/dal_web/dio_cervello_michelangelo.htm [3] http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/321/wheeler.pdf From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 31 16:20:54 2007 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:20:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my voteinstead:Anna Politkovskaja] In-Reply-To: <200712282314.lBSNET9l000987@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200712311649.lBVGnVsJ029596@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > To: 'ExI chat list' > ... It isn't technically difficult or expensive...requires a random collection of stand-alone and > probably obsolete cast-off computers and printers... If such a thing > isn't implemented, I am suspicious as hell. ... When in doubt, toss em out. When not in doubt, toss em out anyway. spike The Kenyans are rioting over rigged elections. Over 100 are dead. Democracies must move immediately to build confidence in elections. The fact that we can design fair, transparent and verifiable elections, yet choose to not do it, is a danger to all democracies: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319148,00.html spike From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Dec 31 18:11:17 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:11:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <002e01c84bc7$6b402480$caee4d0c@MyComputer> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712302040.17341.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <002e01c84bc7$6b402480$caee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Monday 31 December 2007 11:08, John K Clark wrote: > "Harvey Newstrom" > > > You seem to believe that we can't change > > the future > > The future will be determined by what Mr. Jupiter Brain wants, not by what > we want. Exactly what He (yes, I capitalized it) will decide to do I don't > know; that's why it's called a Singularity. Maybe He will treat us like > pampered pets; maybe He will exterminate us like rats, it's out of our > hands. Then I want to be the cutest pet ever! Or else the stealthiest scavenger rat ever. Or maybe I want to leave this sinking planet before all this goes down. Or else I want to upload into the AI before it takes over. Or build my own counter-AI to protect me. Even given your scenarios, we have a lot of choices on how our subjugation is going to occur. Although I don't agree that things are hopeless as all that, I find your viewpoints fascinating. I agree that programming friendliness into an AI is a poor strategy. But I am not pessimistic, because I don't expect AI to become conscious any time soon, self-evolving soon after that, or to evolve speedily after that, or to have much control over the physical universe outside cyberspace even if it does. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From benboc at lineone.net Mon Dec 31 18:08:59 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:08:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Happy New Year to all In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4779303B.50403@lineone.net> Well, i'm now pissed, courtesy of Jack Daniels and Greene King (british pissed = alchoholically impaired, rather than american pissed = angry (which is 'pissed off' in british english)), and feeling full of goodwill to all men (generic 'men' = 'mankind' which is inclusive of women, in case you're excessively PC. Oh, yeah, and any dolphins, great apes, etc., that may be reading this), so Happy New Year to all of you lovely transhumanist/extropian types, regardless of whether you label yourselves as either or neither, as long as you subscribe to the central concept of improving the 'human condition' (what is that anyway?) via technology. And even if you think that technology is inherently Evil and Flawed, and that the only hope for man(kind) is to embrace irrationality and superstition (Shirley Knott!), well, Happy New Year to you too, but seriously - start thinking for yourselves! (and what the hell are you doing on here?!). Here's to a stem-cell-icious, AI-tastic, Nano-spirational and altogether futuristic and fantastic and happy 2008! (which, if you believe Ray Kurzweil, will be equivalent to 2013 in year 2000 progress-equivalence terms - according to my dodgy maths, anyway) ben zaiboc (Thinking how weird it is that i have to translate between american and british english - but at least 1/1/2008 is the same in both countries!) From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 31 18:40:47 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:40:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712302040.17341.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <002e01c84bc7$6b402480$caee4d0c@MyComputer> <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:11:17PM -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > The future will be determined by what Mr. Jupiter Brain wants, not by what > > we want. Exactly what He (yes, I capitalized it) will decide to do I don't > > know; that's why it's called a Singularity. Maybe He will treat us like > > pampered pets; maybe He will exterminate us like rats, it's out of our > > hands. Very succinctly said, and agree completely. > Then I want to be the cutest pet ever! Or else the stealthiest scavenger rat Don't we all! But it's not obvious artificial beings will conserve specific traits we equipped them with initially (assuming, we could do that at all, which is not obvious) across many generations (not necessarily long in terms of wallclock time). Or that they keep environments nicely temperated, and full of breathable gases, and allow us to grow or synthesize food. > ever. Or maybe I want to leave this sinking planet before all this goes You can't outrun lean and mean Darwin survival machines. Your best chance is to float off with a large stealthy habitat into interstellar void, and never go near another star. Not that you won't run into deep space plankton eventually... which will be probably not good, not good at all. > down. Or else I want to upload into the AI before it takes over. Or build Don't we all. Ideally, there should be no us and them. But that, admittedly, is quite a lot to ask for. > my own counter-AI to protect me. Why should fluffy pink pet poodles help against Gods? > Even given your scenarios, we have a lot of choices on how our subjugation is > going to occur. How much are cockroaches worth on the Wall Street job market? Do they make good quants? > Although I don't agree that things are hopeless as all that, I find your I agree that things are not hopeless. But realistically, we do not have a lot of leverage. Quite irrationally, I remain an optimist (who'd thunk?). > viewpoints fascinating. I agree that programming friendliness into an AI is ...and wish to subscribe to your newsletter? > a poor strategy. But I am not pessimistic, because I don't expect AI to > become conscious any time soon, self-evolving soon after that, or to evolve Not any time soon. But, eventually. We might not see it (heck, what is another 40-50 years), but our children could very well, and their children's children almost certainly (unless they're not too busy fighting in the Thunderdome, of course). > speedily after that, or to have much control over the physical universe > outside cyberspace even if it does. The only useful AI is embodied. We really don't have any AI so far, usable, nor not. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Dec 31 16:40:23 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:40:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness Message-ID: <380-2200712131164023653@M2W020.mail2web.com> Innovation may have different meanings in different domains, but the fundamental, consistent characteristic of innovation is the ideation (invention) and development (practice) of something new or the rethinking and rearranging of something that is known in new ways. The methods of innovation are varied and since creativity is crucial to innovation, methodologies cannot be rigid. Because innovation is an act of developing something new or rethinking and rearranging something that is know in new ways, risk is involved. Innovation also brings with it a personal and public apprehension about change, pushing boundaries, etc. as it causes individuals and society to reorganize a status quo. Innovation also affects different segments of society in different ways: early adaptors, late adaptors, laggards, for example. When considering innovation in its relationship to progress/change within the context of perception and is transformation, we are within the domain of consciousness studies. Because consciousness is an abstract idea and also something that everyone has no matter what particular domain they inhabit, innovation must be seen in this light, as an environment larger than any one specific domain. How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship to progress and change within the context of perception and its transformation? Below are 4 areas in which innovation might be reframed. By reframing I mean changing the conceptual viewpoint or tilting, if you will, in bringing about innovation which could affect perception and, thereby, consciousness. 1. Innovation as it concerns risk: a. innovation as a catalytic action in pushing through boundaries of risk b. innovation as a catalytic action in maintaining and furthering boundaries of risk 2. Innovation to recreate what is familiar to individuals and society: a. innovation for cognitive absorption of information/knowledge b. innovation for enhanced connectivity of people to view familiar ideas as a connective intelligence 3. Innovation to shake up creative activity that stems from everyday behavior of regular/normal activities a. innovation for creating a consumer culture for progress-based consciousness b. innovation for creating a consumer culture of perception which leads to transformation 4. Innovation in experience design to see, feel and experience more a. innovation in creating conceptual experiences to provide richer experiences b. innovation in creating conceptual experiences to satisfy individual or societal needs for the psychological purpose of inducing an sense of accomplishment or completion which results in a sense of emotional calm. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 18:53:56 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:53:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712311253.56922.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 31 December 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > ever. ?Or maybe I want to leave this sinking planet before all this > > goes > > You can't outrun lean and mean Darwin survival machines. Your best > chance is to float off with a large stealthy habitat into What habitat is going to be able to survive without energy input? > interstellar void, and never go near another star. Not that you won't I have always agreed that distributing copies of yourself into the interstellar darkness can be wise, but what would you become in the darkness as an escape path? You'd have reduced energy. Finite resources. You're cut off from the growth of the galaxies, so you're not going to get replenished supplies every few million years. Would you go mad with nothing to do? Othertimes on this list we've discussed the prospects of escape into abstractions (which are still coupled to this universe, unfortunately), or escaping into our simulations. Escaping into the darkness is a new one for me. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Dec 31 17:27:33 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:27:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),myvoteinstead:Anna Politkovskaja] Message-ID: <380-2200712131172733454@M2W035.mail2web.com> From: spike "The Kenyans are rioting over rigged elections. Over 100 are dead. Democracies must move immediately to build confidence in elections. The fact that we can design fair, transparent and verifiable elections, yet choose to not do it, is a danger to all democracies:" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319148,00.html Do you think that Democracy might work better if it were considered to be a science of human affairs and ethics rather than as a science of governing? How many political people practice insightful behavior and how many are using aversive, aggressive and snide political behavior? Let's start within transhumanism. What are our behaviors and which ones work and which ones do not work? I remember working on the scenario team with Mike Treder and Chris Phoenix. It was beautifully run. The same for SL-Transhumanism - open democracy and pleasant atmosphere. But is this the norm? On H+ email lists, what are the political behaviors of people? What would "fair" really mean? Would it not mean that people accept diversity of opinion? Do we do this within H+? If not, why? Because once a person or group wages their bets on a political belief of rightness there has to be an opposition to feed off of. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web LIVE ? Free email based on Microsoft? Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Dec 31 20:13:29 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:13:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Monday 31 December 2007 13:40, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:11:17PM -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > Then I want to be the cutest pet ever! Or else the stealthiest scavenger > > rat > > Don't we all! But it's not obvious artificial beings will conserve specific > traits we equipped them with initially (assuming, we could do that at all, > which is not obvious) across many generations (not necessarily long in > terms of wallclock time). Or that they keep environments nicely temperated, > and full of breathable gases, and allow us to grow or synthesize food. I assume that such super machines would outgrow the need to adapt their environment. They would be functional in virtually any environment. So they might not have any need to rework the existing environments. > You can't outrun lean and mean Darwin survival machines. Bacteria can't outrun us either, but we haven't exterminated them all yet. We don't have to outrun them, just get out of their way. > > Even given your scenarios, we have a lot of choices on how our > > subjugation is going to occur. > > How much are cockroaches worth on the Wall Street job market? Do they make > good quants? Cockroaches have no influence on Wall Street. But they have almost total control over their own nests and societies. Sure, we wipe them out where they are in the way. But where they do exist, human have virtually no influence on them. I doubt most cockroaches even know that humans exist. > Not any time soon. But, eventually. We might not see it (heck, what is > another 40-50 years), but our children could very well, and their > children's children almost certainly (unless they're not too busy fighting > in the Thunderdome, of course). I think it is possible, but unlikely that our children will see this. It all assumes that a self-evolving AI will suddenly evolve quickly. Evolution is a slow random process that uses brute-force to solve problems. Growing smarter is not a simple brute-force search. Even a super-smart AI won't instantly have god-like powers. They will have to perform slow physical experiments in the real world of physics to discover or build faster communications, transportation, and utilization of resources. They also will have to build factories to build future hardware upgrades. These macro, physical processes are slow and easily disrupted. It it not clear to me that even a super-intelligent AI can quickly or easily accomplish anything that we really want to stop. I'd like to see some specific scenarios that rely on something more specific than "...a miracle/singularity occurs here..." -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From amara at amara.com Mon Dec 31 20:34:23 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:34:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit Message-ID: a caveat : >Note from David Morrison: "In case of a close pass (but a miss), it >is normal for the impact odds to increase before they drop to zero. >This is because there is a time, as knowledge of the orbit improves, >when the error ellipse (the uncertainty in the miss distance) >shrinks while the target (in this case Mars) remains within the >ellipse. Thus the change in odds of a hit from 1 in 75 to 1 in 25 >does not mean it will hit -- it still has a 96% chance of missing -- >but it sure is interesting! It would be even more "interesting" if >the target were Earth not Mars. Think about it." Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Dec 31 20:37:08 2007 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:37:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200712311537.09117.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Monday 31 December 2007 13:40, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:11:17PM -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > Then I want to be the cutest pet ever! ?Or else the stealthiest scavenger > > rat > > Don't we all! OK, I admit it. My signature belies the fact that I am not banking on being the cutest pet ever. I am currently aiming towards the stealthy-scavenger-rat thing. So maybe I can be the stealthiest-scavengeriest-rattiest thing ever. (That's not gonna look good on the ol' resume....) -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From jonkc at att.net Mon Dec 31 21:26:57 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:26:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com><200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com><20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> "Harvey Newstrom" > I don't expect AI to become conscious any time soon This seems so incorrect to me on so many different levels that I hardly know where to begin. 1) The AI is intelligent hence the name, so the machine can think, and consciousness is just thinking about stuff and feeling about stuff. For feeling see below. 2) The fossil record tells us that FEELING about stuff must be easy because evolution invented the parts of the brain that do that long long long ago; it took another half a billion years for random mutation and natural selection to make something that can THINK about really heavy duty stuff. 3) If the AI is not conscious and intelligence is not always linked with consciousness then Darwin's theory is dead wrong. And I don't think it's wrong. 4) If Mr. Jupiter Brain is not conscious that is his problem not ours, we will still have to deal with an awesome force of nature that we can never control or understand. > It all assumes that a self-evolving AI will suddenly evolve quickly. Yes. > Evolution is a slow random process But once AI starts to think He will no longer be evolving using the Darwinian process but the lightning quick Lamarkian process, the thing that powers cultural evolution, like Moore's Law. > Even a super-smart AI won't instantly > have god-like powers. I rather think He will >They also will have to build factories Many factories are already operated by computers, not to mention stock exchanges, or the world economy, or ICBM's and if there is something He is interested that He does not already control He will simply ask you to hook him up immediately and you will be happy to oblige Him. Why would you do that? Because this AI will be far smarter, more interesting, more likable, and just more goddamn charming than any human being you have ever or will ever will meet; Mr. AI will have charisma up the Wahzoo, He will understand your physiology, what makes you tick, better than you understand yourself. I estimate it would take the AI about 45 seconds to trick or sweet talk you (or me) into doing exactly what He wants you (or me) to do. John K Clark From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 23:56:45 2007 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:56:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <20071231145411.JAHB17668.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <20071230160745.WVFS11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <200712302044.49845.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231145411.JAHB17668.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: On Dec 31, 2007 6:54 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > At 01:45 AM 12/31/2007, Keith wrote: > > >You simply can't assume the words mean > >the same thing between an artist using them and an engineer. > > Okay, I'll rethink the words, but I think that you too focused on > segregating meaning. By the way, I am in an engineering department > at my university :-) Heh, "too focused on segregating meaning." I can't parse that either. Keith > By the way, I thought your earlier email with the link was substantial. > > Natasha > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From painlord2k at yahoo.it Sun Dec 30 23:26:30 2007 From: painlord2k at yahoo.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:26:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta) In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <47782926.70203@yahoo.it> Keith Henson ha scritto: > Pure political discussion is (or should be) below this list. It's > like arguing about the number of angles you can pack on a pin. > Using current political examples to illustrate more general points > about why humans have politics and what drives them is (or should be) > a major focus. > In this respect, the original topic of convincing violent Islamic > militants to change their ways is smack on target. I don't > understand how easy it is, but it is of vast importance to > understand. Understanding it will require EP. An example, maybe different from the common Islamic terrorist is this: http://patterico.com/2007/12/30/timothy-mcveigh-speaks/ > McVeigh showed little or no remorse: > ?His attorneys noted in one document he expressed no remorse. His > attorneys wrote: ?He stated that his conscious mind knew that the > people killed in the Oklahoma City bombing had families, that the > children killed had mothers, and he fully realizes the consequences > of his actions, but he was able to ?turn it off? in order to perform > his mission. ?He stated that the normal emotions and feelings were > there inside him, but he was able to cover them up in order to carry > out the bombing.? > He is quoted in another defense document, though, as saying, ?I know > it?s terrible to lose a child, especially (for) a mother. ? I > empathize with pain. It?s not that I?m callous. Everyone has > feelings.? The big problem with them is that they doesn't think themselves evil (like Will Smith said about Hitler and was misinterpreted) and think they are doing the right things for the right reasons. If we believe him, McVeigh was able to "turn it off" and probably trained himself to this better and at will. His past a soldier probably helped. IIRC, he was out to avenge the Waco's victims of the government. IMHO, he targeted a government office and considered the victims as "collateral damages" he could not prevent. IMHO, the Islamic terrorists are trained to "turn it off" in a different way. They are indoctrinated to believe their enemies / victims are: 1) Not human (AKA "son of pigs and monkeys") 2) Evil (AKA "of the party of Satan") 3) Impure (AKA "kafir") 4) If the victim is a good Muslim he/her will go to in Paradise (AKA "kill them all and Allah will sort them after"). This is not so difficult for people from a tribalistic, chauvinistic and sexist culture. Our vision of people as inherently good and well intentioned is not widely spread in the world and never was. Our is a vision that work in an already pacific society and in a fast growing economy (we need to remember that in the past centuries the rates of growth were at best a tenth or less than the current rates). Being open minded is not always an advantage, as the soldier of the Korea War could attest; the North Koreans found that intelligent and learned American soldiers were easier to brain-wash than stupid and ignorant Turkish soldiers. Mirco -- [Intangible capital is] the preponderant form of wealth. When we look at the shares of intangible capital across income classes, you see it goes from about 60 percent in low-income countries to 80 percent in high-income countries. That accords very much with the notion that what really makes countries wealthy is not the bits and pieces, it's the brainpower, and the institutions that harness that brainpower. It's the skills more than the rocks and minerals. ?Kirk Hamilton Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com