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 de